The U.S. Supreme Court ruling last week legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states was a “transformative” development that should be seized upon by the LGBT rights movement to secure the passage of a federal LGBT civil rights bill much broader than the one now stalled in Congress.
That’s the assessment of Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom To Marry, the New York-based advocacy organization credited with playing a key role in advancing marriage equality across the country since its launching in 2003.
“We now have won the freedom to marry as a matter of law,” Wolfson told the Washington Blade in an interview on the day the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling.
“But the conversation is only now arriving to many parts of the country,” he said. “And since we’ve seen its transformative power we want to harness it, to build on it going forward, not turn away from it,” Wolfson said.
“And then while doing that we want to map out and begin calling to action the work of winning non-discrimination protections, particularly a federal civil rights bill that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity much like federal civil rights law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and sex and religion.”
Wolfson pushed for same-sex marriage rights through litigation beginning in 1991 in Hawaii, when many in the gay rights movement said the country was not ready for it. Now, following the sweeping victory on marriage equality, he may once again be ruffling some feathers among the establishment LGBT groups by pushing for legislation far broader than the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, which has long been stalled in Congress.
A number of LGBT rights strategists, including former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), have said limiting the initial legislation like ENDA to just employment protections was needed because congressional allies did not have the votes needed to pass a broader bill. Wolfson said he believes LGBT organizations are now ready to push for a broader bill.
“And what we need to be pursuing is not ENDA, not only employment protections but comprehensive civil rights protections,” he said. “And I think there’s this pretty strong agreement amongst most of the major organizations and advocates that what we want is the same kind of explicit federal protections for sexual orientation and gender identity that we have for race and sex, religion and other classifications that should not be used to justify discrimination.”
In keeping with an earlier promise, Wolfson said Freedom To Marry will be closing its doors soon because it has fulfilled its mission.
“Freedom To Marry was created as a campaign to drive the winning strategy,” he said. “And the strategy aimed at the goal of winning marriage equality nationwide. And today of course we hit our goal,” he said.
“And so Freedom to Marry will over a matter of months do a smart, strategic wind-down and close. The work of this campaign has now been achieved,” he said. “But the work of the movement is far from over.”
Evan Wolfson on the Supreme Court’s June 26 landmark ruling on marriage equality and what’s next for the LGBT rights movement:
Blade: What are your thoughts on the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision today on marriage equality?
Wolfson: Well we’ve transformed the country to get to this day. And there will be an additional transformation going forward because the power of winning marriage and the clarity and strength of the majority opinion signal that the day of the gay exception is over.
Blade: Do you think opponents of marriage equality will be able to claim the closeness of the vote – it was a 5-4 decision – detracts from the strength of the decision?
Wolfson: No, a 5-4 decision is a win. And I think the majority had the better of the arguments and the dissents are surprisingly tinny and out of touch with the American people and out of touch with the Constitution. Remember, we won 67 or so rulings even before today. And all of these judges found what Justice Kennedy found. So I think we have the better of the legal argument and the constitutional argument and we have a better connection with where the American people have moved. But at the end of the day, a Supreme Court decision is a win. And a win is a win.
Blade: Were those 67 decisions both U.S. district courts and appeals courts?
Wolfson: District and appellate, state and federal – Republican judges as well as Democratic judges. And all of them found what Justice Kennedy found. So I think it’s clear. We’ve moved the American people. We now have the Supreme Court clearly on the side of fairness. And the Constitution commands the freedom to marry and equality under the law. And that includes gay people.
Blade: What, if anything, will have to happen next to clear the way for same-sex couples to marry in the 13 states that did not recognize marriage equality?
Wolfson: I’ve been running around today and haven’t been able to fully monitor everything. But we have on our website our map, which we’re carefully monitoring and tracking the rolling forward and implementation of this decision. And so far I’ve not heard of any problem. And I think it will mostly proceed without problems very quickly. It is a big country. So if there’s an occasional instance of foot-dragging or acting out we will deal with it. But I expect that the vast majority of public officials will follow the law, and the American people are already there.
