Connect with us

homepage news

Is marriage in danger with Kennedy gone from Supreme Court?

Trans military ban, religious exemption cases make way to justices



Anthony Kennedy, Supreme Court, gay news, Washington Blade
Anthony Kennedy, Supreme Court, gay news, Washington Blade

Is same-sex marriage in jeopardy now that Justice Kennedy has announced plans to step down from the Supreme Court? (Photo public domain)

After announcing his retirement following 30 years on the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy leaves a profound legacy in favor of gay rights — but questions linger over whether his legacy is in jeopardy and same-sex marriage rights are in danger now that he’s stepping down.

That legacy includes decisions guaranteeing the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry. In 2013, Kennedy wrote the opinion in Windsor v. United States striking down the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Two years later in 2015, Kennedy wrote the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and spread marriage equality nationwide.

But Kennedy’s legacy on gay rights extends beyond marriage and goes back decades. In 1996, Kennedy wrote the opinion in Romer v. Evans, striking down Colorado’s Amendment 2 on the basis that bare animus cannot justify anti-gay laws. In 2003, Kennedy was the author of the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which found state laws criminalizing same-sex relations are unconstitutional.

More recently, Kennedy wrote the decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who refused to serve a custom-made wedding cake to a same-sex couple. But that opinion was a narrow ruling based on the facts of the case, only applied to Phillips and invoked strong language in favor of laws barring discrimination against LGBT people.

Now that Kennedy has announced he’ll step down, will the precedent those decisions established for gay rights and same-sex marriage in particular remain in place, or will Trump’s pick to replace him be enough for the Supreme Court to reverse course and roll back constitutional protections for gay people?

James Esseks, director of the LGBT & HIV project at the American Civil Liberties Union, once said in 2016 before Trump was elected the “chances are virtually nil” the marriage-equality decision would be reversed. With Trump in the White House and a second opportunity for him to name a Supreme Court justice, Esseks now has increased those odds ever so slightly, but still minimized them.

“I wouldn’t say they are virtually nil right now, but I also don’t think the chances are super great that Obergefell itself would be overruled,” Esseks said. “My sense at the moment is that, look, it’s absolutely part of our opponents’ objective to overturn Obergefell. They’re going to try, and depending on what it looks like, maybe they’ll have some chances there.”

Such a reversal would likely be the result of a state passing a law against same-sex marriage in defiance of Obergefell, or simply refusing to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Both of these possibilities would be increasingly politically difficult with strong support for same-sex marriage throughout the country. A recent poll from the Public Religion Research Institute found a majority of voters in 44 states support same-sex marriage.

If nonetheless a state moved to ban same-sex marriage, it would be challenged in court, giving the Supreme Court an opportunity to review the precedent.

Jocelyn Samuels, executive director of the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, said “it is, of course, a concern” Kennedy’s successor might bring a new perspective to the court on marriage, but remained optimistic.

“I am hopeful that in conjunction with stare decisis, which, of course, counsels against overruling precedent absent really compelling reasons to do so, the new court will maintain what has become an established right that is part of the fundamental constellations of protection that LGBT people need in order live full and equal lives,” Samuels said.

Trump considers his pick to replace Kennedy — a choice he said would come from a list of 25 predetermined options of conservative possibilities and would be announced Monday — about a year after he said during an interview on CBS News’ “60 Minutes” he’s “fine” with the ruling for same-sex marriage and considers the matter “settled.”

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has said Trump is “not going to talk to judges about specific cases” in deciding his pick, and another White House spokesperson dodged last week when asked if Kennedy’s successor would uphold the justice’s legacy on LGBT rights. The White House didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s request for comment on whether Trump still thinks same-sex marriage is “settled” and if that view will inform his Supreme Court pick.

Samuels said “given this administration’s hostility to LGBT rights” any nominee Trump puts forward to replace Kennedy should come under intense scrutiny.

“There is, of course, a concern that any person nominated by this administration will pursue policy and legal analysis that advances and anti-LGBT agenda, and that’s why it’s so critical to evaluate the record of any nominee that the president puts forward to evaluate whether their history of either judicial decision-making or policy determinations, or arguments before courts, reflect a willingness or a desire to roll back existing protections or reject new ones,” Samuels said.

