Many LGBT groups have joined President Obama in calling for the U.S. Senate to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court, but a look at the recently announced nominee’s record reveals he joined in several rulings against the interests of LGBT parties who sought his aid before the federal judiciary.
A Washington Blade investigation into Garland’s record as a chief judge on the U.S. Circuit Court for the D.C. Circuit found his LGBT-related cases are few in number and lacking in magnitude, but in at least four cases Garland joined rulings against gay plaintiffs or self-proclaimed gay advocates.
One lawsuit was filed by an Ohio-based radio station professing to serve a gay audience; another by a sailor discharged from the Navy after being accused of sexual assault against three other shipmates; another by gay rights protesters seeking to sue law enforcement officials for spraying a chemical deterrent on them during former President George W. Bush’s inaugural parade; and another by an inmate jailed for threatening the president who said he was at risk in his place of incarceration because he’s gay. (Keen News Service first reported the first three in this list after Obama announced the Garland nomination.)
The Blade could find no rulings written by Garland himself pertaining to LGBT people, only opinions written by other judges that he joined. Since his tenure on the bench starting in 1997, Garland was never asked to rule on major LGBT rights issues, such as the constitutionality of state sodomy bans, state prohibitions on same-sex marriage or the Defense of Marriage Act.
Although the Supreme Court has already issued its milestone ruling in favor same-sex marriage, Garland’s record on LGBT-related litigation may be of note to LGBT advocates seeking justice under the law in other matters. Such litigation could decide the constitutionality of HIV criminalization laws, whether the right to religious freedom includes the ability to deny services to LGBT people and whether LGBT people are covered under the gender provisions of current civil rights laws in cases of discrimination in employment or housing.
In 2001, Garland was on a three-judge panel adjudicating a complaint from Grid Radio, an unlicensed low-power radio station in Cleveland, Ohio, professing to serve “gay men and women and the arts community.” The Federal Communications Commission told Jerry Szoka, operator of the station, to cease broadcasting and pay an ancillary $11,000 forfeiture because Grid Radio was operating without a license.
Szoka contended he never sought a license because the FCC at the time had a ban on microbroadcasting, which would have prohibited a low-power station like Grid Radio from operating. The FCC order, Szoka contended, was unenforceable, because the agency’s microbroadcasting ban contravened federal law and the First Amendment, and because the forfeiture was unreasonable, excessive and beyond his ability to pay.
In a Feb. 8, 2002 decision, Garland and Senior Circuit Judge Stephen Williams joined the opinion of Judge David Tatel rejecting Szoka’s claims and affirming the FCC order against him.
“Absent a demonstration that the low-power ban was indisputably unlawful or unconstitutional, the Commission had no obligation to reconsider the ban in the context of an enforcement proceeding against a single unlicensed operator,” the decision says. “Moreover, the forfeiture is reasonable under the circumstances of this case, and the operator waived his inability-to-pay claim.”
In 2003, Garland as part of the same three-judge panel heard an appeal of Jim Turner, a petty officer who served in the Navy for seven years before the service expelled him with an “other than honorable” discharge after three shipmates accused him of sexual assault.
Turner — who petitioned the Navy secretary to reverse the decision, but was rebuffed — argued the commanding officer investigating the charges abused his discretion by proceeding against him under Article 15, which he said is reserved for minor offenses, and by asking him and other shipmates if they were gay, which would have been in violation of the enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Even though the Board of Corrections of Naval Records found error on procedural points in the discharge and lack of sufficient corroboration, Garland joined Williams in an April 15, 2003, decision that upheld a district court ruling rejecting Turner’s claims.
“Chief Petty Officer Clanahan, who conducted the investigation at Captain Frank’s request, at one point asked Seaman Maurer whether he was homosexual,” the decision says. “Turner says that this — and the coercive conditions of the interview — violated that portion of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ regulations that precludes asking members of the armed forces ‘their sexual orientation.’ Assuming the question was a violation and the regulations are enforceable, Turner’s claim still fails. There is little reason to believe that the error (if such it was) affected the ADB or Article 15 proceedings.”
