Since that historic decision almost a year ago, a total of 14 federal courts have ruled in favor of marriage equality as a result of litigation in various states in addition to four state courts in New Mexico, New Jersey, Arkansas and Texas, which makes a total of 18 rulings.
The most recent decisions came late last month. Over the course of two days, U.S. District Judge Michael McShane, who’s gay, struck down Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage, and U.S. District Judge John Jones III struck down the ban in Pennsylvania.
All in all, more than 70 cases are estimated to have been filed throughout the country seeking to strike down state bans on same-sex marriage. The only state without a pending marriage equality lawsuit is North Dakota, although litigation is expected soon there.
It’s only a matter of time before one of these cases reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, which could issue a nationwide ruling on marriage equality. At the rate that cases are advancing through the federal judiciary, observers predict the high court will take up a case at the start of its next term in the fall, and make a decision in June 2015.
In the days and weeks ahead, numerous district and appellate courts are poised to make rulings on same-sex marriage, either because they’ve completed oral arguments or they’ve been asked to issue judgment in the cases.
Appeals courts may soon deliver rulings
The most prominent among those cases are those before four federal appeals courts because they’ll be the first federal appeals court rulings on marriage after the Supreme Court decision against the Defense of Marriage Act.
At any time, the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals could hand down rulings in the case challenging Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage, Kitchen v. Herbert, and the case challenging Oklahoma’s ban, Bishop v. Smith. The court heard arguments for the Utah case on April 10 and the Oklahoma case on April 17.
Much like the marriage cases that were before the Supreme Court last year, the appeals court could decide to issue a ruling on the technical basis of standing.
In Utah, the standing issue is the result of the Salt Lake City clerk being named as a defendant in the lawsuit, but not appealing the lower court ruling against the marriage ban. As a result, Gov. Gary Herbert and Attorney General Sean Reyes had to show that they have standing to appeal the decision.
In Oklahoma, the standing issue stems from whether the already-married plaintiff couple in the case has standing to challenge the non-recognition of their marriage given because they only sued Tulsa County Clerk Sally Howell Smith, whom the district court held has nothing to do with recognizing marriages, instead of a state official who denied recognition.
Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said while standing is a “real issue” in the Oklahoma case, he doesn’t think it’s significant in the Utah litigation.
“In contrast to Oklahoma, where there is a real question whether the married couple has standing to sue a county clerk, there really is not much question that the AG and the governor were proper defendants,” Minter said. “Unlike Oklahoma, where county clerks are judicial officers, in Utah the county clerks are under the direct supervision and control of the executive branch (e.g., AG and governor).”
It would seem that a ruling on standing grounds would be beneficial for marriage equality in the Utah case, but adverse for same-sex couples in the Oklahoma case. But it’s hard to say what the results of a standing ruling would mean, especially if the companion lawsuit in the other state is decided on the merits.
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, who’s defending the marriage law in court along with Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, appears eager to be the face of anti-gay marriage forces if the case reaches the Supreme Court. During a news conference last month, he criticized attorneys general in other states who’ve elected not to defend state bans on same-sex marriage.
“For elected officials, governors or attorneys general, to pick and choose what laws (they) will enforce I think is a tragedy, and is the next step to anarchy,” Herbert said. “We have an obligation as a state to defend those laws.”
In the same news conference, Herbert suggested that he believes being gay is a choice, saying “what you choose to do with your sexual orientation” is different from other characteristics such as race.
“What your attraction may be is something else, but how you act upon those impulses is a choice,” Herbert said.
Also expected to rule soon is the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which at any time could decide on Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage, Bostic v. Schaefer. In that case, oral arguments took place before the appeals court on May 13.
Rulings in other cases before the appeals courts aren’t quite so imminent. One case before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that has recently seen movement is the case challenging Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage: Latta v. Otter.
The Ninth Circuit issued a stay prohibiting same-sex weddings from taking place in Idaho following the district court ruling against the state marriage law, but pledged to consider the case on an expedited basis and scheduled oral arguments for the week of Sept. 8.
The court was already hearing a challenge to Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage, Sevick v. Sandoval. The court has granted a request to hear the case on expedited basis and will hear arguments in September.