Legal experts who spoke to the Blade said that while the marriage ruling itself will likely remain intact after Kennedy leaves the Supreme Court, opponents of LGBT rights may try to chip away at same-sex couples marriage rights, such as spousal benefits or birth certificates, even though the Obergefell ruling assured them the “constellation of benefits.”

That has already taken place: Texas Gov. James Abbott pressured the Texas Supreme Court to consider whether Houston needs to provide spousal health benefits to city employees in same-sex marriages. Despite the Obergefell decision, the Texas Supreme Court last year determined the guarantee of those benefits remained an open question. The court remanded the case to a district judge, where it remains pending.

In 2016, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled the state has no obligation to place the names of both lesbian parents on their children’s birth certificates. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that ruling on appeal in a per curiam decision, which stated Obergefell “applies with equal force” to birth certificates.

As opposed to a decision overturning Obergefell outright, Esseks said opponents of same-sex marriage will likely pursue a case similar to those lawsuits to undermine the marriage equality decision.

“What we will need to be on guard for is efforts to chip away at what it means to be married,” Esseks said. “What they may say is the government will give you the marriage license, but they may allow businesses to treat our marriages differently than straight people’s marriages, they may allow the government to treat our marriages differently than straight people’s marriages, and that could create intense inequality in many different contexts all across the country.”

With Kennedy gone, supporters of LGBT rights may begin to look to U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts to uphold same-sex marriage when challenges come to the Supreme Court, even though he was among dissenters to the marriage equality decision.

There are signs Roberts may have changed his tune, or believes the issue of same-sex marriage has been settled and he’ll adhere to precedent on the issue.

When the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled the state could refuse to place both names of lesbian parents on the birth certificate of their child despite the Obergefell ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision in a per curiam decision. Joining the dissent written by U.S. Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch was U.S. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, but Roberts wasn’t among them.

In the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, Roberts was among the seven justices who joined the majority opinion narrowly in favor of the Colorado baker. The chief justice didn’t sign any of the concurring opinions, including one written by Thomas arguing for a more expansive decision finding that Colorado’s LGBT non-discrimination law infringed upon First Amendment rights.

Amid discussion in the media Roberts will become the new centrist on the court, Samuels said she hopes he’ll “pursue the institutional integrity of the court” when he feels justices are called upon to make political, rather than legal, decisions.

“My hope would be in the same way that he committed during his confirmation hearings to just call balls and strikes, that he will carry that forward to recognize the need to respect settled precedent and to really take into account the fundamental rights that are at stake when the LGBT community is subject to discrimination or ostracism,” Samuels said.

Aside from marriage, a host of other LGBT issues could come before the Supreme Court in cases where the outcome may be in question with Kennedy gone from the court.

Much like the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, cases seeking religious exemptions to discriminate against LGBT people will likely reach the court because that decision didn’t explicitly spell out precedent on the issue. The U.S. Supreme Court recently sent back to the Washington Supreme Court a petition filed by Arlene’s Flowers in Washington State, a florist seeking to refuse service to same-sex weddings, with instructions to reconsider the case in light of the Masterpiece decision.

Esseks predicted “there will be more cases” raising questions on religious exemptions that reach the Supreme Court, but was optimistic about their outcome for LGBT people based on the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision.

“In Masterpiece, there’s a lot of very good language in the majority opinion that talks about the importance of civil rights laws, how harmful discrimination is and the stigma that it causes and talks about how unthinkable it would be for businesses to be able to put up a sign saying, ‘No Gay People Here,’ or ‘Cakes for Heterosexuals Only,’” Esseks said. “That’s not the holding of the case, but it’s strong language that six justices signed on to.”

Another potential issue for the Supreme Court is whether federal civil rights laws against sex discrimination, which include Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 for the workplace and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, apply to anti-LGBT discrimination.

Two petitions are already pending before the Supreme Court seeking an answer on whether anti-gay discrimination amounts to illegal sex discrimination under federal law. Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-LGBT legal group, is expected in August to file a petition seeking review of a U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision affirming Title VII applies to transgender people and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn’t enable employers to engage in anti-trans discrimination.

