News
Court rules against law barring gay couples from veterans benefits
Judge finds U.S. gov’t has no rational basis for withholding benefits from same-sex spouses
Tracey (left) & Maggie Cooper-Harris have sued to received veterans benefits that were denied under Title 38 (Blade file photo by Michael Key).
A federal district judge in California ruled on Thursday that enforcing Title 38 — the portion of U.S. code governing veterans benefits — to bar former troops in same-sex marriages from receiving spousal veterans benefits is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall, a Carter appointee, grants summary judgment in favor of lesbian veteran plaintiff Tracey Cooper-Harris by determining the U.S. government lacks any rational basis in withholding these benefits. Marshall finds current law doesn’t advance gender equity or military purposes.
“Title 38 is not rationally related to the military’s commitment to caring for and providing for veterans benefits,” Marshall writes. “[T]he court permanently enjoins Defendants from relying on [Title 38] or Section 3 of [DOMA] to deny recognition of Plantiffs’ marriage recognized by the State of California.”
It wasn’t immediately clear Thursday night whether the ruling means the U.S. government is enjoined from blocking benefits for all gay married veterans or only the plaintiffs who filed suit in the case. However, the court declared the law unconstitutional, not just as applied to the plaintiffs.
Caren Short, staff attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said Friday the decision applies “just to our clients Tracey and Maggie,” but believes the administration can implement the ruling on a nationwide basis.
“We’re hopeful that now that a federal court has declared these definition in Title 38 unconstitutional that the VA will be able take steps toward providing equal benefits now to everyone,” Short said.
Jon Davidson, legal director Lambda Legal, said whether the administration will apply the ruling only to plaintiffs or other gay veterans is yet to be seen.
“In most instances, DOJ takes the position that a district court ruling against a federal agency is not binding on the agency beyond the jurisdiction of the court issuing the ruling, but I do not know what DOJ will say here, if they do not appeal, as they may simply accede to the ruling on a nationwide basis,” Davidson said.
The Justice and Veterans Affairs departments didn’t immediately respond to a request to comment Friday morning on what their next steps will be as a result of the ruling.
The lawsuit, known as Cooper-Harris v. United States, was filed in February 2012 by the Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of Tracey Cooper-Harris, a lesbian veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who was seeking veterans spousal benefits for her spouse, Maggie Cooper-Harris. Tracey was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and later found it was connected to her service, but was unable to receive spousal disability benefits.
The Southern Poverty Law Center asked the court to overturn both Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which has since been overturned by the Supreme Court, and Title 38 with respect to its hold on spousal benefits for gay veterans on the basis that the laws violate due process under the Fifth Amendment.
In a statement provided by SPLC, Tracey Cooper-Harris expressed gratitude the court ruled in favor of granting veterans benefits that will benefit her and her spouse.
“Maggie and I have waited so long to receive the same benefits other married veterans and their spouses receive,” Tracey said. “We are overjoyed that the court has ended the federal government’s discrimination against gay and lesbian veterans and their spouses. Judge Marshall’s ruling confirms that the service of gay and lesbian veterans and the sacrifices of their spouses are valued equally in the eyes of the law.”
Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the Section 3 of DOMA, the U.S. government has still withheld veterans spousal benefits — such as disability and joint burial benefits — from veterans in same-sex marriages on the basis of Title 38. That law, which governs veterans benefits, defines spouse in opposite-sex terms independent of DOMA.
Just this week, the Washington Blade made public a letter from Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki stating that U.S. government is still withholding spousal benefits for veterans marriages. The letter says the department is still reviewing with the Justice Department whether the Obama administration can afford these benefits following the DOMA decision.
Stephen Peters, president of the LGBT group American Military Partners Association, commended the court for reaching the decision that Title 38 is unconstitutional.
“Title 38 clearly violated the constitutional rights of our military veteran families,” Peters said. “This decision sets our nation on a path to honoring and serving all of our veterans and their families, regardless of their sexual orientation.”
Doug NeJaime, who’s gay and law professor at University of California, Irvine, said the ruling is positive, but noted other statutes still exist barring veterans spousal benefits from flowing to same-sex couples.
“The ruling applies the reasoning of Windsor in a logical way and represents an important step forward on veterans benefits,” NeJaime said. “However, veterans benefits have traditionally not used a place of celebration rule, meaning that unlike in the general military context, same-sex couples would not automatically be eligible for benefits based on their marriage.”