Notably, the Ninth Circuit is also continuing to hear a case seeking marriage equality in Hawaii, Jackson v. Fuddy, even though the state already legalized gay nuptials through the legislative process. The Hawaii Family Forum, an anti-gay group allowed to intervene in the case, has asked the court to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage in the event Hawaii decides to repeal marriage equality. Briefings in that case are set to conclude on June 25.
Another appeals court that isn’t as far along is the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court is considering DeLeon v. Perry a challenge to the Texas ban on same-sex marriage. Oral arguments in the case aren’t yet scheduled, but last week the court set the briefing schedule for the case.
The situation with another appeals court, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, is unique because it’s the only federal appeals court ever to consider at the same time a marriage case from each state within the circuit. Officials in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky have each appealed rulings against same-sex marriage bans in their states to the Sixth Circuit.
The only case among those four seeking marriage equality is the Michigan case, DeBoer v. Snyder. The Tennessee case, Tanco v. Haslam, is seeking recognition of same-sex marriage within the state. The Kentucky case, Bourke v. Beshear, is also seeking recognition of same-sex marriage within the state, but the case was amended at the district court level by same-sex couples seeking the ability to wed within the state.
The Ohio litigation is the consolidated case of Obergefell v. Himes and Henry v. Himes. The former was a case seeking state recognition of same-sex marriage for the purposes of birth certificates; the latter was a case seeking recognition for the purposes of death certificates. The cases were consolidated on May 20.
The Sixth Circuit hasn’t scheduled oral arguments in any of these cases yet, but briefings are expected to conclude by the end of this month.
Wisconsin among potential district court rulings
The vast majority of the marriage equality lawsuits are still pending at the district court level and have the potential for imminent rulings striking down same-sex marriage bans in other states.
In at least three states, rulings on the merits of state bans on same-sex marriage could come at any time because the briefing is complete and the judges haven’t given any indication they want to hear oral arguments before making a ruling. Those lawsuits are before federal courts in Wisconsin, Indiana and West Virginia.
With a ruling imminent in the Wisconsin case of Wolf v. Walker, Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican facing re-election this year, uncharacteristically seemed to back away from support of the marriage ban when asked whether he thinks it violates the U.S. Constitution.
“Any federal judge has got to look at that law not only with respect to the state’s constitution but what it means in terms of the U.S. Constitution, as well.” Walker said. “Again, I’m not going to pretend to tell a federal judge in that regard what he or she should do about it.”
His administration is apparently bracing for a ruling from the judge against the current law. Last week, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen took the unusual step of asking for a stay ahead of the ruling in the event the judge overseeing the case decides to strike down the ban.
A ruling in Indiana could come down imminently from any of three cases where briefings have been complete: Fujii v. Governor, Love v. Pence or Baskin v. Bogan. In West Virginia, the fully briefed case seeking marriage equality is McGee v. Cole.
In Nebraska, arguments were also recently completed before the state Supreme Court in the case of Nichols v. Nichols, clearing the way for a ruling at any time. However, plaintiffs in the case are seeking the right to divorce as opposed to the right to marry. While initially considered a marriage case, justices reportedly indicated during the arguments they might focus their ruling on divorce rights without altering the state ban on same-sex marriage.
In other states, motions for preliminary or permanent injunction motions have been fully briefed, so decisions here could also come imminently that allow same-sex couples to wed without definitively deciding the merits of the constitutionality of the bans. These states are Florida, Indiana, Kentucky and Texas.
Close on the heels of rulings in these cases may be a decision in a Colorado case filed in state court: Brinkman v. Long. A hearing has been set for June 12. It’s different from other cases because it’s a state lawsuit, not a federal lawsuit, so a ruling here would be along the lines of the litigation that brought marriage equality to Arkansas before the State Supreme Court stayed the ruling.
Briefings are also fully complete for lawsuits seeking marriage equality in Louisiana, Robicheaux v. George and Forum for Equality Louisiana v. Barfield, but a ruling won’t happen soon because oral arguments are scheduled for June 25.