One more issue that could soon come before the Supreme Court is Trump’s transgender military ban. Although four district courts and two appellate courts have enjoined the administration from enforcing the policy as result of litigation filed by LGBT groups, those cases continue to percolate through the judiciary.

It’s hard to say when and if that issue would reach the Supreme Court because the U.S. Justice Department last year turned down an opportunity to ask justices to review preliminary injunctions against the ban. It may be years if the government waits for final decisions from these courts, very soon if the government reverses course and seeks to appeal or never if the administration abides by lower court rulings.

Any decision on the transgender military ban from the Supreme Court will come in light of its ruling in Trump v. Hawaii upholding Trump’s travel ban on Muslim majority countries. The Pentagon issued the ban after Trump announced on Twitter he’d ban transgender people from the military “in any capacity,” much like the administration enacted the travel ban — and the Supreme Court upheld it — after Trump on the campaign trail called for a “complete shutdown” on Muslims entering the United States.

Esseks said the outcome of the travel ban case is “troubling” for the prospects of the transgender military ban before the Supreme Court, but nonetheless he’s optimistic about the chances of litigation against the policy if it reached justices.

“As it stands now, it seems like the ban is so clearly based on animus toward transgender people, clearly stated by the president with no factual basis for any of the concerns he raises about trans people, in fact, a military record that goes the other way, says that there’s no problem,” Esseks said. “That’s the kind of record where I think it shouldn’t be for the court to say that that’s a problem.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

homepage news

Equality Act, contorted as a danger by anti-LGBTQ forces, is all but dead

No political willpower to force vote or reach a compromise



Despite having President Biden in the White House and Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress, efforts to update federal civil rights laws to strengthen the prohibition on discrimination against LGBTQ people by passing the Equality Act are all but dead as opponents of the measure have contorted it beyond recognition.

Political willpower is lacking to find a compromise that would be acceptable to enough Republican senators to end a filibuster on the bill — a tall order in any event — nor is there the willpower to force a vote on the Equality Act as opponents stoke fears about transgender kids in sports and not even unanimity in the Democratic caucus in favor of the bill is present, stakeholders who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity said.

In fact, there are no imminent plans to hold a vote on the legislation even though Pride month is days away, which would be an opportune time for Congress to demonstrate solidarity with the LGBTQ community by holding a vote on the legislation.

If the Equality Act were to come up for a Senate vote in the next month, it would not have the support to pass. Continued assurances that bipartisan talks are continuing on the legislation have yielded no evidence of additional support, let alone the 10 Republicans needed to end a filibuster.

“I haven’t really heard an update either way, which is usually not good,” one Democratic insider said. “My understanding is that our side was entrenched in a no-compromise mindset and with [Sen. Joe] Manchin saying he didn’t like the bill, it doomed it this Congress. And the bullying of hundreds of trans athletes derailed our message and our arguments of why it was broadly needed.”

The only thing keeping the final nail from being hammered into the Equality Act’s coffin is the unwillingness of its supporters to admit defeat. Other stakeholders who spoke to the Blade continued to assert bipartisan talks are ongoing, strongly pushing back on any conclusion the legislation is dead.

Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the Equality Act is “alive and well,” citing widespread public support he said includes “the majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents and a growing number of communities across the country engaging and mobilizing every day in support of the legislation.”

“They understand the urgent need to pass this bill and stand up for LGBTQ people across our country,” David added. “As we engage with elected officials, we have confidence that Congress will listen to the voices of their constituents and continue fighting for the Equality Act through the lengthy legislative process.  We will also continue our unprecedented campaign to grow the already-high public support for a popular bill that will save lives and make our country fairer and more equal for all. We will not stop until the Equality Act is passed.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), chief sponsor of the Equality Act in the Senate, also signaled through a spokesperson work continues on the legislation, refusing to give up on expectations the legislation would soon become law.

“Sen. Merkley and his staff are in active discussions with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to get this done,” McLennan said. “We definitely see it as a key priority that we expect to become law.”

A spokesperson Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who had promised to force a vote on the Equality Act in the Senate on the day the U.S. House approved it earlier this year, pointed to a March 25 “Dear Colleague” letter in which he identified the Equality Act as one of several bills he’d bring up for a vote.

