News
In first, Senate confirms out fed’l appeals judge
Hughes confirmed unanimously to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Todd Hughes is the first openly gay man confirmed to a federal appeals court (Screen shot via judiciary.senate.gov).
The U.S. Senate made history on Tuesday with little fanfare when it unanimously confirmed for the first-time ever an openly gay person to a federal appellate court.
By a vote of 98-0, the Senate confirmed Todd Hughes as a circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, making him the highest-ranking openly gay judge.
In the half-hour of debate prior to his confirmation, senators focused on the budget and imminent government shutdown, although the significance of the Hughes confirmation did come up on the Senate floor.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the confirmation of Hughes is “an important milestone.”
“If confirmed, Mr. Hughes would be the first openly gay judge to serve on a federal appellate court in our nation’s history,” Leahy said. “I’m proud the Senate has finally taken an historic step to break down another barrier and increase diversity in our federal bench.”
Conservatives like Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) joined Democrats like Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) in voting for the nominee.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is located in D.C. and has jurisdiction over issues such as federal claims, veterans claims and patent issues.
Under President Obama, the Senate has confirmed seven openly gay judicial nominees, but never before — either under Obama or under a previous administration — has the Senate confirmed an openly gay person to an appellate-level court.
During his confirmation hearing on June 19, Hughes identified “fidelity to the law” as a quality a federal judge should have.
“The first and foremost quality a federal judge should have is fidelity to the law,” Hughes said. “He should be fair to all the litigants. He should be thoroughly prepared, understand the facts of the case, the law and come to a reasoned and equitable decision.”
Hughes has most recently served since 2007 as deputy director for the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Civil Division at the Justice Department. Prior to that, he worked for the Commercial Litigation Branch as a trial attorney.
Obama nominated Hughes for the seat on the appeals court in February and the Senate Judiciary Committee reported out his nomination to the Senate floor in July.
Hughes’ practice has been related to federal personnel law, veterans’ benefits, international trade, government contracts and jurisdictional issues regarding the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Advocates welcomed the news of Hughes’ confirmation and called it a milestone for the LGBT community.
Michael Cole-Schwartz, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said Hughes’ confirmation is significant both in terms of the barrier it breaks and the judge’s record.
“Judge Hughes is an eminently qualified nominee who also happens to shatter a barrier as the first openly gay federal appellate court judge,” Cole-Schwartz said. “It’s a testament to how far we have come as a country that his sexual orientation is irrelevant to his ability to serve on our nation’s courts.”
D’Arcy Kemnitz, executive director of the LGBT Bar Association, said the confirmation is “an important milestone for the LGBT legal profession.”
“It also shows that Congress, and the country, want the best person for the job, regardless of sexual orientation,” Kemnitz said. “Our federal judiciary is a better one when it reflects the diversity of the nation it serves. We commend President Obama for his nomination of Hughes, and the Senate for confirming that nomination.”
The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Hughes a rating of “unanimously well qualified” during his confirmation process.
Obama made an attempt before to seat an openly gay person to a federal appeals court, but it didn’t succeed. In 2010, Obama nominated Edward Dumont to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but that nomination was rescinded after no action was taken on the appointment for 18 months and DuMont requested his name be withdrawn.
Now that the Senate has confirmed Hughes, a total of 50 judicial nominees nominated by Obama remain pending before the Senate awaiting action. Thirteen are pending on the Senate floor and 37 are pending in committee.
Among the 37 is William Thomas, whom Obama first nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida nearly a year ago in November. If confirmed, Thomas would be the first openly gay black person to sit on the federal bench.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who had previously supported the Thomas confirmation, has been holding up the proceedings for the nominee by refusing to return a “blue slip” to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The Washington Blade has previously reported that Rubio was holding up the confirmation process for Thomas by refusing to turn in the “blue slip” for the nominee.
Brooke Sammon, a Rubio spokesperson, told the Blade and other media outlets this week Thomas’s record as a judge on state court “raises serious concerns about his fitness” for a lifetime federal appointment.
“Those concerns include questions about his judicial temperament and his willingness to impose appropriate criminal sentences, particularly in the two high-profile cases of Michele Traverso and Joel Lebron earlier this year,” Sammon said. “After reviewing Thomas’s record, Senator Rubio cannot support moving forward with the nomination at this time.”
With respect to the Traverso case, Nushin Sayfie, administrative judge for the criminal division of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Florida, wrote a letter to Rubio over the summer saying the sentence Thomas gave was within his guideline range, as the Washington Blade previously reported.
The White House didn’t respond to a request to comment on whether Obama would rescind his nomination of Thomas over Rubio’s objections.