In another state, North Carolina, a briefing is completed in the consolidated case of Fisher-Borne v. Smith and Gerber v. Cooper. On Monday, the magistrate in the case has indicated the case would be stayed until a decision in the Virginia case. Both Virginia and North Carolina are in the same circuit, so a ruling against the Virginia ban would make the North Carolina ban vulnerable.
Equality Act, contorted as a danger by anti-LGBTQ forces, is all but dead
No political willpower to force vote or reach a compromise
Despite having President Biden in the White House and Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress, efforts to update federal civil rights laws to strengthen the prohibition on discrimination against LGBTQ people by passing the Equality Act are all but dead as opponents of the measure have contorted it beyond recognition.
Political willpower is lacking to find a compromise that would be acceptable to enough Republican senators to end a filibuster on the bill — a tall order in any event — nor is there the willpower to force a vote on the Equality Act as opponents stoke fears about transgender kids in sports and not even unanimity in the Democratic caucus in favor of the bill is present, stakeholders who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity said.
In fact, there are no imminent plans to hold a vote on the legislation even though Pride month is days away, which would be an opportune time for Congress to demonstrate solidarity with the LGBTQ community by holding a vote on the legislation.
If the Equality Act were to come up for a Senate vote in the next month, it would not have the support to pass. Continued assurances that bipartisan talks are continuing on the legislation have yielded no evidence of additional support, let alone the 10 Republicans needed to end a filibuster.
“I haven’t really heard an update either way, which is usually not good,” one Democratic insider said. “My understanding is that our side was entrenched in a no-compromise mindset and with [Sen. Joe] Manchin saying he didn’t like the bill, it doomed it this Congress. And the bullying of hundreds of trans athletes derailed our message and our arguments of why it was broadly needed.”
The only thing keeping the final nail from being hammered into the Equality Act’s coffin is the unwillingness of its supporters to admit defeat. Other stakeholders who spoke to the Blade continued to assert bipartisan talks are ongoing, strongly pushing back on any conclusion the legislation is dead.
Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the Equality Act is “alive and well,” citing widespread public support he said includes “the majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents and a growing number of communities across the country engaging and mobilizing every day in support of the legislation.”
“They understand the urgent need to pass this bill and stand up for LGBTQ people across our country,” David added. “As we engage with elected officials, we have confidence that Congress will listen to the voices of their constituents and continue fighting for the Equality Act through the lengthy legislative process. We will also continue our unprecedented campaign to grow the already-high public support for a popular bill that will save lives and make our country fairer and more equal for all. We will not stop until the Equality Act is passed.”
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), chief sponsor of the Equality Act in the Senate, also signaled through a spokesperson work continues on the legislation, refusing to give up on expectations the legislation would soon become law.
“Sen. Merkley and his staff are in active discussions with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to get this done,” McLennan said. “We definitely see it as a key priority that we expect to become law.”
A spokesperson Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who had promised to force a vote on the Equality Act in the Senate on the day the U.S. House approved it earlier this year, pointed to a March 25 “Dear Colleague” letter in which he identified the Equality Act as one of several bills he’d bring up for a vote.
Despite any assurances, the hold up on the bill is apparent. Although the U.S. House approved the legislation earlier this year, the Senate Judiciary Committee hasn’t even reported out the bill yet to the floor in the aftermath of the first-ever Senate hearing on the bill in March. A Senate Judiciary Committee Democratic aide, however, disputed that inaction as evidence the Equality Act is dead in its tracks: “Bipartisan efforts on a path forward are ongoing.”
Democrats are quick to blame Republicans for inaction on the Equality Act, but with Manchin withholding his support for the legislation they can’t even count on the entirety of their caucus to vote “yes” if it came to the floor. Progressives continue to advocate an end to the filibuster to advance legislation Biden has promised as part of his agenda, but even if they were to overcome headwinds and dismantle the institution needing 60 votes to advance legislation, the Equality Act would likely not have majority support to win approval in the Senate with a 50-50 party split.
The office of Manchin, who has previously said he couldn’t support the Equality Act over concerns about public schools having to implement the transgender protections applying to sports and bathrooms, hasn’t responded to multiple requests this year from the Blade on the legislation and didn’t respond to a request to comment for this article.