Blade: Will we see some cases in which a recalcitrant county clerk or marriage bureau official refuses to issue a marriage license because it’s against their religious beliefs?
Wolfson: I think there will be very, very little of that. And after all, when a clerk or an official draws a salary from the taxpayers it’s their duty to serve the taxpayers. And when you take an oath to serve the public it’s your duty to serve the public. And I think that’s clear. And if there is any problem, again, we will deal with it. But I think the overwhelming response is going to be positive and happy and joyous. It’s only going to get better as it goes.
Blade: Can you tell a little about your involvement in the early years of the marriage equality movement? You go back to when Hawaii became the first state where litigation was used to attempt to legalize same-sex marriage.
Wolfson: The Hawaii case was in the ‘90s. It began in 1991 and it ran through 1999. And of course my involvement with the freedom to marry began really a decade earlier when I wrote my thesis advocating for the freedom to marry back in 1983. I’ve been working on this for 32 years. And we’ve obviously had many steps forward and many stumbles and happy years and difficult years. But I always believed we would win if we kept doing the work. And today America proved me right.
Blade: What’s next for you? You have said that if the Supreme Court ruled as it has today you would eventually disband Freedom to Marry as an organization. Is that still the plan?
Wolfson: Yeah. Freedom to Marry was created as a campaign to drive the winning strategy. And the strategy aimed at the goal of winning marriage nationwide. And today of course we hit our goal. And so Freedom to Marry will over a matter of months do a smart, strategic wind-down, and close. The work of this campaign has now been achieved. But the work of the movement is far from over.
Blade: Do you have any thoughts on what the movement should do next?
Wolfson: I do. I think two big priorities for the movement right now are, number one, to harness the power of the marriage win to bring that conversation – reclaiming this vocabulary of marriage and the visibility it gives to couples and the empathy and understanding it awakens to seize that and bring it to the parts of the country where we will only have just begun. We now have won the freedom to marry as a matter of law. But the conversation is only now arriving to many parts of the country.
And since we’ve seen its transformative power we want to harness it, to build on it going forward, not turn away from it. And then while doing that we want to map out and begin calling to action the work of winning non-discrimination protections, particularly a federal civil rights bill that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity much like federal civil rights law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and sex and religion.
And while pursuing a federal bill we also want to win as many state and local non-discrimination measures as possible, both because they’re important in their own right and because they can be a building block – building blocks to the federal protections that we need. And the one other thing that I would add is that while doing all that legal and political work hopefully with the same kind of campaign focus we eventually brought to the marriage work, we should be remembering that it’s not just about the law. It’s also about improving people’s lives, making sure kids are growing up safe and secure and able to dream, making sure that seniors are aging with dignity and not forced back into the closet because we don’t have the facilities and services to help them. So it’s about lives, not just laws.
Blade: Speaking about laws, today we heard some of the Republican presidential candidates say they will push for a constitutional amendment to overturn this Supreme Court ruling. What are your thoughts on the chances of that happening?
Wolfson: I think the chances of that happening are even less than the chances of some of those same guys ever getting the presidency.
Blade: Is that because you feel the sentiment in the country is such that the required three-fourths of the state legislatures would not pass a constitutional amendment of this kind?
Wolfson: The American people support the freedom to marry by more than 60 percent and it’s only going to grow. The latest poll two days ago reported that 57 percent wanted the Supreme Court to rule nationwide as a matter of a constitutional right. It’s going to be a little difficult going from that level of support with all the facts on the ground of couples married and complete happiness and nothing bad happening – and turning all of that into the three-quarters support for a constitutional amendment to cement discrimination that the American people don’t favor in the first place is not going to happen. They are demagogueing to their base and history will not judge them kindly and nor will the polls today.
