National
Latest ruling could give Supreme Court crack at trans military ban
Trump administration barred from enforcing its discriminatory policy
The Supreme Court may get another crack at the transgender military ban after the latest court decision against it.
A federal appeals court has reaffirmed its decision to keep in place an injunction barring the Trump administration from enforcing its transgender military ban, setting the stage for an initial review of the policy at the U.S. Supreme Court before U.S. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy steps down.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied on Wednesday the U.S. Justice Department’s request to dissolve a preliminary injunction against the ban, which the administration made in the aftermath of Defense Secretary James Mattis’ report justifying President Trump’s policy
The Ninth Circuit had previously denied the Trump administration’s request to dissolve the injunction instituted by U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman, but the Justice Department made another attempt after Mattis delivered his report to Trump in May. The administration has maintained Mattis’ recommendations justify the transgender military ban, although transgender advocates say the recommendation is filled with junk science.
But in a two-page decision, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit rebuffed the Trump administration’s request to dissolve the stay, determining a reversal of the injunction would alter the status quo as litigation against the ban proceeds through the courts.
“The district court’s December 11, 2017 preliminary injunction preserves the status quo, allowing transgender service members to serve in the military in their preferred gender and receive transition-related care,” the decision says. “Appellants ask this court to stay the preliminary injunction, pending the outcome of this appeal, in order to implement a new policy. Accordingly, a stay of the preliminary injunction would upend, rather than preserve, the status quo.”
LGBT rights groups that filed the lawsuit hailed the decision as an affirmation of transgender people serving in the military and as a blow to the Trump administration. The ruling marked the second time the Ninth Circuit rebuffed the administration on the transgender military service ban, leaving the tally of eight rulings from six courts in favor of halting the policy.
The lawsuit, Karnoski v. Trump, was filed by Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN on behalf of nine transgender people – six current service members and three wishing to serve – as well as three organizational plaintiffs: the Human Rights Campaign, the Seattle-based Gender Justice League, and the American Military Partner Association.
Sarah McBride, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said as a result of the decision “another court has held off Donald Trump and Mike Pence’s desperate attempts to impose their extreme anti-LGBTQ agenda on the U.S. military.”
“After a string of victories for transgender troops and enlistees at the district court level, this appeals court ruling reinforces that there is simply no need or legitimate reason to bar capable and willing transgender Americans from serving their country,” McBride added.
But the ruling from the Ninth Circuit presents the Trump administration with an opportunity — yet again — to take up the issue with the Supreme Court.
The Justice Department could file a request to stay the injunction with Kennedy, who’s responsible for issuing stays on decisions from the Ninth Circuit. Kennedy could decide the matter himself, but would likely refer the matter to the entire court for a determination.
Although Kennedy has signaled he’ll retire from the court, his departure won’t happen until the end of this month, which means he’d have an opportunity to weigh in on the matter before stepping down. It will potentially be his last decision from the bench and his last LGBT case after writing the decisions in four milestone gay rights cases after 30 years on the court.
Jon Davidson, chief counsel at Freedom for All Americans, said if the Justice Department were to file a stay request before the Supreme Court, the administration “likely will file such a motion before the end of this week.”
“I think that, assuming the Court considers any such stay request before July 31st, Justice Kennedy might well join Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan in denying the request (which would mean a stay request would be denied), based on his views about the harms of the government denying individuals ‘equal dignity’ and because the Karnoski case is just one of four in which district courts have enjoined the transgender military ban,” Davidson said. “If the court does not consider a stay request until August, it may be hard for DOJ to get five votes in favor of a stay (which would require at least one of Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor or Kagan to vote in favor of a stay).”
If the Justice Department were to ask the Supreme Court for a stay, it would be a reversal of its earlier position on litigation against the transgender military ban.
After the Ninth Circuit’s earlier rebuff last year of the administration on the policy, the Justice Department declared in December it wouldn’t go to the Supreme Court right away, but “wait for DOD’s study and will continue to defend the president’s and secretary of defense’s lawful authority in district court in the meantime.”
Things have changed now because the Pentagon study the Justice Department expected has come out. Nonetheless, the Trump administration is staying mum on its plans.
A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment in response to the Washington Blade’s question on whether the administration would file a stay request before the Supreme Court.
Peter Renn, senior attorney with the Western Regional Office at Lambda Legal, affirmed the Trump administration “could seek a stay of the preliminary injunction” with the Supreme Court, but said chances for a stay are low.
“If the government does seek a stay, and the request is referred to the full Supreme Court, it is unlikely that a majority of the Supreme Court would allow the government to immediately enforce its discriminatory plan,” Renn said. “If there is a vote on a stay by the end of this month, it is difficult to imagine that Justice Kennedy will want to cap off his tenure on the court by allowing the military to toss aside transgender people, and their sacrifices for our country, as if they were disposable.”
State Department
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
April 20 memo outlined anti-transgender rule
Democracy Forward on Tuesday filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records on the State Department’s new bathroom policy.
A memo titled “Updates Regarding Biological Sex and Intimate Spaces, Including Restrooms” that the State Department issued on April 20 notes employees can no longer use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.
“The administration affirms that there are two sexes — male and female — and that federal facilities should operate on this objective and longstanding basis to ensure consistency, privacy, and safety in shared spaces,” State Department spokesperson Tommy Piggot told the Daily Signal, a conservative news website that first reported on the memo. “In line with President Trump’s executive order this provides clear, uniform guidance to the department by grounding policy in biological sex as determined at birth.”