Meanwhile, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who declined to co-sponsor the Equality Act this year after having signed onto the legislation in the previous Congress, insisted through a spokesperson talks are still happening across the aisle despite the appearances the legislation is dead.
“There continues to be bipartisan support for passing a law that protects the civil rights of Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Annie Clark, a Collins spokesperson. “The Equality Act was a starting point for negotiations, and in its current form, it cannot pass. That’s why there are ongoing discussions among senators and stakeholders about a path forward.”
Let’s face it: Anti-LGBTQ forces have railroaded the debate by making the Equality Act about an end to women’s sports by allowing transgender athletes and danger to women in sex-segregated places like bathrooms and prisons. That doesn’t even get into resolving the issue on drawing the line between civil rights for LGBTQ people and religious freedom, which continues to be litigated in the courts as the U.S. Supreme Court is expected any day now to issue a ruling in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia to determine if foster care agencies can reject same-sex couples over religious objections.
For transgender Americans, who continue to report discrimination and violence at high rates, the absence of the Equality Act may be most keenly felt.
Mara Keisling, outgoing executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, disputed any notion the Equality Act is dead and insisted the legislation is “very much alive.”
“We remain optimistic despite misinformation from the opposition,” Keisling said. “NCTE and our movement partners are still working fruitfully on the Equality Act with senators. In fact, we are gaining momentum with all the field organizing we’re doing, like phone banking constituents to call their senators. Legislating takes time. Nothing ever gets through Congress quickly. We expect to see a vote during this Congress, and we are hopeful we can win.”
But one Democratic source said calls to members of Congress against the Equality Act, apparently coordinated by groups like the Heritage Foundation, have has outnumbered calls in favor of it by a substantial margin, with a particular emphasis on Manchin.
No stories are present in the media about same-sex couples being kicked out of a restaurant for holding hands or transgender people for using the restroom consistent with their gender identity, which would be perfectly legal in 25 states thanks to the patchwork of civil rights laws throughout the United States and inadequate protections under federal law.
Tyler Deaton, senior adviser for the American Unity Fund, which has bolstered the Republican-led Fairness for All Act as an alternative to the Equality Act, said he continues to believe the votes are present for a compromise form of the bill.
“I know for a fact there is a supermajority level of support in the Senate for a version of the Equality Act that is fully protective of both LGBTQ civil rights and religious freedom,” Deaton said. “There is interest on both sides of the aisle in getting something done this Congress.”
Deaton, however, didn’t respond to a follow-up inquiry on what evidence exists of agreeing on this compromise.
Biden has already missed the goal he campaigned on in the 2020 election to sign the Equality Act into law within his first 100 days in office. Although Biden renewed his call to pass the legislation in his speech to Congress last month, as things stand now that appears to be a goal he won’t realize for the remainder of this Congress.
Nor has the Biden administration made the Equality Act an issue for top officials within the administration as it pushes for an infrastructure package as a top priority. One Democratic insider said Louisa Terrell, legislative affairs director for the White House, delegated work on the Equality Act to a deputy as opposed to handling it herself.
To be sure, Biden has demonstrated support for the LGBTQ community through executive action at an unprecedented rate, signing an executive order on day one ordering federal agencies to implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year in Bostock v. Clayton County to the fullest extent possible and dismantling former President Trump’s transgender military ban. Biden also made historic LGBTQ appointments with the confirmation of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Rachel Levine as assistant secretary of health.
A White House spokesperson insisted Biden’s team across the board remains committed to the Equality Act, pointing to his remarks to Congress.
“President Biden has urged Congress to get the Equality Act to his desk so he can sign it into law and provide long overdue civil rights protections to LGBTQ+ Americans, and he remains committed to seeing this legislation passed as quickly as possible,” the spokesperson said. “The White House and its entire legislative team remains in ongoing and close coordination with organizations, leaders, members of Congress, including the Equality Caucus, and staff to ensure we are working across the aisle to push the Equality Act forward.”
