Connect with us

Opinions

Supreme Court poised to roll back LGBTQ rights

Rebalance stolen court via expansion, term limits

Published

on

LGBTQ advocates were rightly relieved when the Supreme Court handed down Bostock v. Clayton County this past June, a case that extended the prohibition against discrimination in employment to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. And with the most LGBTQ-friendly President-elect in U.S. history poised to take office in a matter of days, our community has even more reason to be hopeful.

Despite these positive developments, however, the Supreme Court poses a grave danger to the LGBTQ community. As the court ushers in a new era of conservative dominance—with anti-LGBTQ justices holding a 6-3 supermajority—the fragile judicial coalition on which the movement for equality has relied is at significant risk of being cast aside. 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s recent confirmation to the court is deeply concerning. Justice Barrett has defended Justice Roberts’ dissent in Obergefell, indicating that the issue of marriage equality should belong to state legislatures. She has repeatedly used transphobic and homophobic language, and even argued that Title IX does not protect transgender people. Her extremist positions will embolden the anti-LGBTQ conservative justices on the court – Justices Kavanaugh and Alito recently held an inappropriate private meeting with an anti-gay activist who had filed briefs in pending cases — and other Trump-appointed judges, as well as state legislatures to take anti-LGBTQ stances. With equality hanging in the balance, the LGBTQ community cannot afford a Supreme Court that stands to crush any progress made.

Marriage equality: In October, the Supreme Court denied certiorari to a case involving Kentucky woman Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, the denial of certiorari came with warning signs: Justices Alito and Thomas wrote a section that cast doubt on the constitutionality of Obergefell, the landmark Supreme Court case in which Justice Kennedy’s opinion that held that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed to same-sex couples by the Constitution. In the certiorari denial, Justice Thomas wrote: “By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ‘ruinous consequences for religious liberty.’” While broad majorities of the American people support marriage equality and opponents of it might not have the votes on the Supreme Court to overturn the precedent, it is nonetheless a troubling sign that two Justices would sign onto discrimination against our fellow citizens.

Discrimination: The currently pending case before the Supreme Court about discrimination is Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. The case emerged from circumstances in 2018: The city of Philadelphia had hired a number of agencies for foster care service. When the city learned that two agencies denied same-sex couples as foster parents, Philadelphia threatened to stop using the agencies unless they agreed to nondiscrimination requirements. While one of the agencies complied, the other, the Catholic Social Services (“CSS”), sued the city in federal district court. The federal district court found in Philadelphia’s favor, which the Third Circuit then unanimously affirmed. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The CSS claims that because the city looks to several factors, including religious and racial factors, in spite of anti-discrimination law, it cannot at the same time prohibit the agency from considering the sexual orientation of foster parents under the guise of “religious belief.” If Philadelphia makes exceptions to its anti-discrimination laws in foster placement, it must also allow religious agencies an exception as well. If Philadelphia does not do so, it violates the First Amendment. The city claims that it can choose not to provide government contracts to organizations that do not adhere to its nondiscriminatory requirements. For the court to decide otherwise, it would mandate that the city discriminate.

The stakes are high, in part because a ruling against equality in Fulton could provide cover for undermining Bostock, which extended Title VII protections to LGBTQ employees. An expansion of the religious liberty to discriminate could eat away at Bostock. Even a 5-4 court with Justice Kennedy ruled against LGBTQ rights in Masterpiece Cakeshop. Now, with a 6-3 conservative supermajority, Fulton could strike a big blow against equality.

Health care and family: If the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in California v. Texas, health care protections for the LGBTQ community would be eliminated. Section 1557 of the ACA is the law’s non-discrimination provision, which bans discrimination in health care on the basis of sex. The Obama administration’s rule interpreted Section 1557’s ban on sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition to Section 1557, the ACA as a whole has been enormously important for the LGBTQ community. The uninsured rate for lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans fell dramatically due to the ACA and LGBTQ adults have become more likely to report having regular access to health care. For transgender Americans, who are more likely to live in poverty or be unemployed and to face enormous challenges and have negative experiences accessing health care, the ACA’s Medicaid expansion and provision of individual health insurance through the marketplaces are critical. The 6-3 conservative supermajority on the court makes the end of the ACA significantly more likely, with disastrous consequences that will disproportionately affect the LGBTQ community. 

