National
Supreme Court won’t review Texas decision against same-sex benefits
Litigation remains ongoing in state court
The U.S. Supreme Court won’t take up a Texas decision against same-sex benefits.
(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
The Supreme Court announced it has denied certiorari, or refused to take up the petition seeking review of the decision, in an order list Monday reflecting decisions justices made during a conference last week Friday. It takes a vote of four justices to take up a case, but the vote on petitions isn’t made public.
The petition was filed in September by Wallace Jefferson, an attorney at the Austin-based law firm Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP.
Jefferson told the Washington Blade after the announcement the rejection of the petition was based on ongoing review in the state judiciary.
“I believe the Supreme Court deferred review because the Texas Supreme Court remanded the case for further consideration,” Jefferson said. “We anticipate that the Texas courts will fully embrace Obergefell’s holding, just as the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has done.”
Jonathan Mitchell, a Stanford, Calif., based attorney who represents opponents of same-sex benefits, deferred comment to Jonathan Saenz of the anti-LGBT group Texas Values, who hailed the decision in a statement.
“This is an incredible early Christmas present from the U. S. Supreme Court for taxpayers,” Saenz said. “We’re grateful that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed our lawsuit to go forward. Mayor Annise Parker defied the law by providing spousal benefits to same-sex couples at a time when same-sex marriage was illegal in Texas, and we intend hold the city accountable for Parker’s lawless actions and her unauthorized expenditures of taxpayer money.”
To the consternation of gay rights advocates, the Texas Supreme Court in June determined the 2015 Obergefell decision “is not the end” of the same-sex marriage issue and state workers have no established right to obtain benefits, such as health insurance, for their same-sex spouses in the same way as other employees.
“The Supreme Court held in Obergefell that the Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages to the same extent that they license and recognize opposite-sex marriages, but it did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons, and — unlike the Fifth Circuit in De Leon — it did not hold that the Texas DOMAs are unconstitutional,” Justice Jeffrey Boyd wrote in the decision.
The case was filed by Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks after former Houston Mayor Annise Parker, a lesbian, instructed her city to provide spousal benefits to city employees in same-sex marriages. Parker cited the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling against the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act as the basis for her decision. Pidgeon and Hicks contended state law, which at the time barred same-sex marriage, prevented Parker from taking that action.
Legal observers found the Texas Supreme Court’s conclusion to be totally off-track with the Obergefell decision.
After all, the Supreme Court made clear in Obergefell the ruling compels states to afford the “constellation of benefits” of marriage to same-sex couples. The Texas decision also came the same week the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Obergefell by overturning an Arkansas Supreme Court decision upholding a state law against placing both lesbian parents’ names on the birth certificates of their children.
Many observers pointed to the makeup of the Texas Supreme Court — justices who are elected, not appointed — as they reason they came to the decision. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and other Republican lawmakers urged the court to take the case after justices initially refused and allowed a lower court decision in favor of benefits to stand.
(Side note: One of the justices in the Texas decision was Associate Justice Don Willett, whom President Trump has nominated to a seat on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump also named Willett to his short list of potential U.S. Supreme Court nominees.
In part because of his decision in the Houston benefits case, LGBT advocates have come out against Willett’s confirmation to the Fifth Circuit. Last month, the LGBT legal group Lambda Legal organized 26 other national, state, and local LGBT groups to express opposition to Willett before the Senate Judiciary Committee.)
The Texas Supreme Court decision fell short of outright denying spousal benefits for married same-sex couples and instead remanded the case to a trial court for reconsideration. The lawsuit remains pending before trial court.
Jefferson said there’s “no telling” when the trial court will reach its determination and the case “will proceed according to the trial court’s scheduling.”
Mark Phariss, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that brought marriage equality to Texas, had filed a friend-of-the-court brief calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Texas decision and expressed disappointment justices wouldn’t take up the case.
“I am very disappointed that the Supreme Court did not grant cert today,” Phariss said. “It means we must continue to fight in the courts in the State of Texas for full marriage equality. Today ‘Equal Justice Under Law’, as promised by the inscription to the front of the Supreme Court building, was not rendered. Ultimately, we will prevail, because history, justice, equality, and fairness are on our side.”