But at least in the near-term, that progress will fall short of fulfilling the promise of updating federal civil rights law with the Equality Act, which will mean LGBTQ people won’t be able to rely on those protections when faced with discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
D.C. bill to ban LGBTQ panic defense delayed by Capitol security
Delivery of bill to Congress was held up due to protocols related to Jan. 6 riots
A bill approved unanimously last December by the D.C. Council to ban the so-called LGBTQ panic defense has been delayed from taking effect as a city law because the fence installed around the U.S. Capitol following the Jan. 6 insurrection prevented the law from being delivered to Congress.
According to Eric Salmi, communications director for D.C. Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), who guided the bill through the Council’s legislative process, all bills approved by the Council and signed by the D.C. mayor must be hand-delivered to Congress for a required congressional review.
“What happened was when the Capitol fence went up after the January insurrection, it created an issue where we physically could not deliver laws to Congress per the congressional review period,” Salmi told the Washington Blade.
Among the bills that could not immediately be delivered to Congress was the Bella Evangelista and Tony Hunter Panic Defense Prohibition and Hate Crimes Response Amendment Act of 2020, which was approved by the Council on a second and final vote on Dec. 15.
Between the time the bill was signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser and published in the D.C. Register under procedural requirements for all bills, it was not ready to be transmitted to Congress until Feb. 16, the Council’s legislative record for the bill shows.
Salmi said the impasse in delivering the bill to Congress due to the security fence prevented the bill from reaching Congress on that date and prevented the mandatory 60-day congressional review period for this bill from beginning at that time. He noted that most bills require a 30 legislative day review by Congress.
But the Evangelista-Hunter bill, named after a transgender woman and a gay man who died in violent attacks by perpetrators who attempted to use the trans and gay panic defense, includes a law enforcement related provision that under the city’s Home Rule Charter passed by Congress in the early 1970s requires a 60-day congressional review.
“There is a chance it goes into effect any day now, just given the timeline is close to being up,” Salmi said on Tuesday. “I don’t know the exact date it was delivered, but I do know the countdown is on,” said Salmi, who added, “I would expect any day now it should go into effect and there’s nothing stopping it other than an insurrection in January.”
If the delivery to Congress had not been delayed, the D.C. Council’s legislative office estimated the congressional review would have been completed by May 12.
A congressional source who spoke on condition of being identified only as a senior Democratic aide, said the holdup of D.C. bills because of the Capitol fence has been corrected.
“The House found an immediate workaround, when this issue first arose after the Jan. 6 insurrection,” the aide said.
“This is yet another reason why D.C. Council bills should not be subject to a congressional review period and why we need to grant D.C. statehood,” the aide said.
The aide added that while no disapproval resolution had been introduced in Congress to overturn the D.C. Evangelista-Hunter bill, House Democrats would have defeated such a resolution.
“House Democrats support D.C. home rule, statehood, and LGBTQ rights,” said the aide.
LGBTQ rights advocates have argued that a ban on using a gay or transgender panic defense in criminal trials is needed to prevent defense attorneys from inappropriately asking juries to find that a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression is to blame for a defendant’s criminal act, including murder.
Some attorneys have argued that their clients “panicked” after discovering the person against whom they committed a violent crime was gay or transgender, prompting them to act in a way they believed to be a form of self-defense.
In addition to its provision banning the LGBTQ panic defense, the Evangelista-Hunter bill includes a separate provision that strengthens the city’s existing hate crimes law by clarifying that hatred need not be the sole motivating factor for an underlying crime such as assault, murder, or threats to be prosecuted as a hate crime.
LGBTQ supportive prosecutors have said the clarification was needed because it is often difficult to prove to a jury that hatred is the only motive behind a violent crime. The prosecutors noted that juries have found defendants not guilty of committing a hate crime on grounds that they believed other motives were involved in a particular crime after defense lawyers argued that the law required “hate” to be the only motive in order to find someone guilty of a hate crime.
Salmi noted that while the hate crime clarification and panic defense prohibition provisions of the Evangelista-Hunter bill will become law as soon as the congressional review is completed, yet another provision in the bill will not become law after the congressional review because there are insufficient funds in the D.C. budget to cover the costs of implementing the provision.