Despite any assurances, the hold up on the bill is apparent. Although the U.S. House approved the legislation earlier this year, the Senate Judiciary Committee hasn’t even reported out the bill yet to the floor in the aftermath of the first-ever Senate hearing on the bill in March. A Senate Judiciary Committee Democratic aide, however, disputed that inaction as evidence the Equality Act is dead in its tracks: “Bipartisan efforts on a path forward are ongoing.”

Democrats are quick to blame Republicans for inaction on the Equality Act, but with Manchin withholding his support for the legislation they can’t even count on the entirety of their caucus to vote “yes” if it came to the floor. Progressives continue to advocate an end to the filibuster to advance legislation Biden has promised as part of his agenda, but even if they were to overcome headwinds and dismantle the institution needing 60 votes to advance legislation, the Equality Act would likely not have majority support to win approval in the Senate with a 50-50 party split.

The office of Manchin, who has previously said he couldn’t support the Equality Act over concerns about public schools having to implement the transgender protections applying to sports and bathrooms, hasn’t responded to multiple requests this year from the Blade on the legislation and didn’t respond to a request to comment for this article.

Meanwhile, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who declined to co-sponsor the Equality Act this year after having signed onto the legislation in the previous Congress, insisted through a spokesperson talks are still happening across the aisle despite the appearances the legislation is dead.

“There continues to be bipartisan support for passing a law that protects the civil rights of Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Annie Clark, a Collins spokesperson. “The Equality Act was a starting point for negotiations, and in its current form, it cannot pass. That’s why there are ongoing discussions among senators and stakeholders about a path forward.”

Let’s face it: Anti-LGBTQ forces have railroaded the debate by making the Equality Act about an end to women’s sports by allowing transgender athletes and danger to women in sex-segregated places like bathrooms and prisons. That doesn’t even get into resolving the issue on drawing the line between civil rights for LGBTQ people and religious freedom, which continues to be litigated in the courts as the U.S. Supreme Court is expected any day now to issue a ruling in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia to determine if foster care agencies can reject same-sex couples over religious objections.

For transgender Americans, who continue to report discrimination and violence at high rates, the absence of the Equality Act may be most keenly felt.

Mara Keisling, outgoing executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, disputed any notion the Equality Act is dead and insisted the legislation is “very much alive.”

“We remain optimistic despite misinformation from the opposition,” Keisling said. “NCTE and our movement partners are still working fruitfully on the Equality Act with senators. In fact, we are gaining momentum with all the field organizing we’re doing, like phone banking constituents to call their senators. Legislating takes time. Nothing ever gets through Congress quickly. We expect to see a vote during this Congress, and we are hopeful we can win.”

But one Democratic source said calls to members of Congress against the Equality Act, apparently coordinated by groups like the Heritage Foundation, have has outnumbered calls in favor of it by a substantial margin, with a particular emphasis on Manchin.

No stories are present in the media about same-sex couples being kicked out of a restaurant for holding hands or transgender people for using the restroom consistent with their gender identity, which would be perfectly legal in 25 states thanks to the patchwork of civil rights laws throughout the United States and inadequate protections under federal law.

Tyler Deaton, senior adviser for the American Unity Fund, which has bolstered the Republican-led Fairness for All Act as an alternative to the Equality Act, said he continues to believe the votes are present for a compromise form of the bill.

“I know for a fact there is a supermajority level of support in the Senate for a version of the Equality Act that is fully protective of both LGBTQ civil rights and religious freedom,” Deaton said. “There is interest on both sides of the aisle in getting something done this Congress.”

Deaton, however, didn’t respond to a follow-up inquiry on what evidence exists of agreeing on this compromise.

Biden has already missed the goal he campaigned on in the 2020 election to sign the Equality Act into law within his first 100 days in office. Although Biden renewed his call to pass the legislation in his speech to Congress last month, as things stand now that appears to be a goal he won’t realize for the remainder of this Congress.

Nor has the Biden administration made the Equality Act an issue for top officials within the administration as it pushes for an infrastructure package as a top priority. One Democratic insider said Louisa Terrell, legislative affairs director for the White House, delegated work on the Equality Act to a deputy as opposed to handling it herself.