It’s unclear how the case could proceed any further to higher court. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Justice Department wouldn’t defend Title 38 against legal challenges that contest the law on the basis that it unfairly deprives same-sex couples of veterans benefits. The House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which had taken up defense of DOMA after the Obama administration stood down, withdrew as a party from the case in July.
SPLC’s Short she doesn’t believe anyone can appeal the case now that there are no opposing parties in the lawsuit.
“On the issue of Title 38’s constitutionality, it’s doesn’t appear that there will be anyone to appeal,” Short said. “The Department of Justice said that they also agreed that Title 38 is unconstitutional. They filed a brief in support of our motion for summary judgment, so it would be strange for them to appeal the ruling, which was essentially the outcome that they were advocating for. So on the issue of Title 38’s constitutionality, there isn’t likely to be an appeal.”
But Lambda’s Davidson said the Justice Department still may appeal the decision on the grounds that the federal district court in California doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case.
“While DOJ is not defending on the merits, it has been contesting whether the Title 38 challenge belongs in federal district court as opposed to the specialized administrative court that deals with VA benefit issues,” Davidson said. “The judge ruled against DOJ on that previously but and DOJ might appeal that issue at this point.”
Congress
Advocates say MTG bill threatens trans youth, families, and doctors
The “Protect Children’s Innocence” Act passed in the House
Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has a long history of targeting the transgender community as part of her political agenda. Now, after announcing her resignation from the U.S. House of Representatives, attempting to take away trans rights may be the last thing she does in her official capacity.
The proposed legislation, dubbed “Protect Children’s Innocence Act” is among the most extreme anti-trans measures to move through Congress. It would put doctors in jail for up to 10 years if they provide gender-affirming care to minors — including prescribing hormone replacement therapy to adolescents or puberty blockers to younger children. The bill also aims to halt gender-affirming surgeries for minors, though those procedures are rare.
Greene herself described the bill on X, saying if passed, “it would make it a Class C felony to trans a child under 18.”
According to KFF, a nonpartisan source for health policy research, polling, and journalism, 27 states have enacted policies limiting youth access to gender-affirming care. Roughly half of all trans youth ages 13–17 live in a state with such restrictions, and 24 states impose professional or legal penalties on health care practitioners who provide that care.
Greene has repeatedly introduced the bill since 2021, the year she entered Congress, but it failed to advance. Now, in exchange for her support for the National Defense Authorization Act, the legislation reached the House floor for the first time.
According to the 19th, U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the first trans member of Congress, rebuked Republicans on the Capitol steps Wednesday for advancing anti-trans legislation while allowing Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire — a move expected to raise health care costs for millions of Americans.
“They would rather have us focus in and debate a misunderstood and vulnerable one percent of the population, instead of focusing in on the fact that they are raiding everyone’s health care,” McBride said. “They are obsessed with trans people … they are consumed with this.”
Polling suggests the public largely opposes criminalizing gender-affirming care.
A recent survey by the Human Rights Campaign and Global Strategy Group found that 73 percent of voters in U.S. House battleground districts oppose laws that would jail doctors or parents for providing transition-related care. Additionally, 77 percent oppose forcing trans people off medically recommended medication. Nearly seven in 10 Americans said politicians are not informed enough to make decisions about medical care for trans youth.
The bill passed the House and now heads to the U.S. Senate for further consideration.
According to reporting by Erin Reed of Erin In The Morning, three Democrats — U.S. Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Don Davis of North Carolina — crossed party lines to vote in favor of the felony ban, joining 213 Republicans. A total of 207 Democrats voted against the bill, while three lawmakers from both parties abstained.
Advocates and lawmakers warned the bill is dangerous and unprecedented during a multi-organizational press call Tuesday. Leaders from the Human Rights Campaign and the Trevor Project joined U.S. Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Dr. Kenneth Haller, and parents of trans youth to discuss the potential impact of restrictive policies like Greene’s — particularly in contrast to President Donald Trump’s leniency toward certain criminals, with more than 1,500 pardons issued this year.
“Our MAGA GOP government has pardoned drug traffickers. They’ve pardoned people who tried to overthrow the government on January 6, but now they want to put pediatricians and parents into a jail cell for caring for their kids,” said Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson. “No one asked for Marjorie Taylor Greene or Dan Crenshaw or any politician to be in their doctor’s office, and they should mind their own business.”
Balint, co-chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, questioned why medical decisions are being made by lawmakers with no clinical expertise.