The provision gives the D.C. Office of Human Rights and the Office of the D.C. Attorney General authority to investigate hate related discrimination at places of public accommodation. Salmi said the provision expands protections against discrimination to include web-based retailers or online delivery services that are not physically located in D.C.
“That is subject to appropriations,” Salmi said. “And until it is funded in the upcoming budget it cannot be legally enforced.”
He said that at Council member Allen’s request, the Council added language to the bill that ensures that all other provisions of the legislation that do not require additional funding – including the ban on use of the LGBTQ panic defense and the provision clarifying that hatred doesn’t have to be the sole motive for a hate crime – will take effect as soon as the congressional approval process is completed.
D.C. man charged with 2020 anti-gay death threat rearrested
Defendant implicated in three anti-LGBTQ incidents since 2011
A D.C. man arrested in August 2020 for allegedly threatening to kill a gay man outside the victim’s apartment in the city’s Adams Morgan neighborhood and who was released while awaiting trial was arrested again two weeks ago for allegedly threatening to kill another man in an unrelated incident.
D.C. Superior Court records show that Jalal Malki, who was 37 at the time of his 2020 arrest on a charge of bias-related attempts to do bodily harm against the gay man, was charged on May 4, 2021 with unlawful entry, simple assault, threats to kidnap and injure a person, and attempted possession of a prohibited weapon against the owner of a vacant house at 4412 Georgia Ave., N.W.
Court charging documents state that Malki was allegedly staying at the house without permission as a squatter. An arrest affidavit filed in court by D.C. police says Malki allegedly threatened to kill the man who owns the house shortly after the man arrived at the house while Malki was inside.
According to the affidavit, Malki walked up to the owner of the house while the owner was sitting in his car after having called police and told him, “If you come back here, I’m going to kill you.” While making that threat Malki displayed what appeared to be a gun in his waistband, but which was later found to be a toy gun, the affidavit says.
Malki then walked back inside the house minutes before police arrived and arrested him. Court records show that similar to the court proceedings following his 2020 arrest for threatening the gay man, a judge in the latest case ordered Malki released while awaiting trial. In both cases, the judge ordered him to stay away from the two men he allegedly threatened to kill.
An arrest affidavit filed by D.C. police in the 2020 case states that Malki allegedly made the threats inside an apartment building where the victim lived on the 2300 block of Champlain Street, N.W. It says Malki was living in a nearby building but often visited the building where the victim lived.
“Victim 1 continued to state during an interview that it was not the first time that Defendant 1 had made threats to him, but this time Defendant 1 stated that if he caught him outside, he would ‘fucking kill him.’” the affidavit says. It quotes the victim as saying during this time Malki repeatedly called the victim a “fucking faggot.”
The affidavit, prepared by the arresting officers, says that after the officers arrested Malki and were leading him to a police transport vehicle to be booked for the arrest, he expressed an “excited utterance” that he was “in disbelief that officers sided with the ‘fucking faggot.’”
Court records show that Malki is scheduled to appear in court on June 4 for a status hearing for both the 2020 arrest and the arrest two weeks ago for allegedly threatening to kill the owner of the house in which police say he was illegally squatting.
Superior Court records show that Malki had been arrested three times between 2011 and 2015 in cases unrelated to the 2021 and 2020 cases for allegedly also making threats of violence against people. Two of the cases appear to be LGBTQ related, but prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not list the cases as hate crimes.
In the first of the three cases, filed in July 2011, Malki allegedly shoved a man inside Dupont Circle and threatened to kill him after asking the man why he was wearing a purple shirt.
“Victim 1 believes the assault occurred because Suspect 1 believes Victim 1 is a homosexual,” the police arrest affidavit says.
Court records show prosecutors charged Malki with simple assault and threats to do bodily harm in the case. But the court records show that on Sept. 13, 2011, D.C. Superior Court Judge Stephen F. Eilperin found Malki not guilty on both charges following a non-jury trial.
The online court records do not state why the judge rendered a not guilty verdict. With the courthouse currently closed to the public and the press due to COVID-related restrictions, the Washington Blade couldn’t immediately obtain the records to determine the judge’s reason for the verdict.