Lawsuits challenging the Obama administration’s interpretation of Section 1557, particularly in regard to its ban on discrimination on the basis of gender identity, have been percolating in the federal courts for years. The Trump administration has attempted to reverse those protections, but it is widely expected that the Biden administration will revert to the Obama-era rule. Even if the ACA survives, this line of litigation could undermine critical protections for transgender individuals in the health care system. While the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County last term interpreting similar language in Title VII (discrimination on the basis of sex) to cover gender identity should be definitive, the 6-3 conservative supermajority could decide to distinguish these cases and allow for discrimination against LGBTQ individuals in health care. Since so many of the nation’s hospitals are affiliated with religious organizations such as the Catholic Church, the court could seize on Justice Gorsuch’s language in Bostock suggesting that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) could trump Title VII to require broad religious exemptions from non-discrimination in health care. 

Transgender rights: In addition to the massive blow that a gutted ACA could have for transgender rights, other cases about transgender rights percolating in the lower courts may someday make their way to the Supreme Court. In Saba v. Cuomo, for example, a transgender, nonbinary resident sued the state of New York for refusing to allow Mx. Saba to obtain a driver’s license that accords with Mx. Saba’s gender identity. In August, a lower court preliminarily enjoined Idaho’s law that barred transgender women from participating on women’s sports teams. That decision is currently being appealed.

Just this past year, the Fourth Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit considered whether school bathroom policies violated transgender students’ rights. Though both circuits ruled in favor of the students, the Grimm case briefly reached the Supreme Court in 2017 before being sent back to the lower court. In 2019, the Supreme Court rejected certiorari in a case involving transgender bathrooms, leaving a lower court’s trans-affirming decision in place. But it only takes four votes for the Court to take a case, and with a 6-3 supermajority now firmly in place, there is no telling the havoc it could wreak on transgender rights.

As we celebrate the end of the Trump era, and as we prepare to work with the incoming Biden administration to restore rights that have been destroyed over the past four years while advancing the case for equality, the LGBTQ community must pay attention to the danger posed by anti-LGBTQ justices, and we must advocate forcefully for judicial reforms such as court expansion and term limits that rebalance the stolen, illegitimate court.

 

Aaron Belkin is the director of the Palm Center and of Take Back the Court, and a political science professor at San Francisco State University.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

Border to border: modern slavery and human trafficking in refugee movements across East Africa

LGBTQ people disproportionately targeted for sexual exploitation

Published

on

By

U.S. Ambassador to South Sudan Michael Adler visits the Gorom Refugee Settlement on Oct. 25, 2023. LGBTQ refugees in the country and elsewhere in East Africa remain susceptible to modern slavery and human trafficking. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Embassy in South Sudan)

I did not choose to become a refugee. I did not choose to become a victim of trafficking. I only chose to live as myself. Yet in the world I come from, choosing to live as myself was enough to make me a target. As a transgender woman from Uganda, my identity alone placed me in danger. What followed was not just displacement, it was a journey through systems of exploitation that closely resemble modern slavery, hidden in plain sight along the borders and pathways that refugees are forced to travel.

People often imagine modern slavery as something that happens in secret: in locked rooms, in distant brothels, in hidden factories. Human trafficking is portrayed as a dark underworld run by organized criminals. But for many refugees in East Africa, exploitation does not hide in the shadows. It exists in the open, woven into the very routes of survival. It is present at border checkpoints, in refugee camps, in the hands of smugglers, and even in the institutions meant to protect us. It is not always marked by chains or cages. Sometimes it looks like a bus ticket, a border crossing, a promise of safety, or a demand for money that you cannot refuse.

My journey across borders is only one example of how these systems operate. But it is a story shared by many LGBTQI+ refugees whose lives are shaped by violence, silence, and the constant negotiation of safety.

In Uganda, being transgender is not simply misunderstood, it is dangerous. My family, deeply rooted in conservative religious beliefs, saw my identity as a disgrace. I was threatened, rejected, and made to feel that my life had no value. Outside the home, communities policed identity through violence. The legal environment offered no protection. Instead, it reinforced fear. Laws targeting LGBTQI+ people made it impossible to seek help from authorities. Reporting abuse often meant risking arrest. Every day became a calculation of risk: where to walk, who to trust, how to hide. Eventually, the threats became too real to ignore. Leaving was not a choice, it was survival.

My journey out of Uganda began through unofficial routes. Like many refugees fleeing persecution, I could not rely on safe or legal pathways. Instead, I was forced into networks of smugglers and traffickers operating along border regions. From Uganda through border points like Maraba, and later through movements connected to Kakuma Refugee Camp and into South Sudan, each step came with a cost financial, emotional, and physical. At border crossings, money speaks louder than rights. Payments were demanded at checkpoints. There was no transparency, no accountability. You either paid, or you risked being turned back or worse.

