National
Catholic adoption agency refusing to certify LGBT homes wins in court
Michigan non-profit sued after state required non-discrimination
A federal judge has in ruled in favor of a taxpayer-funded Catholic adoption agency in Michigan refusing to certify LGBT couples as qualified to take children into their homes.
U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker, a George W. Bush appointee, issued a preliminary injunction Thursday in favor of St. Vincent, a faith-based non-profit based in Lansing, Mich., concluding the state is targeting the agency for its religious beliefs.
“This case is not about whether same-sex couples can be great parents,” Jonker writes. “They can. No one in the case contests that. To the contrary, St. Vincent has placed children for adoption with same-sex couples certified by the State. What this case is about is whether St. Vincent may continue to do this work and still profess and promote the traditional Catholic belief that marriage as ordained by God is for one man and one woman.”
The case was filed in April after a settlement was reached in a separate case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenging Michigan’s religious freedom adoption law, which allowed faith-based to turn away LGBT families seeking to adopt. Under the settlement, Michigan adoption agencies going forward were prohibited from discriminating against LGBT couples.
Shortly afterward, the Michigan Department of Health & Human Services opened an investigation into St. Vincent under allegations wasn’t complying with the settlement’s non-discrimination terms. Anticipating it would be found out of compliance, St. Vincent preemptively filed the lawsuit seeking an injunction to continue to certify families for child placement consistent with its religious beliefs.
St. Vincent made the case Michigan is violating freedom of religion and speech under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by threatening to penalize the agency for refusing to certify LGBT families.
Jonker grants his preliminary injunction to St. Vincent on the basis that the agency has demonstrated harm imposed by the settlement and the likelihood of success in court.
“St. Vincent says it cannot in good conscience review and certify an unmarried or same-sex parental application,” Jonker writes. “St. Vincent would either have to recommend denial of all such applications, no matter how much value they could provide to foster and adoptive children; or St. Vincent would have to subordinate its religious beliefs to the state-mandated orthodoxy, even though the state is not compensating them for the review services anyway.”
Making the case St. Vincent isn’t anti-LGBT, Jonker writes St. Vincent’s “does not prevent any couples, same-sex or otherwise, from fostering or adopting.” The agency, Jonker writes, refers LGBT and unmarried couples seeking certify to adopt to other agencies willing to provide that endorsement.
LGBT couples, Jonker writes, can also adopt children at St. Vincent through the Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange (MARE) website, which allows all Michigan families access to all children adoption agencies (so long as they obtained certification at an agency other than St. Vincent).
“St. Vincent has never prevented a same-sex couple from fostering or adopting a child. St. Vincent has actually placed children through the MARE system with same-sex adoptive parents,” Jonker writes. “And St. Vincent provides parenting support groups at which same-sex parents are welcome and, in fact, attend. This is non-discriminatory conduct consistent with everything the State says it is trying to promote.”
Heavily cited by Jonker is the decision of Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a lesbian, to no longer defend in litigation the state’s religious freedom adoption signed ged by former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder.
As the law was being challenged in court during the 2018 election, Nessel campaigned on refusing to defend the law, asserting she “could not justify using the state’s money” to defend “a law whose only purpose is discriminatory animus.” Upon winning the election, Nessel helped reached the settlement for non-discrimination in Michigan adoption agencies.
Jonker writes the record demonstrates Nessel is targeting St. Vincent’s for its religious beliefs, therefore strict scrutiny applies, to the state’s enforcement of the settlement.
“Under the Attorney General’s current interpretation of Michigan law and the parties’ contracts, St. Vincent must choose between its traditional religious belief, and the privilege of continuing to place children with foster and adoptive parents of all types,” Jonker writes.
The Washington Blade has placed a request in with the Michigan attorney general’s office seeking comment on the decision.
Representing St. Vincent’s in the case was the Becket for Religious Liberty, which has defended groups like Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor.
