News
Gavin Grimm testifies on civil rights after 100 days of Trump
Panel witness decry review of consent decrees, voter ID laws

Gavin Grimm testifies before Congress on April 6, 2017. (Screen capture courtesy Washington Blade Facebook)
Transgender student Gavin Grimm testified before Congress Thursday on the experience of his Virginia high school denying him access to the bathroom consistent with the gender identity as well as harms the Trump administration’s withdrawal of pro-trans guidance has caused for transgender people.
Gavin made the remarks during a congressional forum hosted by U.S. House Democrats on the state of civil rights after the first 100 days of the Trump administration. Witnesseses sharply criticized the Trump administration — in particular the U.S. Justice Department under U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions — for failing to live up to equal protection under the law.
Currently suing his school for bathroom access in a lawsuit the U.S. Supreme Court was once poised to consider, but later rejected, Gavin recalled the pain he felt during hearings in which the Gloucester County School Board decided to refuse to treat him consistent with his gender identity.
“World had spread throughout the community, and people turned up in droves,” Gavin said. “After each frenzied remark, clapping and hollering reverberated throughout the room. I sat while people called me a freak. I sat while my community got together to banish a child from public life for the crime of harming no one. I sat while my school board voted to banish me to retrofitted broom closets or the nurse’s room.”
As Gavin narrated his story, the microphone system for the room in the Rayburm House Office Building cut out, prompting one forum participant to quip, “The Democrats do not control this room.” Invited by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who was chairing the forum, to speak closer to the dais from a podium, Gavin continued his story.
Recalling the pledge from the White House that President Trump would be “respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights,” Gavin said the administration’s decision to nix Obama-era guidance assuring transgender kids bathroom access in accordance with their gender identity “could not have been more damaging for trans youth.”
“The guidance had a very simple message: Treat trans students with dignity and respect them for who they are,” Gavin said. “Treating trans students with dignity and respect should not be controversial. The decision to withdraw the guidance sent a terrible message to some of the most vulnerable people that President Trump – the leader of our country – and his administration do not care about protecting you from discrimination.”
After Gavin completed his testimony, attendees at the forum clapped for a lengthy amount of time. Conyers commended him, saying he’s a “courageous young man and you deserve our support and applause.”
Catherine Lhamon, chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and former assistant secretary for civil rights at the Education Department under the Obama administration, made the transgender guidance rollback a major point of concern during testimony in which she said civil rights under the Trump administration has been “horrendous.”
“It will not surprise this body that that withdrawal offended me because I signed that guidance when I was assistant secretary of civil rights,” Lhamon said.
Lhamon called Trump administration claims the guidance was withdrawn because of improper procedure and incorrect interpretation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 “categorically untrue,” citing “the many years that all the relevant agencies” spent investigating the facts and speaking the school administrators.
“To think more that whether a federal law that Congress wrote that says explicitly that no person in the United States shall be subject to sex discrimination in school applies to transgender students questions the very humanity of transgender students,” Lhamon said.
Lhamon also took issue with the appointment of Roger Severino, a former researcher for the anti-LGBT Heritage Foundation, to the role of assistant secretary for civil rights at the Department of Health & Human Services. Once in the position of being critical of the Obama administration’s efforts to ensure transgender people have access to transition-related care, Severino will now be charged with protecting transgender people in health care.
“I will never forget how I heard from former HHS civil rights director about a case in which emergency medical professionals refused to treat a transgender women because she is transgender,” Lhamon said. “She later died, although she had a better than 35 percent of survival had she received appropriate and timely medical care. It should go without saying that the director of HHS civil rights should be committed to ensure the fair medical treatment for all persons, regardless of identity status.”
The issue of transgender rights was but one issue before the forum that sought to address the multitude of challenges the civil rights community after 100 days of the Trump administration.
Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, expressed a dismal view of the current state of civil rights as he chaired the forum, referencing a “documented loss in the overall climate of equality” and rise in hate violence since the 2016 election.
“Minority communities have been justifiably concerned about the continued role of the federal government in protecting civil rights,” Conyers said. “The Trump presidential campaign promised meaningful changes that would benefit minorities in the area of crime, equal justice and economic equality, his political allies and surrogates to the media have sent a different message that served to heighten national divisions and anxiety.”
DOJ criticized for consent decree review
A central issue was the decision this week of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to review the consent decrees the U.S. Justice Department had arranged with police departments after patterns of unconstitutional racial discrimination and excessive force, including the shootings of black men.
Chiraag Bains, senior fellow at Harvard Law School Criminal Justice Policy Program and former senior counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights under President Obama, cited the review as evidence the Justice Department has been “predictably disastrous” on civil rights.