In 2004, Garland was part of another three-judge panel adjudicating a lawsuit filed by the International Action Center, which billed itself as “an unincorporated political association opposed to racism, sexism, oppression of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people, war and militarism and the program of the Bush administration,” as well as supporters Elizabeth Ayer and Lowell T. Fletcher.
According to their complaint, Ayer and Fletcher on the day of Bush’s 2001 inaugural parade were “engaged in only lawful, peaceful activity” at the Navy Memorial on Pennsylvania Avenue when officers with the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department “without justification, struck [them]…and sprayed a chemical agent into [their] eyes and faces at close range.” Additionally, Ayer and Fletcher alleged the police struck and sprayed other demonstrators while other uniformed and non-uniformed police officers watched and did nothing.
The plaintiffs sought to hold the officers’ supervisors personally liable for money damages for those injuries, which was allowed by the district court overseeing on the basis that the supervisors had a duty to train their subordinates to prevent alleged misconduct under the First and Fourth Amendments.
But in an April 16, 2004, decision, Garland joined U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards and then-U.S. Circuit Judge John Roberts (now chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) in reversing the lower court decision, remanding with instructions to affirm qualified immunity for the supervisors.
“We hold that absent an allegation that the MPD supervisors had actual or constructive knowledge of past transgressions or that the supervisors were responsible for or aware of ‘clearly deficient’ training, the supervisors did not violate any constitutional right through inaction or failure to supervise,” the decision says. “Having found no constitutional violation … , ‘there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.'”
In 2013, Garland was part of another three-judge panel hearing a petition from Jeremy Pinson, a gay federal prisoner serving a 20-year sentence for threatening the president, knowingly and willfully making a false statement to a U.S. marshal and mailing threatening communications. According to the decision, Pinson “made good use of the federal courts during his time in prison, having filed more than 100 civil actions and appeals across the nation.”
In the case before Garland and other judges, Pinson sought a fee waiver for challenging his incarceration in the special management unit at the Federal Correctional Institution in Talladega, Ala. Because special management units house gang-affiliated and other disruptive inmates who present unique security concerns, Pinson alleged being placed in such conditions would put him at substantial risk because he’s gay and a former gang member.
But in an Aug. 5, 2014 decision, Garland joined U.S. Circuit Judge Sri Srinavasan (who was thought to be on Obama’s short list as a potential nominee for the current Supreme Court vacancy) and U.S. Circuit Judge Thelton Eugene Henderson in denying Pinson relief. The decision is based on Pinson running afoul of the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision for a fee-waiver and not being able to show under the precedent of Mitchell v. Federal Bureau of Prisons qualification for the imminent danger exception.
“Like Mitchell, Pinson’s claim rests on the BOP’s decision to designate him to a particular facility notwithstanding its reputation as a dangerous place for inmates possessing certain characteristics — here, as a rival gang-member and homosexual, and in Mitchell, as a government ‘snitch,'” the decision says. “The Mitchell court found such contentions insufficient to satisfy the imminent danger exception, even though Mitchell, unlike Pinson, further alleged that he had already been attacked by the time he filed his complaint. We see no ground to reach a different conclusion here.”
Despite these rulings, LGBT advocates who saw the rulings say they don’t think they indicate an anti-LGBT bias or predict Garland would rule against LGBT people in cases before the high court.
Paul Smith, a partner at the D.C.-based law firm Jenner & Block who successfully litigated against state sodomy bans before the Supreme Court in 2003, was unconcerned about the decisions.
“I know Judge Garland well and he doesn’t have the slightest anti-gay bias,” Smith said. “He is about as fair and unbiased a person as I know. Nothing in these cases causes me concerns about his ability to rule fairly and on the law in cases involving LGBT people or claims.”