Lori Windham, a religious liberty attorney with Becket, hailed the decision on Twitter as a “major victory for faith-based foster care and adoption in Michigan.”
“Thanks to the ruling, St. Vincent will be able to continue serving foster children in Michigan and their selfless foster families,” Windham tweeted. “More than 13,000 foster kids in Michigan need help, and we need all hands on deck.”
Jay Kaplan, LGBT Project staff attorney of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, criticized the decision as “the individual religious beliefs of foster care agencies ahead of the welfare of children.”
“This will not facilitate foster and adoptive placements for children in need,” Kaplan said. “Instead, it will allow agencies to turn away same-sex foster parents who are able to provide supportive and loving homes for these children.”
Although the ruling is focused on family certification at St. Vincent, Kaplan told the Blade the decision will have broader impact on LGBT people in Michigan.
“The reality is…St. Vincent will place kids in homes of families that they work with and if they have refused to work with same-sex couples, that means the kids that they are placing will not be placed in LGBT homes,” Kaplan said. “I think this ruling could be broadly interpreted because its impact on kids and their ability to get placed with LGBT parents who are able to provide them with stable, loving homes.”
Another defendant in the case is the Department of Health & Human Services, which has under the Obama administration instituted regulations prohibiting federal contractors discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. (The Trump administration has kept the regulations — for now — but has granted at least one waiver to states seeking exemption for faith-based adoption agencies.)
Jonker’s decision also enjoins the U.S. government from enforcing its regulations to penalize St. Vincent. A Justice Department spokesperson said the administration is “reviewing the decision.”
Also in the decision, Jonker finds other named plaintiffs in the case — Chad and Melissa Buck, who have adopted four siblings through St. Vincent and work at the agency, and Shamber Flore — who was placed in the agency as a child before she was adopted — don’t have standing to continue in the case.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
The White House
Trump travels to Middle East countries with death penalty for homosexuality
President traveled to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates
Homosexuality remains punishable by death in two of the three Middle East countries that President Donald Trump visited last week.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are among the handful of countries in which anyone found guilty of engaging in consensual same-sex sexual relations could face the death penalty.
Trump was in Saudi Arabia from May 13-14. He traveled to Qatar on May 14.
“The law prohibited consensual same-sex sexual conduct between men but did not explicitly prohibit same-sex sexual relations between women,” notes the State Department’s 2023 human rights report, referring specifically to Qatar’s criminalization law. “The law was not systematically enforced. A man convicted of having consensual same-sex sexual relations could receive a sentence of seven years in prison. Under sharia, homosexuality was punishable by death; there were no reports of executions for this reason.”
Trump on May 15 arrived in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.
The State Department’s 2023 human rights report notes the “penalty for individuals who engaged in ‘consensual sodomy with a man'” in the country “was a minimum prison sentence of six months if the individual’s partner or guardian filed a complaint.”
“There were no known reports of arrests or prosecutions for consensual same-sex sexual conduct. LGBTQI+ identity, real or perceived, could be deemed an act against ‘decency or public morality,’ but there were no reports during the year of persons prosecuted under these provisions,” reads the report.
The report notes Emirati law also criminalizes “men who dressed as women or entered a place designated for women while ‘disguised’ as a woman.” Anyone found guilty could face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 dirhams ($2,722.60.)
Trump returned to the U.S. on May 16.
The White House notes Trump during the trip secured more than $2 trillion “in investment agreements with Middle Eastern nations ($200 billion with the United Arab Emirates, $600 billion with Saudi Arabia, and $1.2 trillion with Qatar) for a more safe and prosperous future.”
Former President Joe Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2022.
Saudi Arabia is scheduled to host the 2034 World Cup. The 2022 World Cup took place in Qatar.
Let love and compassion guide our response to Joe Biden’s cancer diagnosis
D.C. Black Pride 2025: Events, parties, and empowerment
Cuban lawmakers to consider simplifying process for trans people to change IDs
Frank Kameny’s legacy lives on