Other openly gay nominees pending before the Senate are James “Wally” Brewster, Jr., who was nominated as U.S. ambassador to the Dominican Republic, and Chai Feldblum, who was nominated for a second term for a seat on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Eswatini
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
King Mswati III’s anti-LGBTQ comments can have deadly consequences
In an absolute monarchy, the words spoken by the sovereign can swiftly become a baton striking a citizen. When King Mswati III speaks, his words do not simply drift into the air as political “opinion”; they often quickly turn into, sometimes violently, state policy. This reflects the reality of Eswatini, where the right to freedom of expression, including the right to hold dissenting political views, is increasingly being systematically eroded by the very voice that claims to uphold “traditional values.”
To understand the current crisis facing the LGBTIQ+ community in Eswatini, one must view it through the lens of a broader strategy: the weaponization of culture to justify the erosion of democratic institutions, the rule of law, and human rights protections. As observed across Africa, from the streets of Harare and Dar es Salaam to the parliamentary courtrooms of Dakar and Kampala, African leaders are increasingly using the marginalised as an entry point to dismantle civil society. In Eswatini, this strategy has manifest its most brutal expression in the king’s recent harmful rhetoric concerning sexual orientation and gender identity.
The danger of the king’s words lies in how the state apparatus interprets them as a divine mandate for persecution. Recently, we have seen this “Rhetoric-to-Policy Pipeline” operate with chilling efficiency. Shortly after the Minister of Education made public vitriol against the existence of LGBTIQ+ students, reports emerged of children being expelled from schools. In a country where the king is culturally and traditionally called the “ingwenyama” (the lion), the bureaucracy acts as his pride; when leadership suggests that a particular group is “un-African” or “deviant,” the machinery of the state, along with the emboldened segments of the public, moves to purge that group from society.
For an openly gay man who has dedicated most of his adulthood to advancing equality and dignity for all, especially marginalized communities, these are not merely policy changes; they pose existential threats. When a powerful leader speaks, they offer a moral shield for the dogmatist and a legal roadmap for the policeman. In Eswatini, where political parties are banned, and the “tinkhundla” system (constituency-based system) — a system that systematically silences dissent and favors those aligned with the sovereign — is celebrated as the sole “authentic” form of governance, any identity that falls outside the narrow, state-defined “tradition” is seen as treason. By branding LGBTIQ+ rights as “ungodly” and essentially unwelcome in Eswatini, the monarchy effectively views the mere existence of queer Swazis as a subversive act against the crown.
The most harrowing example of this pattern is the assassination of human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko in January 2023. Maseko’s murder did not happen in isolation. It followed a period of heated rhetoric directed at those calling for democratic reforms. The king had publicly warned those demanding change that they would face consequences. On the evening after the king had said, “[t]hese people started the violence first, but when the state institutes a crackdown on them for their actions, they make a lot of noise blaming King Mswati for bringing in mercenaries,” Maseko was shot dead at his home in front of his family.
The parallel here is unmistakable. When the king targets the LGBTIQ+ community with his words, he is aiming at the most vulnerable. If a world-renowned human rights lawyer can be silenced following royal condemnation, what chance does a queer youth in a rural area stand when the king’s words reach the local chief or school head? This is what I call “Chaos as Governance”: a state where the law is replaced by the monarch’s whims, leaving the population in a constant cycle of managed chaos that renders collective opposition nearly impossible. Despite strong condemnation from the organization I founded, Eswatini Sexual and Gender Minorities (ESGM), recent reports already suggest growing support for the rhetoric shared by the king, indicating treacherous weeks and months ahead for ordinary queer people in Eswatini.
The monarchy’s defense of these actions is almost always based on “African tradition.” As Mswati has shown, the ban on political parties and the suppression of minority rights are framed as a return to indigenous governance, the “tinkhundla” system. But we must ask: whose culture is being defended? Is it a culture that historically valued communal care and diverse social roles, or is it a modern, imported authoritarianism cloaked in the robes of the ancestors?
When he uses his platform at the “sibaya” (traditional gathering) to alienate a segment of his own people, he is not engaging in dialogue; he is delivering a monologue of exclusion. This weaponized version of culture serves a dual purpose. First, it offers a “neocolonial” defense against international criticism, portraying human rights as a foreign threat. Second, it creates an internal enemy, the “terrorist” political dissident or the “immoral” LGBTIQ+ person, to distract from the fact that nearly two-thirds of the population live below the poverty line. In contrast, the royal family resides in obscene luxury, acquiring fleets of expensive vehicles.
The silence of Eswatini’s neighbors worsens its situation. The Southern African Development Community (SADC), a regional organization ostensibly committed to democracy and human rights, has repeatedly allowed Mswati to evade accountability. By agreeing to remove Eswatini from the Organ Troika agenda at the king’s request in 2024, SADC sent a message to every authoritarian in the region. If you conceal your repression behind the guise of tradition, we will not intervene.
The call for freedom of expression, including LGBTIQ+ rights, is a fundamental human right vital for safety and dignity. It demands that a child should not be expelled from school because of who they are. It insists that a lawyer should not be murdered for expressing their beliefs. It states that a king’s word should not be a death sentence. We must resist the “politics of distraction” that portrays the fight for minority rights as separate from the fight for democratic reform. The dissolution of political parties in Burkina Faso, the attack on lawyers in Zimbabwe, and the criminalization of advocacy in Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda are all parts of the same pattern. They reflect a leadership class that fears its own people.