“Parents and doctors already have to worry about state laws banning care for their kids, and this bill would introduce the risk of federal criminal prosecution,” Balint said. “We’re talking about jail time. We’re talking about locking people up for basic medical care, care that is evidence-based, age-appropriate and life-saving.”
“These are decisions that should be made by doctors and parents and those kids that need this gender-affirming care, not certainly by Marjorie Taylor Greene.”
Haller, an emeritus professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine, described the legislation as rooted in ideology rather than medicine.
“It is not science, it is just blind ideology,” Haller said.
“The doctor tells you that as parents, as well as the doctor themselves, could be convicted of a felony and be sentenced up to 10 years in prison just for pursuing a course of action that will give your child their only chance for a happy and healthy future,” he added. “It is not in the state’s best interests, and certainly not in the interests of us, the citizens of this country, to interfere with medical decisions that people make about their own bodies and their own lives.”
Haller’s sentiment is echoed by doctors across the country.
The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest organization that represents doctors across the country in various parts of medicine has a longstanding support for gender-affirming care.
“The AMA supports public and private health insurance coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and opposes the denial of health insurance based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” their website reads.
Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, senior vice president of public engagement campaigns at the Trevor Project, agreed.
“In Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill [it] even goes so far as to criminalize and throw a parent in jail for this,” Heng-Lehtinen said. “Medical decisions should be between patients, families, and their doctors.”
Rachel Gonzalez, a parent of a transgender teen and LGBTQ advocate, said the bill would harm families trying to act in their children’s best interests.
“No politician should be in any doctor’s office or in our living room making private health care decisions — especially not Marjorie Taylor Greene,” Gonzalez said. “My daughter and no trans youth should ever be used as a political pawn.”
Other LGBTQ rights activists also condemned the legislation.
Tyler Hack, executive director of the Christopher Street Project, called the bill “an abominable attack on the transgender community.”
“Marjorie Taylor Greene’s last-ditch effort to bring her 3-times failed bill to a vote is an abominable attack on the transgender community and further cements a Congressional career defined by hate and bigotry,” they said. “We are counting down the days until she’s off Capitol Hill — but as the bill goes to the floor this week, our leaders must stand up one last time to her BS and protect the safety of queer kids and medical providers. Full stop.”
Hack added that “healthcare is a right, not a privilege” in the U.S., and this attack on trans healthcare is an attack on queer rights altogether.
“Marjorie Taylor Greene has no place in deciding what care is necessary,” Hack added. “This is another attempt to legislate trans and queer people out of existence while peddling an agenda rooted in pseudoscience and extremism.”
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, also denounced the legislation.
“This bill is the most extreme anti-transgender legislation to ever pass through the House of Representatives and a direct attack on the rights of parents to work with their children and their doctors to provide them with the medical care they need,” Takano said. “This bill is beyond cruel and its passage will forever be a stain on the institution of the United States Congress.”
The bill is unlikely to advance in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to pass.
The White House
EXCLUSIVE: Democracy Forward files FOIA lawsuit after HHS deadnames Rachel Levine
Trans former assistant health secretary’s name changed on official portrait
Democracy Forward, a national legal organization that works to advance democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education, and regulatory engagement, filed a lawsuit Friday in federal court seeking to compel the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to release information related to the alteration of former Assistant Secretary for Health Adm. Rachel Levine’s official portrait caption.
The lawsuit comes in response to the slow pace of HHS’s handling of multiple Freedom of Information Act requests — requests that federal law requires agencies to respond to within 20 working days. While responses can take longer due to backlogs, high request volumes, or the need for extensive searches or consultations, Democracy Forward says HHS has failed to provide any substantive response.
Democracy Forward’s four unanswered FOIA requests, and the subsequent lawsuit against HHS, come days after someone in the Trump-Vance administration changed Levine’s official portrait in the Hubert H. Humphrey Building to display her deadname — the name she used before transitioning and has not used since 2011.
According to Democracy Forward, HHS “refused to release any records related to its morally wrong and offensive effort to alter former Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Rachel Levine’s official portrait caption.” Levine was the highest-ranking openly transgender government official in U.S. history and served as assistant secretary for health and as an admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps from 2021 to 2025.
Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman spoke about the need to hold the Trump-Vance administration accountable for every official action, especially those that harm some of the most targeted Americans, including trans people.
“The question every American should be asking remains: what is the Trump-Vance administration hiding? For an administration that touts its anti-transgender animus and behavior so publicly, its stonewalling and silence when it comes to the people’s right to see public records about who was behind this decision is deafening,” Perryman said.