“This administration insists that policing is a purely local matter into which the federal government should not intrude,” Bains said. “But we’re not talking about a federal takeover of these departments. We’re talking about the enforcement and protection of constitutional rights. There is no federalism problem.”
Ron Davis, former director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services at the Justice Department, invoked the words of 19th Century British statesman Robert Peel to describe the appropriate relationship between the police and communities as defined under the consent decrees.
“People comply with the law not because of they are afraid of the police, they comply with the law because they believes the law is fair, just and will be enforced appropriately and without bias,” David said. “People should be afraid of police. They should not have to run from them because they’re going to be deported or think that every infraction will result in arrest.”
But Sessions’ order to review the consent decrees was but one issue to witnesses pointed as evidence the Trump administration was failing to live up to responsibilities on civil rights.
Joe Rich, co-director of the Fair Housing & Community Development Project, raised as a civil rights issue the rollback of voter access to the polls, including early voting cutbacks and the imposition of state voter ID laws.
Although defenders of those laws say they’re intended to prevent voter fraud, Rich said that’s “very rare,” citing a recent study that found the incident rate of voter fraud ranges between .003 percent and .0025 percent.
“Given this tiny incident rate for voter impersonation, the report concluded that is more likely that an American will be struck by lightning than he will impersonate voter at the poll,” Rich said.
Rich said the Justice Department had “vigorously prosecuted” against the voter ID law in Texas for three years, but the U.S. government has “reversed course” with Sessions at the helm in “an action of great concern for all of us doing voting rights work.”
Roy Austin, former director of the White House Office of Urban Affairs, Justice & Opportunity under the Obama administration, took particular issue with the travel ban Trump signed barring immigration into the United States from six Muslim countries, calling it an attempt to “legalize discrimination against an entire faith.”
Although the administration billed the measure as an means to keep potential terrorists from the United States, Auston said “state-endorsed discrimination diminishes public safety.”
“In my humble opinion, this greatest current threat to civil rights in this great nation is this current administration,” Austin said. “In record time, the current administration has already shown not simply a willingness to not defend civil rights, but a shown an intent to violate civil rights, and, at a minimum, with an intent to make it easier for others to violate civil rights.”
Chief Hassan Aden, a member of the steering committee for Law Enforcement Leaders to Reduce Crime and Incarceration and former chief of police of the Greenville Police Department, took issue with greater authority of U.S. Customs & Border Protection to detain travelers entering the United States.
“What’s happening now is there’s sort of this second-class of American citizen being built out, and it involves names and religious preferences, and it’s something that we all need to resist and work against,” Aden said.
Aden recalled his own experienced this year being detained by CBP at JFK International Airport upon re-entry into the United States, which attributed to his Muslim-sounding name. Aden said this incident stands out because he travelled internationally in years past, including five times last year, without issue.
“My name being Hassan Aden, I think, set off a flag,” Aden said. “I utilized my platform and my reach to highlight this issue and give it a voice. There are so many people that this happens to. My detention was 90 minutes. There are people whose detention is significantly longer.”
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) held nothing back in her assessment of Trump on civil rights in the wake of the Justice Department reviewing consent decrees with police departments.
“This may be the Armageddon,” Lee said. “We may be seeing the most dangerous Department of Justice that we have seen in decades. I don’t think it is hyperbole; I don’t think it’s hysteria.”
Referencing the plight Gavin continues to face by being denied bathroom access in his school, Lee assured him, “You are not alone. We know the decision of the Supreme Court, but we’re not finished with bringing you relief.”
Other lawmakers present at the hearing were Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), top Democrat for the House Committee on Education and the Workforce; Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus; and Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas).
At the end of the hearing, Lee asked Gavin for his thoughts on the impact of the Justice Department taking an ideological position against transgender rights, which Gavin would only be harmful.
“We see a very real and immediate negative impact on those communities,” Gavin said. “The transgender community is uniquely vulnerable already in that we have less legal protection, we have a higher rate of hate crimes, mental illness, homelessness, unemployment, and then to have a complete and total lack of administrative support, and, in fact, a presence of a administrative intimidation or disregard, the effects of such a negative message across the board would be absolutely devastating.”
Delaware
Delaware approves amendment protecting same-sex marriage
Measure must pass second vote in next year’s session
The Delaware General Assembly passed Senate Substitute 2 for Senate Bill 100 on the last day of the legislative session on Tuesday after being rescinded last week.
Senate Substitute 2 for Senate Bill 100 (SB-100) passed with 28 ‘yes’ votes, meeting the two-thirds threshold required for the bill to pass. Tuesday was the last day of the 153rd General Assembly.
The amendment would enshrine the right to same-sex and interracial marriage in the Delaware Constitution.
SB-100 was rescinded last week after it did not receive enough votes to pass. Democrats were short by three votes, with two Democratic members missing from the vote.