It is time for the African Union and SADC to decide whether to uphold the ideals of their lofty charters or to prioritize political convenience across Africa. For the people of Eswatini, improving livelihoods and human development can only occur when the king’s words are limited by a constitution that protects every citizen, regardless of whom they love or how they pray. Until then, the chaos is not a failure; it is the purpose. The monarch’s word may be law today, but the universal right to dignity is the only law that will endure. We must demand an Eswatini, and by extension, an Africa that seeks to improve the lives of its people, and where the “lion” protects all his people, rather than hunting those he deems “unworthy” of the shade.
Melusi Simelane is the founder and board chair of Eswatini Sexual and Gender Minorities. He is also the Civic Rights Program Manager for the Southern Africa Litigation Center.
2026 Midterm Elections
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
Referendum to take place April 21
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ civil rights organization, has endorsed a Virginia ballot initiative that would allow the state to redraw its congressional districts this year, ahead of the 2030 Census.
Currently, Virginia’s Redistricting Commission — a legislative body made up of eight legislators and eight citizens, evenly split between Republicans and Democrats — is responsible for redrawing congressional districts every 10 years following the Census. The proposed amendment would temporarily shift that authority to the Virginia General Assembly through 2030, before returning it to the commission in 2031.
Supporters say the push for the amendment comes in response to anti-democratic moves by several Republican-led state legislatures following demands from President Donald Trump, which have resulted in newly gerrymandered congressional maps that advocates argue disenfranchise pro-equality voters.
Under the proposed map in Virginia, Democrats could gain as many as four of the five seats currently held by Republicans in this fall’s midterm elections, when control of the narrowly divided House is up for grabs.
Six states — including Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina on the GOP side — enacted new maps last year at Trump’s behest. The most significant Democratic counter-effort so far has come from California.
HRC President Kelley Robinson issued a statement backing the measure, encouraging Virginia voters who support democracy to vote “yes,” saying it would ensure “the will of the people is heard.”
“Voters should choose their leaders, not the other way around. But anti-equality lawmakers around the country, in service to Donald Trump’s assaults on democracy, are trying to undermine our elections and engineer their preferred outcome in the midterms,” Robinson said. “The American people are ready to take Congress back from the anti-equality, anti-freedom politicians that have been abusing their power to hurt all our communities and bend government to the will of a wannabe king.”
U.S. Rep. Don Beyer, who represents Virginia’s 8th Congressional District that encompasses much of Washington’s suburbs, including Alexandria, Arlington, Falls Church, and parts of eastern Fairfax County — has also voiced support for the measure. He has called Trump’s attempts to influence elections ahead of the November midterms a “betrayal of our democracy,” emphasizing that while the fight is ongoing, this effort is a step toward correcting the situation.
“It’s not a done deal by any means,” Beyer said in an op-ed for the Cardinal News. “We have to effectively make the case that even though this seems unfair in Virginia, it’s totally fair for America, for those of us who believe that taking back the House is the most significant thing we can do to stop Donald Trump.”
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger is another staunch supporter of the amendment, arguing that it would, through bipartisan means, help counterbalance Trump’s efforts in what remains an uphill battle.
“As early voting begins tomorrow on Virginia’s redistricting amendment, voters should know that Virginia’s approach is different. It is temporary, directly responsive to what other states decide to do, and — most importantly — it preserves Virginia’s bipartisan redistricting process for the future,” the first female governor of the state said in a statement. “I supported the formation of Virginia’s bipartisan redistricting commission in 2020, and that support has not changed. What has changed is what we’re seeing in states across the country — and a president who says he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats before this year’s midterm elections.”
“Virginians have the opportunity to take action in response to this extraordinary moment in history,” she added. “That’s why, as a Virginia voter, I’m voting in favor of this amendment.”
Virginians for Fair Elections, the group responsible for marketing the initiative, has raised nearly $50 million dollars, according to the Virginia Public Access Project, a nonpartisan organization focusing on sharing public documents related to financial matters of the state. The ads notably feature former President Barack Obama, who supports the measure and has hailed it as a way to “level the playing field.”
In a recent Politico article, a person close to the White House, granted anonymity, suggested the outlook for Trump’s governing majority is weakening — particularly following the unraveling of the Iran war — underscoring why the administration is pushing Republican-led states to maximize their advantage ahead of the midterms.
“This war in Iran almost cements the fact that we lose the midterms in November — the Senate and House,” the person said.
According to The Economist, Trump holds a 37 percent approval rating, with 56 percent of respondents disapproving of his handling of the presidency.
This is not the first time Virginia has held a special election for a statewide ballot initiative. Most recently, in 1956, voters approved a measure that led to the use of public funds to provide tuition grants for students attending nonsectarian private schools.
Early voting is already underway in the Old Dominion, with Election Day set for April 21.