“The government’s obligation of transparency doesn’t disappear because the information sought relates to a trailblazing former federal official who is transgender. It’s not complicated — the public is entitled to know who is making decisions — especially decisions that seek to alter facts and reality, erase the identity of a person, and affect the nation’s commitment to civil rights and human dignity.”
“HHS’s refusal to respond to these lawful requests raises more serious concerns about transparency and accountability,” Perryman added. “The public has every right to demand answers — to know who is behind this hateful act — and we are going to court to get them.”
The lawsuit also raises questions about whether the alteration violated federal accuracy and privacy requirements governing Levine’s name, and whether the agency improperly classified the change as an “excepted activity” during a lapse in appropriations. By failing to make any determination or produce any records, Democracy Forward argues, HHS has violated its obligations under federal law.
The case, Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The legal team includes Anisha Hindocha, Daniel McGrath, and Robin Thurston.
The Washington Blade reached out to HHS, but has not received any comment.
The lawsuit and four FOIA requests are below:
The White House
Empty seats, canceled shows plague Kennedy Center ahead of Trump renaming
It would take an act of Congress to officially rename the historic music venue, despite the Trump-appointed board’s decision.
The board of the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., voted to rename it the Trump-Kennedy Center, according to the White House Press Office.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the decision in a post on X Thursday, thanking the president for his work on the cultural center “not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also financially, and its reputation.”
Speaking to reporters later that day at the White House, Trump said he was “surprised” and “honored” by the board’s vote.
“This was brought up by one of the very distinguished board members, and they voted on it, and there’s a lot of board members, and they voted unanimously. So I was very honored,” he said.
Earlier this year, GOP Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho introduced an amendment that would have renamed the building after first lady Melania Trump, later saying she had not been aware of his efforts prior to the amendment’s public introduction.
Despite the board’s vote (made up of Trump-appointed loyalists), the original laws guiding the creation of the Kennedy Center during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations explicitly prohibit renaming the building. Any change to its name would require an act of Congress.
Trump has exerted increasing control over the center in recent months. In February, he abruptly fired members of the Kennedy Center’s board and installed himself as chair, writing in a Truth Social post at the time, “At my direction, we are going to make the Kennedy Center in Washington D.C., GREAT AGAIN.”
In that post, Trump specifically cited his disapproval of the center’s decision to host drag shows.
He later secured more than $250 million from the Republican-controlled Congress for renovations to the building.
Since Trump’s takeover, sales of subscription packages are said to have declined, and several touring productions — including “Hamilton” — have canceled planned runs at the venue. Rows of empty seats have also been visible in the Concert Hall during performances by the National Symphony Orchestra.
“The Kennedy Center Board has no authority to actually rename the Kennedy Center in the absence of legislative action,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters.
For decades, the Kennedy Center has hosted performances by LGBTQ artists and companies, including openly queer musicians, choreographers, and playwrights whose work helped push LGBTQ stories into the cultural mainstream. Those artists include the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington, Harvey Fierstein, and Tennessee Williams.
In more recent years, the center has increasingly served as a space for LGBTQ visibility and acceptance, particularly through Pride-adjacent programming and partnerships.
That legacy was on display at this year’s opening production of Les Misérables, when four drag performers — Tara Hoot, Vagenesis, Mari Con Carne, and King Ricky Rosé — attended in representation of Qommittee, a volunteer network uniting drag artists to support and defend one another amid growing conservative attacks.
“We walked in together so we would have an opportunity to get a response,” said Tara Hoot, who has performed at the Kennedy Center in full drag before. “It was all applause, cheers, and whistles, and remarkably it was half empty. I think that was season ticket holders kind of making their message in a different way.”
The creation of the Kennedy Center is outlined in U.S. Code, which formally designates the institution as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
As a result, it appears unlikely that Congress will come together to pass legislation allowing the historic venue to be renamed.
Advocates say MTG bill threatens trans youth, families, and doctors
EXCLUSIVE: Democracy Forward files FOIA lawsuit after HHS deadnames Rachel Levine
New research shows coming out is still risky
Empty seats, canceled shows plague Kennedy Center ahead of Trump renaming
New queer bar Rush beset by troubles; liquor license suspended
LGBTQ Democrats say they’re ready to fight to win in 2026
Brian Footer suspends campaign for Ward 1 D.C. Council seat
Far-right José Antonio Kast elected Chile’s next president
In real estate, trust the process