In the second case, court records show Malki was arrested by D.C. police outside the Townhouse Tavern bar and restaurant at 1637 R St., N.W. on Nov. 7, 2012 for allegedly threatening one or more people with a knife after employees ordered Malki to leave the establishment for “disorderly behavior.”
At the time, the Townhouse Tavern was located next door to the gay nightclub Cobalt, which before going out of business two years ago, was located at the corner of 17th and R Streets, N.W.
The police arrest affidavit in the case says Malki allegedly pointed a knife in a threatening way at two of the tavern’s employees who blocked his path when he attempted to re-enter the tavern. The affidavit says he was initially charged by D.C. police with assault with a dangerous weapon – knife. Court records, however, show that prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office lowered the charges to two counts of simple assault. The records show that on Jan. 15, 2013, Malki pleaded guilty to the two charges as part of a plea bargain arrangement.
The records show that Judge Marissa Demeo on that same day issued a sentence of 30 days for each of the two charges but suspended all 30 days for both counts. She then sentenced Malki to one year of supervised probation for both charges and ordered that he undergo alcohol and drug testing and undergo treatment if appropriate.
In the third case prior to the 2020 and 2021 cases, court records show Malki was arrested outside the Cobalt gay nightclub on March 14, 2015 on multiple counts of simple assault, attempted assault with a dangerous weapon – knife, possession of a prohibited weapon – knife, and unlawful entry.
The arrest affidavit says an altercation started on the sidewalk outside the bar when for unknown reasons, Malki grabbed a female customer who was outside smoking and attempted to pull her toward him. When her female friend came to her aid, Malki allegedly got “aggressive” by threatening the woman and “removed what appeared to be a knife from an unknown location” and pointed it at the woman’s friend in a threatening way, the affidavit says.
It says a Cobalt employee minutes later ordered Malki to leave the area and he appeared to do so. But others noticed that he walked toward another entrance door to Cobalt and attempted to enter the establishment knowing he had been ordered not to return because of previous problems with his behavior, the affidavit says. When he attempted to push away another employee to force his way into Cobalt, Malki fell to the ground during a scuffle and other employees held him on the ground while someone else called D.C. police.
Court records show that similar to all of Malki’s arrests, a judge released him while awaiting trial and ordered him to stay away from Cobalt and all of those he was charged with threatening and assaulting.
The records show that on Sept. 18, 2015, Malki agreed to a plea bargain offer by prosecutors in which all except two of the charges – attempted possession of a prohibited weapon and simple assault – were dropped. Judge Alfred S. Irving Jr. on Oct. 2, 2015 sentenced Malki to 60 days of incarnation for each of the two charges but suspended all but five days, which he allowed Malki to serve on weekends, the court records show.
The judge ordered that the two five-day jail terms could be served concurrently, meaning just five days total would be served, according to court records. The records also show that Judge Irving sentenced Malki to one year of supervised probation for each of the two counts and ordered that he enter an alcohol treatment program and stay away from Cobalt.
Dutch government formally apologies for forced sterilization of trans, intersex people
Botswana Court of Appeals upholds decriminalization ruling
Studio House, Visual AIDS partner for educational program
Investing in real estate: What you need to know
‘Tick, tick… BOOM!’ explodes with the love of Broadway
Va. businessman apologizes for burning of rainbow flag poster
Investing in real estate: What you need to know
Trend of banning books threatens our freedom
James Ivory on movies, beauty — and a love of penises
Forget Santa Claus – Ginger Minj is comin’ to town
Sign Up for Blade eBlasts
Local6 days ago
Transgender Zimbabwean woman in Md. wins asylum case
Local7 days ago
Bowser says city looking into lawsuit filed by gay employee at D.C. jail
Virginia3 days ago
Va. businessman apologizes for burning of rainbow flag poster
District of Columbia6 days ago
Casa Ruby expands LGBTQ mental health services
Local7 days ago
Gay-owned firm joins D.C. small business bond program
Opinions5 days ago
Thanksgiving is a time to share
Bars & Parties6 days ago
Disco Funk Brunch at Crazy Aunt Helen’s
World6 days ago
Chilean House approves marriage equality bill