To be sure, Biden has demonstrated support for the LGBTQ community through executive action at an unprecedented rate, signing an executive order on day one ordering federal agencies to implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year in Bostock v. Clayton County to the fullest extent possible and dismantling former President Trump’s transgender military ban. Biden also made historic LGBTQ appointments with the confirmation of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Rachel Levine as assistant secretary of health.

A White House spokesperson insisted Biden’s team across the board remains committed to the Equality Act, pointing to his remarks to Congress.

“President Biden has urged Congress to get the Equality Act to his desk so he can sign it into law and provide long overdue civil rights protections to LGBTQ+ Americans, and he remains committed to seeing this legislation passed as quickly as possible,” the spokesperson said. “The White House and its entire legislative team remains in ongoing and close coordination with organizations, leaders, members of Congress, including the Equality Caucus, and staff to ensure we are working across the aisle to push the Equality Act forward.”

But at least in the near-term, that progress will fall short of fulfilling the promise of updating federal civil rights law with the Equality Act, which will mean LGBTQ people won’t be able to rely on those protections when faced with discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Continue Reading

homepage news

D.C. bill to ban LGBTQ panic defense delayed by Capitol security

Delivery of bill to Congress was held up due to protocols related to Jan. 6 riots



New fencing around the Capitol following the Jan. 6 insurrection prevented some D.C. bills from being delivered to the Hill for a required congressional review. (Blade file photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A bill approved unanimously last December by the D.C. Council to ban the so-called LGBTQ panic defense has been delayed from taking effect as a city law because the fence installed around the U.S. Capitol following the Jan. 6 insurrection prevented the law from being delivered to Congress.

According to Eric Salmi, communications director for D.C. Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), who guided the bill through the Council’s legislative process, all bills approved by the Council and signed by the D.C. mayor must be hand-delivered to Congress for a required congressional review.

“What happened was when the Capitol fence went up after the January insurrection, it created an issue where we physically could not deliver laws to Congress per the congressional review period,” Salmi told the Washington Blade.

Among the bills that could not immediately be delivered to Congress was the Bella Evangelista and Tony Hunter Panic Defense Prohibition and Hate Crimes Response Amendment Act of 2020, which was approved by the Council on a second and final vote on Dec. 15.

Between the time the bill was signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser and published in the D.C. Register under procedural requirements for all bills, it was not ready to be transmitted to Congress until Feb. 16, the Council’s legislative record for the bill shows.

Salmi said the impasse in delivering the bill to Congress due to the security fence prevented the bill from reaching Congress on that date and prevented the mandatory 60-day congressional review period for this bill from beginning at that time. He noted that most bills require a 30 legislative day review by Congress.

But the Evangelista-Hunter bill, named after a transgender woman and a gay man who died in violent attacks by perpetrators who attempted to use the trans and gay panic defense, includes a law enforcement related provision that under the city’s Home Rule Charter passed by Congress in the early 1970s requires a 60-day congressional review.

“There is a chance it goes into effect any day now, just given the timeline is close to being up,” Salmi said on Tuesday. “I don’t know the exact date it was delivered, but I do know the countdown is on,” said Salmi, who added, “I would expect any day now it should go into effect and there’s nothing stopping it other than an insurrection in January.”

If the delivery to Congress had not been delayed, the D.C. Council’s legislative office estimated the congressional review would have been completed by May 12.

A congressional source who spoke on condition of being identified only as a senior Democratic aide, said the holdup of D.C. bills because of the Capitol fence has been corrected.

“The House found an immediate workaround, when this issue first arose after the Jan. 6 insurrection,” the aide said.

“This is yet another reason why D.C. Council bills should not be subject to a congressional review period and why we need to grant D.C. statehood,” the aide said.

The aide added that while no disapproval resolution had been introduced in Congress to overturn the D.C. Evangelista-Hunter bill, House Democrats would have defeated such a resolution.

“House Democrats support D.C. home rule, statehood, and LGBTQ rights,” said the aide.

LGBTQ rights advocates have argued that a ban on using a gay or transgender panic defense in criminal trials is needed to prevent defense attorneys from inappropriately asking juries to find that a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression is to blame for a defendant’s criminal act, including murder.