Blade: Concerning a federal LGBT civil rights bill, you’ve been credited with pushing the envelope by advocating for marriage equality in the early 1990s starting with Hawaii. Are the establishment LGBT rights groups being too timid in pushing for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, which is limited to just employment protection? Should we be adding housing and public accommodations protections to ENDA?
Wolfson: I’m not talking about ENDA. On ENDA – many of us came out against the version that others were pursuing. And what we need to be pursuing is not ENDA, not only employment protections but comprehensive civil rights protections. And I think there’s this pretty strong agreement amongst most of the major organizations and advocates that what we want is the same kind of explicit federal protections for sexual orientation and gender identity that we have for race and sex, religion and other classifications that should not be used to justify discrimination.
Blade: Do you think we are now beyond where we were in past years when some black civil rights leaders objected to opening up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to an amendment to add protections for gay people out of fear that opponents of civil rights would try to weaken that law for blacks and others who are covered by the law?
Wolfson: I think you are kind of mixing two different things. One is the broader point I’m making, which is that we should be pursuing federal civil rights protections across the board. The question of how you do that as a matter of legislative drafting – whether you do it by amending civil rights statute or whether you have another bill that goes alongside those bills like, for example, what we did with the ADA, the Americans With Disabilities Act — that’s a different question. And that I think we will sort out hopefully soon. But we don’t have to start that today.
What I’m saying today is our goal should be a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination broadly on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The question of the mechanics of how to do that is something we will turn to in the weeks ahead. And others will hopefully build the same kind of campaign to drive that strategically as we did with the freedom to marry.
Blade: And we feel the country is ready for that now?
Wolfson: Well not only do I feel the country is ready, I think the polling shows nearly 90 percent support for non-discrimination protections. The challenge is that the American people don’t fully realize that we don’t already have it. So what we need is a robust conversation and a smart campaign to get what the majority already favors passed into law. With marriage we had a bigger challenge. We first had to persuade the majority. Then we had to bring it into law. We’re ahead of the game here. We just have to get the kind of campaign and the kind of commitment and the smart strategy underway.
Blade: People like former Rep. Barney Frank have been saying we didn’t have the votes to do that in Congress.
Wolfson: Well that may have been true at one time but that doesn’t mean you just stop. It means you start. Go get the votes.
Blade: Is there anything else you’d like to add to the importance of the Supreme Court ruling today?
Wolfson: I think this is a real epic transformation from a despised minority to the freedom to marry. And now we need to build on that and keep going. And it’s a real win for gay people; but it’s as profoundly a win for America. Everybody won today.
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.
Va. county supervisors back resolution against ‘required’ pronoun questions
Immigration Equality condemns deportation of Haitian migrants, asylum seekers
Global community needs to help save Brazil’s democracy
Andrew Sullivan doesn’t care what you think
2021 Best of LGBTQ DC Readers’ Choice Award Finalist Voting
2021 Best of LGBTQ DC Readers’ Choice Award Finalist Voting
McAuliffe participates in Virginia Pride roundtable
Biden highlights LGBTQ rights in UN General Assembly speech
Trudeau’s party wins Canada election
RuPaul makes Emmy history with 11 wins, most ever for a Black artist
Sign Up for Blade eBlasts
Arts & Entertainment2 days ago
2021 Best of LGBTQ DC Readers’ Choice Award Finalist Voting
Music & Concerts7 days ago
Hey gurl, it’s Randy Rainbow!
Opinions6 days ago
Congrats to Parkland survivor Cameron Kasky on coming out
Local5 days ago
McAuliffe: School boards should make ‘own decisions’ on trans students policy
Opinions7 days ago
Biden should develop national digital vaccine passport now
Local3 days ago
McAuliffe participates in Virginia Pride roundtable
Music & Concerts7 days ago
Live music returns to D.C.
World7 days ago
Gay Guatemala congressman ‘scared’ for his life