The denial of the petition by the Supreme Court isn’t the first time the federal judiciary has declined to review the Texas benefits decision.
In August, Lambda Legal and the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP filed a lawsuit in a federal court to affirm the Obergefell decision ensures health coverage and other benefits to the same-sex spouses of city employees. Months later in November, U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore dismissed the case on the basis that plaintiffs’ claims weren’t ripe for review.
However, Gilmore recognized a constitutional requirement to provide spousal benefits on equal terms based on the Obergefell decision.
“In light of this precedent, which the Texas trial court is required to follow, it seems constitutionally impermissible for the city to deny benefits to the same-sex spouses of its employees,” Gilmore wrote.
The U.S. Supreme Court announced it won’t take up the benefits case on the day before it’s set to hear oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in which a Colorado baker is asserting a First Amendment right to deny wedding cakes to same-sex couples.
Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of GLAAD, said in a statement the denial of certiorari in the Texas is disconcerting, especially on the day before justices are set to consider a major gay rights case.
“With all eyes on tomorrow’s oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop religious exemptions case, the Supreme Court has just let an alarming ruling by the Texas Supreme Court stand which plainly undercuts the rights of married same-sex couples,” Ellis said. “Today’s abnegation by the nation’s highest court opens the door for an onslaught of challenges to the rights of LGBTQ people at every step.”
The White House
EXCLUSIVE: Garcia, Markey reintroduce bill to require US promotes LGBTQ rights abroad
International Human Rights Defense Act also calls for permanent special envoy
Two lawmakers on Monday have reintroduced a bill that would require the State Department to promote LGBTQ rights abroad.
A press release notes the International Human Rights Defense Act that U.S. Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) introduced would “direct” the State Department “to monitor and respond to violence against LGBTQ+ people worldwide, while creating a comprehensive plan to combat discrimination, criminalization, and hate-motivated attacks against LGBTQ+ communities” and “formally establish a special envoy to coordinate LGBTQ+ policies across the State Department.”
“LGBTQ+ people here at home and around the world continue to face escalating violence, discrimination, and rollbacks of their rights, and we must act now,” said Garcia in the press release. “This bill will stand up for LGBTQ+ communities at home and abroad, and show the world that our nation can be a leader when it comes to protecting dignity and human rights once again.”
Markey, Garcia, and U.S. Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) in 2023 introduced the International Human Rights Defense Act. Markey and former California Congressman Alan Lowenthal in 2019 sponsored the same bill.
The promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights was a cornerstone of the Biden-Harris administration’s overall foreign policy.
The global LGBTQ and intersex rights movement since the Trump-Vance administration froze nearly all U.S. foreign aid has lost more than an estimated $50 million in funding.
The U.S. Agency for International Development, which funded dozens of advocacy groups around the world, officially shut down on July 1. Secretary of State Marco Rubio earlier this year said the State Department would administer the remaining 17 percent of USAID contracts that had not been cancelled.
Then-President Joe Biden in 2021 named Jessica Stern — the former executive director of Outright International — as his administration’s special U.S. envoy for the promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights.
The Trump-Vance White House has not named anyone to the position.
Stern, who co-founded the Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice after she left the government, is among those who sharply criticized the removal of LGBTQ- and intersex-specific references from the State Department’s 2024 human rights report.
“It is deliberate erasure,” said Stern in August after the State Department released the report.
The Congressional Equality Caucus in a Sept. 9 letter to Rubio urged the State Department to once again include LGBTQ and intersex people in their annual human rights reports. Garcia, U.S. Reps. Julie Johnson (D-Texas), and Sarah McBride (D-Del.), who chair the group’s International LGBTQI+ Rights Task Force, spearheaded the letter.