Some attorneys have argued that their clients “panicked” after discovering the person against whom they committed a violent crime was gay or transgender, prompting them to act in a way they believed to be a form of self-defense.

In addition to its provision banning the LGBTQ panic defense, the Evangelista-Hunter bill includes a separate provision that strengthens the city’s existing hate crimes law by clarifying that hatred need not be the sole motivating factor for an underlying crime such as assault, murder, or threats to be prosecuted as a hate crime.

LGBTQ supportive prosecutors have said the clarification was needed because it is often difficult to prove to a jury that hatred is the only motive behind a violent crime. The prosecutors noted that juries have found defendants not guilty of committing a hate crime on grounds that they believed other motives were involved in a particular crime after defense lawyers argued that the law required “hate” to be the only motive in order to find someone guilty of a hate crime.

Salmi noted that while the hate crime clarification and panic defense prohibition provisions of the Evangelista-Hunter bill will become law as soon as the congressional review is completed, yet another provision in the bill will not become law after the congressional review because there are insufficient funds in the D.C. budget to cover the costs of implementing the provision.

The provision gives the D.C. Office of Human Rights and the Office of the D.C. Attorney General authority to investigate hate related discrimination at places of public accommodation. Salmi said the provision expands protections against discrimination to include web-based retailers or online delivery services that are not physically located in D.C.

“That is subject to appropriations,” Salmi said. “And until it is funded in the upcoming budget it cannot be legally enforced.”

He said that at Council member Allen’s request, the Council added language to the bill that ensures that all other provisions of the legislation that do not require additional funding – including the ban on use of the LGBTQ panic defense and the provision clarifying that hatred doesn’t have to be the sole motive for a hate crime – will take effect as soon as the congressional approval process is completed.

Continue Reading

homepage news

D.C. man charged with 2020 anti-gay death threat rearrested

Defendant implicated in three anti-LGBTQ incidents since 2011



shooting, DC Eagle, assault, hate crime, anti-gay attack, police discrimination, sex police, Sisson, gay news, Washington Blade

A D.C. man arrested in August 2020 for allegedly threatening to kill a gay man outside the victim’s apartment in the city’s Adams Morgan neighborhood and who was released while awaiting trial was arrested again two weeks ago for allegedly threatening to kill another man in an unrelated incident.

D.C. Superior Court records show that Jalal Malki, who was 37 at the time of his 2020 arrest on a charge of bias-related attempts to do bodily harm against the gay man, was charged on May 4, 2021 with unlawful entry, simple assault, threats to kidnap and injure a person, and attempted possession of a prohibited weapon against the owner of a vacant house at 4412 Georgia Ave., N.W.

Court charging documents state that Malki was allegedly staying at the house without permission as a squatter. An arrest affidavit filed in court by D.C. police says Malki allegedly threatened to kill the man who owns the house shortly after the man arrived at the house while Malki was inside.

According to the affidavit, Malki walked up to the owner of the house while the owner was sitting in his car after having called police and told him, “If you come back here, I’m going to kill you.” While making that threat Malki displayed what appeared to be a gun in his waistband, but which was later found to be a toy gun, the affidavit says.

Malki then walked back inside the house minutes before police arrived and arrested him. Court records show that similar to the court proceedings following his 2020 arrest for threatening the gay man, a judge in the latest case ordered Malki released while awaiting trial. In both cases, the judge ordered him to stay away from the two men he allegedly threatened to kill.

An arrest affidavit filed by D.C. police in the 2020 case states that Malki allegedly made the threats inside an apartment building where the victim lived on the 2300 block of Champlain Street, N.W. It says Malki was living in a nearby building but often visited the building where the victim lived.

“Victim 1 continued to state during an interview that it was not the first time that Defendant 1 had made threats to him, but this time Defendant 1 stated that if he caught him outside, he would ‘fucking kill him.’” the affidavit says. It quotes the victim as saying during this time Malki repeatedly called the victim a “fucking faggot.”

The affidavit, prepared by the arresting officers, says that after the officers arrested Malki and were leading him to a police transport vehicle to be booked for the arrest, he expressed an “excited utterance” that he was “in disbelief that officers sided with the ‘fucking faggot.’”