Brad Sears, executive director of the Williams Institute of the University of California, Los Angeles, said on his Facebook page the decisions were “decided on grounds that don’t relate to sexual orientation or gender identity” and don’t reveal his understanding of LGBT issues.
“In short, I haven’t found an LGBT-related opinion authored by Garland, and while he signed on to four that went against the LGBT-related party, none of them were decided in a way that sheds light on how he approaches sexual orientation or gender identity related legal issue[s],” Sears wrote.
Sarah Warbelow, the Human Rights Campaign’s legal director, said her organization is giving Garland the benefit of the doubt based on Obama choosing him.
“President Obama has a history of appointing pro-equality Supreme Court Justices,” Warbelo said. “HRC officially endorsed Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan following their Senate nomination hearings and a thorough examination of their records. We are confident that in Judge Garland we will find another associate justice to the Supreme Court who stands on the side of fairness and equality.”
Warbelow said her organization is reviewing Garland’s record and, if the Senate despite objections from Republicans holds a confirmation hearing, will afterward make an official endorsement decision.
“Our legal and government affairs teams are currently in the process of examining Judge Garland’s extensive record in detail, and it is our hope that the Senate will eventually fulfill their constitutional responsibility to grant Merrick Garland a swift and fair hearing so that we can learn more about his judicial philosophy and record,” Warbelow said.
Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, said the important thing now is for the Senate to move toward consideration of Garland so the nominee can be more fully examined.
“We are in the midst of reviewing Judge Garland’s writings and likely will be issuing a comprehensive statement at a later date, including questions we think Judge Garland should be asked at a confirmation hearing,” Davidson said. “And that is the important point to make now, that the U.S. Senate should do its job and give Judge Garland’s nomination the serious and responsible consideration it deserves. We don’t think it is appropriate to offer our views in what would necessarily be a piecemeal fashion at this early date.”
Featured Local Savings
Honoring the legacy of New Orleans’ 1973 UpStairs Lounge fire
Why the arson attack that killed 32 gay men still resonates 50 years later
On June 23 of last year, I held the microphone as a gay man in the New Orleans City Council Chamber and related a lost piece of queer history to the seven council members. I told this story to disabuse all New Orleanians of the notion that silence and accommodation, in the face of institutional and official failures, are a path to healing.
The story I related to them began on a typical Sunday night at a second-story bar on the fringe of New Orleans’ French Quarter in 1973, where working-class men would gather around a white baby grand piano and belt out the lyrics to a song that was the anthem of their hidden community, “United We Stand” by the Brotherhood of Man.
“United we stand,” the men would sing together, “divided we fall” — the words epitomizing the ethos of their beloved UpStairs Lounge bar, an egalitarian free space that served as a forerunner to today’s queer safe havens.
Around that piano in the 1970s Deep South, gays and lesbians, white and Black queens, Christians and non-Christians, and even early gender minorities could cast aside the racism, sexism, and homophobia of the times to find acceptance and companionship for a moment.
For regulars, the UpStairs Lounge was a miracle, a small pocket of acceptance in a broader world where their very identities were illegal.
On the Sunday night of June 24, 1973, their voices were silenced in a murderous act of arson that claimed 32 lives and still stands as the deadliest fire in New Orleans history — and the worst mass killing of gays in 20th century America.
As 13 fire companies struggled to douse the inferno, police refused to question the chief suspect, even though gay witnesses identified and brought the soot-covered man to officers idly standing by. This suspect, an internally conflicted gay-for-pay sex worker named Rodger Dale Nunez, had been ejected from the UpStairs Lounge screaming the word “burn” minutes before, but New Orleans police rebuffed the testimony of fire survivors on the street and allowed Nunez to disappear.
As the fire raged, police denigrated the deceased to reporters on the street: “Some thieves hung out there, and you know this was a queer bar.”
For days afterward, the carnage met with official silence. With no local gay political leaders willing to step forward, national Gay Liberation-era figures like Rev. Troy Perry of the Metropolitan Community Church flew in to “help our bereaved brothers and sisters” — and shatter officialdom’s code of silence.
Perry broke local taboos by holding a press conference as an openly gay man. “It’s high time that you people, in New Orleans, Louisiana, got the message and joined the rest of the Union,” Perry said.
Two days later, on June 26, 1973, as families hesitated to step forward to identify their kin in the morgue, UpStairs Lounge owner Phil Esteve stood in his badly charred bar, the air still foul with death. He rebuffed attempts by Perry to turn the fire into a call for visibility and progress for homosexuals.
“This fire had very little to do with the gay movement or with anything gay,” Esteve told a reporter from The Philadelphia Inquirer. “I do not want my bar or this tragedy to be used to further any of their causes.”
Conspicuously, no photos of Esteve appeared in coverage of the UpStairs Lounge fire or its aftermath — and the bar owner also remained silent as he witnessed police looting the ashes of his business.
“Phil said the cash register, juke box, cigarette machine and some wallets had money removed,” recounted Esteve’s friend Bob McAnear, a former U.S. Customs officer. “Phil wouldn’t report it because, if he did, police would never allow him to operate a bar in New Orleans again.”
The next day, gay bar owners, incensed at declining gay bar traffic amid an atmosphere of anxiety, confronted Perry at a clandestine meeting. “How dare you hold your damn news conferences!” one business owner shouted.
Ignoring calls for gay self-censorship, Perry held a 250-person memorial for the fire victims the following Sunday, July 1, culminating in mourners defiantly marching out the front door of a French Quarter church into waiting news cameras. “Reverend Troy Perry awoke several sleeping giants, me being one of them,” recalled Charlene Schneider, a lesbian activist who walked out of that front door with Perry.
Esteve doubted the UpStairs Lounge story’s capacity to rouse gay political fervor. As the coroner buried four of his former patrons anonymously on the edge of town, Esteve quietly collected at least $25,000 in fire insurance proceeds. Less than a year later, he used the money to open another gay bar called the Post Office, where patrons of the UpStairs Lounge — some with visible burn scars — gathered but were discouraged from singing “United We Stand.”
New Orleans cops neglected to question the chief arson suspect and closed the investigation without answers in late August 1973. Gay elites in the city’s power structure began gaslighting the mourners who marched with Perry into the news cameras, casting suspicion on their memories and re-characterizing their moment of liberation as a stunt.
When a local gay journalist asked in April 1977, “Where are the gay activists in New Orleans?,” Esteve responded that there were none, because none were needed. “We don’t feel we’re discriminated against,” Esteve said. “New Orleans gays are different from gays anywhere else… Perhaps there is some correlation between the amount of gay activism in other cities and the degree of police harassment.”
An attitude of nihilism and disavowal descended upon the memory of the UpStairs Lounge victims, goaded by Esteve and fellow gay entrepreneurs who earned their keep via gay patrons drowning their sorrows each night instead of protesting the injustices that kept them drinking.
Into the 1980s, the story of the UpStairs Lounge all but vanished from conversation — with the exception of a few sanctuaries for gay political debate such as the local lesbian bar Charlene’s, run by the activist Charlene Schneider.
By 1988, the 15th anniversary of the fire, the UpStairs Lounge narrative comprised little more than a call for better fire codes and indoor sprinklers. UpStairs Lounge survivor Stewart Butler summed it up: “A tragedy that, as far as I know, no good came of.”
Finally, in 1991, at Stewart Butler and Charlene Schneider’s nudging, the UpStairs Lounge story became aligned with the crusade of liberated gays and lesbians seeking equal rights in Louisiana. The halls of power responded with intermittent progress. The New Orleans City Council, horrified by the story but not yet ready to take its look in the mirror, enacted an anti-discrimination ordinance protecting gays and lesbians in housing, employment, and public accommodations that Dec. 12 — more than 18 years after the fire.
“I believe the fire was the catalyst for the anger to bring us all to the table,” Schneider told The Times-Picayune, a tacit rebuke to Esteve’s strategy of silent accommodation. Even Esteve seemed to change his stance with time, granting a full interview with the first UpStairs Lounge scholar Johnny Townsend sometime around 1989.
Most of the figures in this historic tale are now deceased. What’s left is an enduring story that refused to go gently. The story now echoes around the world — a musical about the UpStairs Lounge fire recently played in Tokyo, translating the gay underworld of the 1973 French Quarter for Japanese audiences.
When I finished my presentation to the City Council last June, I looked up to see the seven council members in tears. Unanimously, they approved a resolution acknowledging the historic failures of city leaders in the wake of the UpStairs Lounge fire.
Council members personally apologized to UpStairs Lounge families and survivors seated in the chamber in a symbolic act that, though it could not bring back those who died, still mattered greatly to those whose pain had been denied, leaving them to grieve alone. At long last, official silence and indifference gave way to heartfelt words of healing.
The way Americans remember the past is an active, ongoing process. Our collective memory is malleable, but it matters because it speaks volumes about our maturity as a people, how we acknowledge the past’s influence in our lives, and how it shapes the examples we set for our youth. Do we grapple with difficult truths, or do we duck accountability by defaulting to nostalgia and bluster? Or worse, do we simply ignore the past until it fades into a black hole of ignorance and indifference?
I believe that a factual retelling of the UpStairs Lounge tragedy — and how, 50 years onward, it became known internationally — resonates beyond our current divides. It reminds queer and non-queer Americans that ignoring the past holds back the present, and that silence is no cure for what ails a participatory nation.
Silence isolates. Silence gaslights and shrouds. It preserves the power structures that scapegoat the disempowered.
Solidarity, on the other hand, unites. Solidarity illuminates a path forward together. Above all, solidarity transforms the downtrodden into a resounding chorus of citizens — in the spirit of voices who once gathered ‘round a white baby grand piano and sang, joyfully and loudly, “United We Stand.”
Robert W. Fieseler is a New Orleans-based journalist and the author of “Tinderbox: the Untold Story of the Up Stairs Lounge Fire and the Rise of Gay Liberation.”
New Supreme Court term includes critical LGBTQ case with ‘terrifying’ consequences
Business owner seeks to decline services for same-sex weddings
The U.S. Supreme Court, after a decision overturning Roe v. Wade that still leaves many reeling, is starting a new term with justices slated to revisit the issue of LGBTQ rights.
In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the court will return to the issue of whether or not providers of custom-made goods can refuse service to LGBTQ customers on First Amendment grounds. In this case, the business owner is Lorie Smith, a website designer in Colorado who wants to opt out of providing her graphic design services for same-sex weddings despite the civil rights law in her state.
Jennifer Pizer, acting chief legal officer of Lambda Legal, said in an interview with the Blade, “it’s not too much to say an immeasurably huge amount is at stake” for LGBTQ people depending on the outcome of the case.
“This contrived idea that making custom goods, or offering a custom service, somehow tacitly conveys an endorsement of the person — if that were to be accepted, that would be a profound change in the law,” Pizer said. “And the stakes are very high because there are no practical, obvious, principled ways to limit that kind of an exception, and if the law isn’t clear in this regard, then the people who are at risk of experiencing discrimination have no security, no effective protection by having a non-discrimination laws, because at any moment, as one makes their way through the commercial marketplace, you don’t know whether a particular business person is going to refuse to serve you.”
The upcoming arguments and decision in the 303 Creative case mark a return to LGBTQ rights for the Supreme Court, which had no lawsuit to directly address the issue in its previous term, although many argued the Dobbs decision put LGBTQ rights in peril and threatened access to abortion for LGBTQ people.
And yet, the 303 Creative case is similar to other cases the Supreme Court has previously heard on the providers of services seeking the right to deny services based on First Amendment grounds, such as Masterpiece Cakeshop and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In both of those cases, however, the court issued narrow rulings on the facts of litigation, declining to issue sweeping rulings either upholding non-discrimination principles or First Amendment exemptions.
Pizer, who signed one of the friend-of-the-court briefs in opposition to 303 Creative, said the case is “similar in the goals” of the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation on the basis they both seek exemptions to the same non-discrimination law that governs their business, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA, and seek “to further the social and political argument that they should be free to refuse same-sex couples or LGBTQ people in particular.”
“So there’s the legal goal, and it connects to the social and political goals and in that sense, it’s the same as Masterpiece,” Pizer said. “And so there are multiple problems with it again, as a legal matter, but also as a social matter, because as with the religion argument, it flows from the idea that having something to do with us is endorsing us.”
One difference: the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation stemmed from an act of refusal of service after owner, Jack Phillips, declined to make a custom-made wedding cake for a same-sex couple for their upcoming wedding. No act of discrimination in the past, however, is present in the 303 Creative case. The owner seeks to put on her website a disclaimer she won’t provide services for same-sex weddings, signaling an intent to discriminate against same-sex couples rather than having done so.
As such, expect issues of standing — whether or not either party is personally aggrieved and able bring to a lawsuit — to be hashed out in arguments as well as whether the litigation is ripe for review as justices consider the case. It’s not hard to see U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has sought to lead the court to reach less sweeping decisions (sometimes successfully, and sometimes in the Dobbs case not successfully) to push for a decision along these lines.
Another key difference: The 303 Creative case hinges on the argument of freedom of speech as opposed to the two-fold argument of freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise in the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation. Although 303 Creative requested in its petition to the Supreme Court review of both issues of speech and religion, justices elected only to take up the issue of free speech in granting a writ of certiorari (or agreement to take up a case). Justices also declined to accept another question in the petition request of review of the 1990 precedent in Smith v. Employment Division, which concluded states can enforce neutral generally applicable laws on citizens with religious objections without violating the First Amendment.
Representing 303 Creative in the lawsuit is Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that has sought to undermine civil rights laws for LGBTQ people with litigation seeking exemptions based on the First Amendment, such as the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, wrote in a Sept. 12 legal brief signed by her and other attorneys that a decision in favor of 303 Creative boils down to a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment.
“Colorado and the United States still contend that CADA only regulates sales transactions,” the brief says. “But their cases do not apply because they involve non-expressive activities: selling BBQ, firing employees, restricting school attendance, limiting club memberships, and providing room access. Colorado’s own cases agree that the government may not use public-accommodation laws to affect a commercial actor’s speech.”
Pizer, however, pushed back strongly on the idea a decision in favor of 303 Creative would be as focused as Alliance Defending Freedom purports it would be, arguing it could open the door to widespread discrimination against LGBTQ people.
“One way to put it is art tends to be in the eye of the beholder,” Pizer said. “Is something of a craft, or is it art? I feel like I’m channeling Lily Tomlin. Remember ‘soup and art’? We have had an understanding that whether something is beautiful or not is not the determining factor about whether something is protected as artistic expression. There’s a legal test that recognizes if this is speech, whose speech is it, whose message is it? Would anyone who was hearing the speech or seeing the message understand it to be the message of the customer or of the merchants or craftsmen or business person?”
Despite the implications in the case for LGBTQ rights, 303 Creative may have supporters among LGBTQ people who consider themselves proponents of free speech.
One joint friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court, written by Dale Carpenter, a law professor at Southern Methodist University who’s written in favor of LGBTQ rights, and Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment legal scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles, argues the case is an opportunity to affirm the First Amendment applies to goods and services that are uniquely expressive.
“Distinguishing expressive from non-expressive products in some contexts might be hard, but the Tenth Circuit agreed that Smith’s product does not present a hard case,” the brief says. “Yet that court (and Colorado) declined to recognize any exemption for products constituting speech. The Tenth Circuit has effectively recognized a state interest in subjecting the creation of speech itself to antidiscrimination laws.”
Oral arguments in the case aren’t yet set, but may be announced soon. Set to defend the state of Colorado and enforcement of its non-discrimination law in the case is Colorado Solicitor General Eric Reuel Olson. Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would grant the request to the U.S. solicitor general to present arguments before the justices on behalf of the Biden administration.
With a 6-3 conservative majority on the court that has recently scrapped the super-precedent guaranteeing the right to abortion, supporters of LGBTQ rights may think the outcome of the case is all but lost, especially amid widespread fears same-sex marriage would be next on the chopping block. After the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 303 Creative in the lawsuit, the simple action by the Supreme Court to grant review in the lawsuit suggests they are primed to issue a reversal and rule in favor of the company.
Pizer, acknowledging the call to action issued by LGBTQ groups in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, conceded the current Supreme Court issuing the ruling in this case is “a terrifying prospect,” but cautioned the issue isn’t so much the makeup of the court but whether or not justices will continue down the path of abolishing case law.
“I think the question that we’re facing with respect to all of the cases or at least many of the cases that are in front of the court right now, is whether this court is going to continue on this radical sort of wrecking ball to the edifice of settled law and seemingly a goal of setting up whole new structures of what our basic legal principles are going to be. Are we going to have another term of that?” Pizer said. “And if so, that’s terrifying.”
Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman, named president of Human Rights Campaign
Progressive activist a veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund
Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman and veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, is to become the next president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s leading LGBTQ group announced on Tuesday.
Robinson is set to become the ninth president of the Human Rights Campaign after having served as executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund and more than 12 years of experience as a leader in the progressive movement. She’ll be the first Black, queer woman to serve in that role.
“I’m honored and ready to lead HRC — and our more than three million member-advocates — as we continue working to achieve equality and liberation for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer people,” Robinson said. “This is a pivotal moment in our movement for equality for LGBTQ+ people. We, particularly our trans and BIPOC communities, are quite literally in the fight for our lives and facing unprecedented threats that seek to destroy us.”
The next Human Rights Campaign president is named as Democrats are performing well in polls in the mid-term elections after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving an opening for the LGBTQ group to play a key role amid fears LGBTQ rights are next on the chopping block.
“The overturning of Roe v. Wade reminds us we are just one Supreme Court decision away from losing fundamental freedoms including the freedom to marry, voting rights, and privacy,” Robinson said. “We are facing a generational opportunity to rise to these challenges and create real, sustainable change. I believe that working together this change is possible right now. This next chapter of the Human Rights Campaign is about getting to freedom and liberation without any exceptions — and today I am making a promise and commitment to carry this work forward.”
The Human Rights Campaign announces its next president after a nearly year-long search process after the board of directors terminated its former president Alphonso David when he was ensnared in the sexual misconduct scandal that led former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign. David has denied wrongdoing and filed a lawsuit against the LGBTQ group alleging racial discrimination.
South African police arrest seven men linked to kidnapping of Grindr users
New campaign challenges Va. guidelines for transgender, nonbinary students
Two men charged with attacking trans Puerto Rican woman plead guilty to federal hate crimes charges
Asesinan a Soraya Álvarez, activista trans hondureña
New Workforce Program Aims to Help Expand Economic Opportunity for the Trans Community
Federal judge: drag is ‘vulgar and lewd,’ ‘sexualized conduct’
D.C. rentals: DIY or seek professional help?
Lawsuit seeks to force Virginia Beach schools to implement state guidelines for trans, nonbinary students
Flight attendants union endorses Sarah McBride
New book goes behind the scenes of ‘A League of Their Own’
Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast
U.S. Federal Courts4 days ago
Federal judge: drag is ‘vulgar and lewd,’ ‘sexualized conduct’
Real Estate3 days ago
D.C. rentals: DIY or seek professional help?
Virginia4 days ago
Lawsuit seeks to force Virginia Beach schools to implement state guidelines for trans, nonbinary students
Delaware4 days ago
Flight attendants union endorses Sarah McBride