President Donald Trump shortly after he took office in January 2025 issued an executive order that directed the federal government to only recognize two genders: male and female. The sweeping directive also ordered federal government agencies to “effectuate this policy by taking appropriate action to ensure that intimate spaces designated for women, girls, or females (or for men, boys, or males) are designated by sex and not identity.”
Democracy Forward’s FOIA request that the Washington Blade exclusively obtained on Tuesday is specifically seeking a copy of the memo that details the State Department’s new bathroom policy. Democracy Forward has also requested “all” memo-specific communications between the State Department’s Bureau of Global Public Affairs and the Daily Signal from April 1-21.
Federal Government
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
Measures would restrict federal funding for LGBTQ-affirming schools
Republicans have been gaining ground in reshaping education policy to be less inclusive toward LGBTQ students at the state level, and now they are turning their focus to Capitol Hill.
Some GOP lawmakers are pushing for a nationwide “Don’t Say Gay” bill, doubling down on their commitment to being the party of “traditional family values” by excluding anyone who does not identify with their sex at birth.
The largest anti-LGBTQ education legislation to reach the House chamber is House Bill 2616 — the Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their Kids Act, or the PROTECT Kids Act. The PROTECT Kids Act, proposed by U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), and co-sponsored by U.S. Reps. Burgess Owens (R-Utah), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Robert Onder (R-Mo.), and Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.), would require any public elementary and middle schools that receive federal funding to require parental consent to change a child’s gender expression in school.
The bill, which was discussed during Tuesday’s House Rules Committee hearing, would specifically require any schools that get federal money from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 — which was created to minimize financial discrepancies in education for low-income students — to get parental approval before identifying any child’s gender identity as anything other than what was provided to the school initially. This includes getting approval before allowing children to use their preferred locker room or bathroom.
It reads that any school receiving this funding “shall obtain parental consent before changing a covered student’s (1) gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form; or (2) sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.”
LGBTQ rights advocates have criticized both national and state efforts to require parental permission to use a child’s preferred gender identity, as it raises issues of at-home safety — especially if the home is not LGBTQ-affirming — and could lead to the outing of transgender or gender-curious students.
A follow-up bill, HB 2617, proposed by Owens, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, prevents the use of federal funding to “advance concepts related to gender ideology,” using the definition from President Donald Trump’s 2025 Executive Order 14168, making that an enshrined definition in law of sex rather than just by executive order. There is also a bill making its way through the senate with the same text— Senate Bill 2251.
Advocates have also criticized this follow-up legislation, as it would restrict school staff — including teachers and counselors — from acknowledging trans students’ identities or providing any support. They have said that this kind of isolation can worsen mental health outcomes for LGBTQ youth and allows for education to be politicized rather than being based in reality.
David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of government affairs, called this legislation out for using LGBTQ children as political pawns in an ideology fight — one that could greatly harm the safety of these children if passed.
“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy said in a statement. “Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people. H.R. 2616 does not protect children. It targets them. This bill is cruel, and we’re prepared to fight it.”
This is similar to Florida House Bills 1557 and 1069, referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and “Don’t Say They” bill, respectively, restricting classroom discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity, prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with one’s gender identity, expanding book banning procedures, and censoring health curriculum.
The American Civil Liberties Union is tracking 233 bills related to restricting student and educator rights in the U.S.
National
BREAKING NEWS: Shots fired at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner
Shooter reportedly opened fire inside hotel
Four loud bangs were heard in the International Ballroom of the Washington Hilton during the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday.
According to the Associated Press, a shooter opened fire inside the hotel outside the ballroom.
Attendees could hear four loud bangs as people started to duck and take cover. During the chaos sounds of salad and glasses were dropped as hotel employees, and guests ducked for cover.
The head table — which included President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, first lady Melania Trump, and White House Correspondents Association President Weijia Jiang — were rushed off stage.
“The U.S. Secret Service, in coordination with the Metropolitan Police Department, is investigating a shooting incident near the main magnetometer screening area at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner,” the U.S. Secret Service said in a statement. “The president and the First Lady are safe along all protects. One individual is in custody. The condition of those involved is not yet known, and law enforcement is actively assessing the situation.”
Trump held a press conference at the White House after he left the hotel.
“A man charged a security checkpoint armed with multiple weapons and he was taken down by some very brave members of Secret Service,” said Trump.
Trump said the shooter is from California. He also said an officer was shot, but said his bullet proof vest “saved” him.
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, interim D.C. police chief Jeffrey Carroll, U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro, and other officials held their own press conference at the hotel.
Carroll said the gunman who has been identified as Cole Tomas Allen was armed with a shotgun, handgun, and “multiple” knives when he charged a Secret Service checkpoint in a hotel lobby. Carroll also told reporters that law enforcement “exchanged gunfire with that individual.”
Both he and Bowser said the gunman appeared to act alone.
“We are so very thankful to members of law enforcement who did their jobs tonight and made sure all guests were safe,” said Bowser. “Nobody else was involved.”
The Washington Blade will update this story as details become more available.
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
Botswana repeals colonial-era sodomy law
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
Madonna makes rare club appearance in West Hollywood
Adoption under suspicion
Why we need to recognize and celebrate Lesbian Day of Visibility
Calendar: April 24-30
DC Center marks one year at new location