Court records show that Malki is scheduled to appear in court on June 4 for a status hearing for both the 2020 arrest and the arrest two weeks ago for allegedly threatening to kill the owner of the house in which police say he was illegally squatting.

Superior Court records show that Malki had been arrested three times between 2011 and 2015 in cases unrelated to the 2021 and 2020 cases for allegedly also making threats of violence against people. Two of the cases appear to be LGBTQ related, but prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not list the cases as hate crimes.

In the first of the three cases, filed in July 2011, Malki allegedly shoved a man inside Dupont Circle and threatened to kill him after asking the man why he was wearing a purple shirt.

“Victim 1 believes the assault occurred because Suspect 1 believes Victim 1 is a homosexual,” the police arrest affidavit says.

Court records show prosecutors charged Malki with simple assault and threats to do bodily harm in the case. But the court records show that on Sept. 13, 2011, D.C. Superior Court Judge Stephen F. Eilperin found Malki not guilty on both charges following a non-jury trial.

The online court records do not state why the judge rendered a not guilty verdict. With the courthouse currently closed to the public and the press due to COVID-related restrictions, the Washington Blade couldn’t immediately obtain the records to determine the judge’s reason for the verdict.

In the second case, court records show Malki was arrested by D.C. police outside the Townhouse Tavern bar and restaurant at 1637 R St., N.W. on Nov. 7, 2012 for allegedly threatening one or more people with a knife after employees ordered Malki to leave the establishment for “disorderly behavior.”

At the time, the Townhouse Tavern was located next door to the gay nightclub Cobalt, which before going out of business two years ago, was located at the corner of 17th and R Streets, N.W.

The police arrest affidavit in the case says Malki allegedly pointed a knife in a threatening way at two of the tavern’s employees who blocked his path when he attempted to re-enter the tavern. The affidavit says he was initially charged by D.C. police with assault with a dangerous weapon – knife. Court records, however, show that prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office lowered the charges to two counts of simple assault. The records show that on Jan. 15, 2013, Malki pleaded guilty to the two charges as part of a plea bargain arrangement.

The records show that Judge Marissa Demeo on that same day issued a sentence of 30 days for each of the two charges but suspended all 30 days for both counts. She then sentenced Malki to one year of supervised probation for both charges and ordered that he undergo alcohol and drug testing and undergo treatment if appropriate.

In the third case prior to the 2020 and 2021 cases, court records show Malki was arrested outside the Cobalt gay nightclub on March 14, 2015 on multiple counts of simple assault, attempted assault with a dangerous weapon – knife, possession of a prohibited weapon – knife, and unlawful entry.

The arrest affidavit says an altercation started on the sidewalk outside the bar when for unknown reasons, Malki grabbed a female customer who was outside smoking and attempted to pull her toward him. When her female friend came to her aid, Malki allegedly got “aggressive” by threatening the woman and “removed what appeared to be a knife from an unknown location” and pointed it at the woman’s friend in a threatening way, the affidavit says.

It says a Cobalt employee minutes later ordered Malki to leave the area and he appeared to do so. But others noticed that he walked toward another entrance door to Cobalt and attempted to enter the establishment knowing he had been ordered not to return because of previous problems with his behavior, the affidavit says. When he attempted to push away another employee to force his way into Cobalt, Malki fell to the ground during a scuffle and other employees held him on the ground while someone else called D.C. police.

Court records show that similar to all of Malki’s arrests, a judge released him while awaiting trial and ordered him to stay away from Cobalt and all of those he was charged with threatening and assaulting.

The records show that on Sept. 18, 2015, Malki agreed to a plea bargain offer by prosecutors in which all except two of the charges – attempted possession of a prohibited weapon and simple assault – were dropped. Judge Alfred S. Irving Jr. on Oct. 2, 2015 sentenced Malki to 60 days of incarnation for each of the two charges but suspended all but five days, which he allowed Malki to serve on weekends, the court records show.

The judge ordered that the two five-day jail terms could be served concurrently, meaning just five days total would be served, according to court records. The records also show that Judge Irving sentenced Malki to one year of supervised probation for each of the two counts and ordered that he enter an alcohol treatment program and stay away from Cobalt.

Continue Reading

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts