National
Court ruling deals blow to North Carolina anti-LGBT law
Gov. Pat McCrory (R-N.C.) has said he would comply with a court ruling in favor of Virginia transgender student. (Photo by Hal Goodtree; courtesy Wikimedia Commons)
A federal appeals court ruling in favor of a Virginia transgender student seeking to use school restrooms consistent with his gender identity constitutes a blow to North Carolina’s recently enacted anti-LGBT law, legal experts say.
Although the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision pertains to a school district in Virginia, the case has bearing on House Bill 2 because the court also has jurisdiction over North Carolina along with Maryland, South Carolina and West Virginia. Legal experts say the decision has the effect of rendering unenforceable the component of HB 2 that prohibits transgender students from using school restrooms consistent with their gender identity.
Upon news of the decision, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory told reporters he would “make sure these court rulings are abided to,” but would need to consult with lawyers to verify the necessary approach.
“We’ve got to evaluate the impact of this court ruling on existing legislation, on existing policy that we have throughout North Carolina, and I will do just that,” McCrory said.
McCrory added he expects more action in the form of a petition for review to the U.S. Supreme Court, but meanwhile he needs to ascertain whether the ruling requires schools to allow transgender students to use public restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity, which would be contrary to House Bill 2.
“This is a major, major change in social norms not only to North Carolina, but also to the 27 other states that don’t allow this at this point in time,” McCrory said.
Signed into law last month by McCrory after an emergency session of the state legislature, HB 2 undoes all pro-LGBT non-discrimination ordinances in North Carolina, including one recently enacted in Charlotte, and prohibits transgender people from using public restrooms in schools and government buildings consistent with their gender identity.
But at the same time this law was passed, Gavin Grimm, a transgender student at Virginia’s Gloucester County High School, was appealing before the Fourth Circuit a lower court decision affirming the right of his school district’s policy barring him from using the boys restroom or locker room.
One friend-of-the-court brief was filed by the U.S. Justice Department, which argued the policy was in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Another was filed by state leaders, including McCrory, and argued the court should rule in favor of the school district. Ultimately, the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of Grimm and remanded the case to the trial court, establishing precedent in favor of transgender students.
Douglas NeJaime, faculty director of the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, was among those saying the court decision makes unenforceable the component of HB 2 restricting bathroom use for transgender people in schools.
“The part of North Carolina’s bill that is specifically about bathrooms, or public accommodations, to the extent that they would apply to schools, which are subject to Title IX, then I think it’s suggesting in the North Carolina bill are unenforceable,” NeJaime said. “This would obviously apply to North Carolina because its in the Fourth Circuit, and the federal regulations would govern over any contrary state regulations.”
The next step in the process, NeJaime said, is for state attorneys and North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat who has refused to defend HB 2 in court, to declare that portion of the law unenforceable. If that doesn’t happen, or if Cooper and McCrory’s attorneys disagree, NeJaime said a federal court in North Carolina would make that declaration and clarify the language cannot be enforced.
“I would guess that the ACLU and Lambda attorneys would probably quite quickly file papers and ask for an injunction just on that issue fairly quickly, but then, of course, it would be up to how quickly things can be scheduled,” NeJaime said. “I would imagine that that would move forward on an accelerated schedule.”
Neither McCrory’s office nor Cooper’s responded to the Washington Blade’s request to comment late Tuesday on their determination for what the Fourth Circuit ruling means for HB 2.
Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement the Fourth Circuit ruling immediately requires North Carolina to allow transgender students to use public restrooms consistent with their gender identity.
“This ruling not only gives appropriate deference to the Department of Education’s interpretation of Title IX as allowing transgender students to use school restrooms consistent with their gender identity, it also is binding on the state of North Carolina,” Warbelow said. “We therefore expect public schools, including those in North Carolina, to immediately comply, ensuring transgender students full protections under the law, which includes full access to the appropriate facilities.”
Legal groups — Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina — filed a lawsuit against HB 2 last month on the basis the law violates the equal protection and due process clauses under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
In a joint statement, the groups said the ruling has major implications on HB 2, but were more focused on the decision serving as an impetus for full repeal of the law.
“Today’s ruling makes plain that North Carolina’s House Bill 2 violates Title IX by discriminating against transgender students and forcing them to use the wrong restroom at school,” the statement says. “This mean-spirited law not only encourages discrimination and endangers transgender students – it puts at risk billions of dollars in federal funds that North Carolina receives for secondary and post-secondary schools. House Bill 2 exposes North Carolinians to discrimination and harm, is wreaking havoc on the state’s economy and reputation, and now more than ever, places the state’s federal education funding in jeopardy. We again call on Gov. McCrory and the General Assembly to repeal House Bill 2 and replace it with full nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people.”
Despite the different focuses of the statements, Warbelow told the Washington Blade the Human Rights Campaign and legal groups behind the lawsuit are on the same page.
“There’s no daylight between us,” Warbelow said. “North Carolina schools should follow Title IX immediately as underscored by Fourth Circuit decision. There still needs to be a full repeal of HB 2 to address its broad array of harms.”
But the ruling doesn’t have any impact on the portions of HB 2 prohibiting municipalities from enacting pro-LGBT non-discrimination ordinances, nor does it hold sway over the part that bars transgender people from using public restrooms in government buildings consistent with their gender identity.
NeJaime pointed out the Fourth Circuit ruling is based only on Title IX, which affects only students, and makes no headway into the whether equal protection and due process under the U.S. Constitution comes into play for any issue in HB 2.
“The only issue this ruling is tackling is access that trans people have to restrooms, and so the pre-emption of local non-discrimination ordinances isn’t at all impacted by this,” NeJaime added.
The district court reviewing the litigation challenging HB 2, NeJaime said, could elect to issue a more immediate ruling on use public restrooms for transgender students, but hold off until later to make a decision on other components of the law.
Although McCrory said the Gloucester County High School may seek to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review, which could impact the result of the ruling on North Carolina, NeJaime said justices are unlikely to take action as a result of only one circuit court decision and no split among the others.
“Certainly, we saw in the marriage cases, there were cert petitions filed after preliminary injunction motions. We also saw that DOMA in litigation,” NeJaime said. “In all those cases, the court waited until there was more resolution.”
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant
A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
PHOTOS: Helen Hayes Awards
Laverne Cox, Reneé Rapp, Deacon Maccubbin named WorldPride grand marshals
House passes reconciliation with gender-affirming care funding ban
PHOTOS: D.C. Trans Pride
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Pope Leo XIV: Family based on ‘stable union between a man and a woman’
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