Rep. Josue Ortega (D-03) voted ‘no’ on SB-100 and Rep. Medinah Anton-Wilson (D-27) did not vote. However, both members voted ‘yes’ for Senate Substitute 2 for SB-100 on Tuesday.
Prime sponsor of SB 100, Rep. Claire Snyder-Hall (D-14), made the technical decision to change her vote last week from a ‘yes’ to a ‘no’ at the last minute to keep the bill alive.
Additionally, Republican Assemblyman Michael Smith (R-22) joined the Democrats with a ‘yes’ vote after voting ‘no’ on SB-100 last week.
In order for SB 100 to be enshrined into the state Constitution, it must be passed by two consecutive General Assemblies. Thus, the amendment will not be officially added to the Constitution unless it passes in the 154th General Assembly next year.
Rep. Snyder-Hall introduced the measure earlier this week.
“Just one week ago, we failed to pass this legislation. We failed the people of Delaware. But today, on the final day of the legislative session, the 153rd General Assembly affirmed that every Delawarean has the fundamental right to marry the person they love, regardless of race or gender,” said Snyder-Hall.
“Thank you to my colleagues for recognizing that the right to marry is a right worthy of protection and for voting yes on this important constitutional amendment.”
National
ACLU says trans athletes ruling is narrower than many believe
‘Narrow decision focused on the unique context of sports’
The Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday to uphold state laws barring transgender girls from competing on girls’ school sports teams represents a setback for transgender rights, but attorneys who argued the case say the ruling is considerably narrower than many initial reactions suggested.
Shortly after the decision was released, attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union — which represented the plaintiffs in the case — held a press call to explain what they described as the limited scope of the Court’s opinion. While the ruling allows states to exclude transgender girls from girls’ school sports teams, they said it stops well short of creating a nationwide ban or dismantling broader legal protections for transgender people.
Joshua Block, senior counsel with the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, said the majority intentionally confined its analysis to school athletics.
“[The majority] issued a narrow decision focused specifically on the unique context of sports. It didn’t issue a broader decision saying that Title IX in general didn’t protect transgender students. It didn’t say that other states couldn’t make a different policy choice and allow transgender girls to participate with cisgender girls, and it didn’t issue a sweeping ruling saying that under the Constitution it’s perfectly fine to discriminate based on transgender status.”
Block said one of the opinion’s most significant takeaways is that it leaves decisions about transgender participation in school sports largely in the hands of states.
“It leaves the rest of the legal rights of transgender people where the court found them.”
He stressed that the ruling authorizes states to adopt restrictions but does not require them to do so.
“It’s very important to emphasize that this isn’t a national mandate to ban trans athletes everywhere. It’s a fight that’s going to continue state by state, school by school … it really says that a state may discriminate, not that they must discriminate. States, schools, and athletic associations should be taking every step to ensure that athletic opportunities exist for transgender girls.”
Beyond athletics, Block said the opinion’s most important legal consequence may lie in its treatment of the Equal Protection Clause.
“What the court said is that even applying that heightened standard, we’re going to establish what’s effectively a new rule of the Equal Protection Clause, saying that you can’t bring this sort of as-applied challenge to a law that is valid for most people.”
Even so, he argued that the Court repeatedly framed transgender participation in sports as a policy issue for state governments rather than a constitutional mandate.
“Over and over and over again it talks about how states may exclude transgender girls, not that they must, and over and over and over again it says that this is a policy question that should be decided by the people in their different communities and their representatives.”
Block also rejected the idea that the ruling endorses the Trump administration’s broader efforts to restrict transgender rights.
“I have no doubt that the Trump administration will try to declare victory and say that this decision supports the lawless policies they’re pursuing, but I think anyone reading the decision can see otherwise.”
The White House nonetheless celebrated the decision, calling it a victory that would “protect women and girls.”
“The Court’s decision is a landmark victory for common sense, biological reality, and for the millions of women and girls who deserve a level playing field. By upholding laws protecting female athletic competition, the Court confirmed that states may preserve the fairness, safety, and equal opportunities that Title IX was enacted to guarantee.”
Medical researchers and LGBTQ advocates dispute the administration’s characterization of the evidence. A 2021 study published in the Journal of Sports Medicine found no scientific evidence for supporting these laws that categorically ban transgender women from participating in women’s sports.
Critics have also argued that enforcement of such laws could create new risks for athletes. Researchers have warned that sex-verification requirements may expose students to invasive examinations and discrimination.
A 2016 USA Today investigation found that at least 368 young gymnasts reported experiencing sexual abuse over a 20-year period. More than 100 coaches and gymnastics officials were accused of abuse, yet USA Gymnastics failed to track predatory coaches, allowing many to continue working with children. LGBTQ advocates argue that requiring athletes to undergo genital inspections or other forms of sex verification could place young athletes at even greater risk.
Advocacy organizations said the decision, while limited legally, will have significant real-world consequences for transgender youth.
Chris Mosier, a transgender athlete and board member of Point of Pride, said the ruling extends beyond sports.
“The Supreme Court’s decision today isn’t driven by fairness or dignity in sports. It’s an attack on our community’s right to live freely and authentically in every part of our lives. Young people, regardless of whether they’re cis or trans, deserve the joy of sports: to build friendships, to move their bodies and have fun on the field. To every trans athlete out there: you have a community standing behind you. No politician or law can take away your joy or power. We will get through this as our community has always done: together.”
Brian K. Bond, CEO of PFLAG National, emphasized that states remain free to adopt inclusive policies despite the Court’s decision.
“The Court rules best when it listens to the needs of marginalized people: trans people belong, on and off the field. While we celebrate the Court’s decision to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment and affirm that every person born in the United States is a citizen, the Court today added an asterisk to allow discrimination against transgender student athletes. Our country has been here before, and frankly, you would think this Court would have learned.”
“For PFLAG families, today’s decision in BPJ means that transgender athletes can continue to be affirmed for who they are in places where the law allows – and invigorates our LGBTQ+ and allied community to expand those protections. The parents, families, allies and LGBTQ+ people of PFLAG will continue to advocate for our trans loved ones to have the freedom to be themselves, everywhere. Trans people belong, and deserve to have access to the benefits of sport like everyone else.”
Allen Morris, policy director at the National LGBTQ Task Force, called the decision “devastating” but noted that it does not establish a nationwide sports ban.
“Today’s decision is devastating and the impact to clear. While this is not a nationwide ban on transgender participation in sports, the Court has given states a legal pathway to attempt to discriminate against trans individuals from full participation in school sports and all aspects of life.”
“This ruling is not just about sports: it’s about valuing and protecting the safety, security and constitutional rights of transgender people. By allowing states to draw a categorical line based on “biological sex,” the majority has chosen deference to exclusion and political beliefs over transgender students’ lived realities. There is already a dangerous rise in state-based violence growing across the country, and we’re overcoming this issue at each turn.”
Melanie Willingham-Jaggers, CEO of GLSEN, said the decision sends a broader message about transgender students’ place in schools.
“We are deeply disappointed by the outcome of this decision. This ruling represents another significant setback for transgender youth across the country, limiting their ability to fully engage in school life. Exclusion from these spaces shapes not only athletic access, but the broader message about who should be valued and included in our schools and societal ecosystem.”
“School sports are much more than competition. They are about belonging, forming a community, and the opportunity to grow and thrive alongside peers. Preventing youth from taking part in everyday activities undermines these fundamental values. We continue to see efforts to regulate discrimination under the guise of fairness, despite the lack of evidence that inclusive policies harm women’s sports. Access to these experiences is critical to students’ well-being and development.”
Mexico
Gay US couple among four people found dead in Mexico mass grave
Zafar Mawani and Guillermo Hidalgo Ortiz disappeared May 20
A gay couple from the U.S. is among the four people found dead in a mass grave in Mexico last month.
The Associated Press reported Zafar Mawani and Guillermo Hidalgo Ortiz disappeared on May 20. The couple was last seen in Mexico City’s Isidro Fabela neighborhood.
Media reports indicate Mawani and Hidalgo lived in Mexico and Chicago. They note the couple had traveled to Mexico City to care for Mawani’s sick mother. NBC Chicago reported investigators found “unusual withdrawals from the couple’s bank accounts” after they disappeared.
The AP notes Mexican authorities on June 25 confirmed Mawani and Hidalgo were among the four people found in the mass grave in La Marquesa National Park, which is roughly 20 miles southwest of Mexico City, on June 17.
Mexican media reports indicate a female former police officer who allegedly led a kidnapping and robbery gang is among the five people who have been arrested in connection with the couple’s murder.
“We are grateful beyond words to everyone who tried to help bring Zafar home to us — investigators on the ground, our core strategy and support team, authorities in both countries, generous volunteer organizations, as well as friends and loved ones who stepped forward to help without being asked,” said Mawani’s family in a statement.
Kidnappings are common in Mexico.
The AP notes more than 135,000 people are currently missing in the country “as a product of criminal violence,” with 977 people reported to have disappeared in May. Members of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel in February set fire to cars and buses in Puerto Vallarta, a resort city in Jalisco state that is a popular destination for LGBTQ tourists from the U.S., after Mexican forces killed its powerful leader.
It is not clear whether Mawani and Hidalgo were specifically targeted because of their sexual orientation.