“We must recommit the United States to the defense of human rights and the promotion of equality and justice around the world,” said Markey in response to the International Human Rights Defense Act that he and Garcia introduced. “It is as important as ever that we stand up and protect LGBTQ+ individuals from the Trump administration’s cruel attempts to further marginalize this community. I will continue to fight alongside LGBTQ+ individuals for a world that recognizes that LGBTQ+ rights are human rights.”
National
US bishops ban gender-affirming care at Catholic hospitals
Directive adopted during meeting in Baltimore.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops this week adopted a directive that bans Catholic hospitals from offering gender-affirming care to their patients.
Since ‘creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift,’ we have a duty ‘to protect our humanity,’ which means first of all, ‘accepting it and respecting it as it was created,’” reads the directive the USCCB adopted during their meeting that is taking place this week in Baltimore.
The Washington Blade obtained a copy of it on Thursday.
“In order to respect the nature of the human person as a unity of body and soul, Catholic health care services must not provide or permit medical interventions, whether surgical, hormonal, or genetic, that aim not to restore but rather to alter the fundamental order of the human body in its form or function,” reads the directive. “This includes, for example, some forms of genetic engineering whose purpose is not medical treatment, as well as interventions that aim to transform sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex (or to nullify sexual characteristics of a human body.)”
“In accord with the mission of Catholic health care, which includes serving those who are vulnerable, Catholic health care services and providers ‘must employ all appropriate resources to mitigate the suffering of those who experience gender incongruence or gender dysphoria’ and to provide for the full range of their health care needs, employing only those means that respect the fundamental order of the human body,” it adds.
The Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2024 condemned gender-affirming surgeries and “gender theory.” The USCCB directive comes against the backdrop of the Trump-Vance administration’s continued attacks against the trans community.
The U.S. Supreme Court in June upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming medical interventions for minors.
Media reports earlier this month indicated the Trump-Vance administration will seek to prohibit Medicaid reimbursement for medical care to trans minors, and ban reimbursement through the Children’s Health Insurance Program for patients under 19. NPR also reported the White House is considering blocking all Medicaid and Medicare funding for hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to minors.
“The directives adopted by the USCCB will harm, not benefit transgender persons,” said Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, a Maryland-based LGBTQ Catholic organization, in a statement. “In a church called to synodal listening and dialogue, it is embarrassing, even shameful, that the bishops failed to consult transgender people, who have found that gender-affirming medical care has enhanced their lives and their relationship with God.”
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a bill that reopens the federal government.
Six Democrats — U.S. Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Adam Gray (D-Calif.), Don Davis (D-N.C.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) — voted for the funding bill that passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. Two Republicans — Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Greg Steube (R-Fla.) — opposed it.
The 43-day shutdown is over after eight Democratic senators gave in to Republicans’ push to roll back parts of the Affordable Care Act. According to CNBC, the average ACA recipient could see premiums more than double in 2026, and about one in 10 enrollees could lose a premium tax credit altogether.
These eight senators — U.S. Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) — sided with Republicans to pass legislation reopening the government for a set number of days. They emphasized that their primary goal was to reopen the government, with discussions about ACA tax credits to continue afterward.
None of the senators who supported the deal are up for reelection.
King said on Sunday night that the Senate deal represents “a victory” because it gives Democrats “an opportunity” to extend ACA tax credits, now that Senate Republican leaders have agreed to hold a vote on the issue in December. (The House has not made any similar commitment.)
The government’s reopening also brought a win for Democrats’ other priorities: Arizona Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva was sworn in after a record-breaking delay in swearing in, eventually becoming the 218th signer of a discharge petition to release the Epstein files.
This story is being updated as more information becomes available.
PHOTOS: Cheers to Out Sports!
Miss Major Griffin-Gracy paved the way for today’s transgender rights revolution
Chilean presidential election outcome to determine future of LGBTQ rights in country
EXCLUSIVE: Garcia, Markey reintroduce bill to require US promotes LGBTQ rights abroad
Could lower rates, lagging condo sales lure buyers to the table?
Pro-trans candidates triumph despite millions in transphobic ads
Democratic Socialism won’t win the whole country
US bishops ban gender-affirming care at Catholic hospitals
Federal government reopens