For LGBTQI+ refugees, these journeys are even more dangerous. Visibility can mean exposure. Exposure can mean violence. There is constant fear of being outed, harassed, or assaulted not only by traffickers but sometimes by those meant to enforce the law. This is how modern trafficking operates not always through chains, but through systems of dependency, coercion, and fear.

Human trafficking is often imagined as a distant or extreme phenomenon. But for many refugees, especially LGBTQI+ individuals, it exists in subtle and systemic ways. It is in the forced payments demanded at every step of the journey. It is in the exploitation of vulnerability by those offering “help.” It is in the silence of systems that fail to protect. Many LGBTQI+ refugees face extortion by smugglers and intermediaries, threats of violence or exposure, sexual exploitation and abuse, and discrimination by officials and communities. These experiences are rarely documented. Fear prevents reporting. Lack of access prevents justice. What remains is a hidden crisis, one that continues across borders.

Reaching South Sudan did not bring safety. I now live in Gorom Refugee Settlement Camp, where the reality for LGBTQI+ refugees remains harsh and dangerous. Discrimination is part of daily life. Access to food, water, and healthcare is often affected by stigma. Moving freely within the camp can be risky. Violence and threats are constant. As a transgender woman, I am highly visible. This visibility increases my vulnerability. I have faced harassment, intimidation, and threats from both host communities and other refugees. Some blame LGBTQI+ refugees for misfortunes accusing us of bringing curses or problems. These beliefs, rooted in stigma and misinformation, fuel violence and exclusion. Safety, even in a refugee camp, is not guaranteed.

Despite these challenges, I have chosen not to remain silent. In Gorom, I serve as a leader and representative of an LGBTQI+ Refugees and Asylum Seekers Network. Our community includes individuals who are traumatized, isolated, and often unable to advocate for themselves. Many cannot read or write. Some are dealing with serious medical conditions. Others are too afraid to speak. I support them by helping fill out applications and forms, writing emails to organizations, connecting them with protection pathways, and providing peer support and coordination. Through this work, several members of our community have managed to access opportunities for relocation and protection. Some have received case numbers and are progressing through international processes. While I am proud of this work, it comes with a cost. My visibility as a leader makes me a target. The more I help others, the more I am exposed.

The systems I have experienced reflect a form of modern slavery that is not always recognized. It is not defined by ownership, but by control. It is not enforced by chains, but by fear and dependency. When refugees are forced to rely on informal and unsafe systems to survive, exploitation becomes inevitable. International frameworks like the Palermo Protocol recognize trafficking as involving coercion, exploitation, and abuse of vulnerability. By these definitions, what many refugees experience during displacement falls within this reality. Yet, these experiences are rarely acknowledged in policy or response.

My story is one thread in a much larger tapestry of exploitation. Across East Africa, displacement has created informal systems where movement is controlled not by law, but by power, money, and vulnerability. Within these systems, trafficking and modern slavery are not isolated crimes; they are embedded in the everyday experiences of refugees. The blurred line between smuggling and trafficking becomes clear when a voluntary agreement turns into coercion. Payments increase unexpectedly. Conditions worsen. Threats emerge. At this point, smuggling begins to resemble trafficking. People are forced to pay additional fees under threat, detained or abandoned if they cannot pay, and subjected to coercion, intimidation, or violence. The journey becomes one of survival under control, rather than movement by choice.

Checkpoints are one of the most visible forms of exploitation. Across multiple borders, movement is regulated not only by official policies but by informal practices. Travelers are often required to make payments to pass through, regardless of their legal status. These payments are rarely documented. They are negotiated at the moment, often under pressure. Failure to comply can result in detention, forced return, physical intimidation, or exposure to further risks. For those already vulnerable, checkpoints become sites of control and exploitation. This system benefits from a lack of accountability. It thrives in environments where oversight is weak and corruption is normalized.

Modern slavery is not always about physical confinement. It can also take the form of economic exploitation. During transit, individuals may be required to pay escalating fees at each stage of the journey, surrender money or belongings, or depend entirely on intermediaries for movement. In some cases, individuals are left stranded if they cannot meet financial demands. This creates a cycle of dependency: you rely on the network to move, the network controls the cost, and the cost determines your safety. Such systems exploit vulnerability in a way that aligns closely with definitions of modern slavery particularly the abuse of power and the extraction of value through coercion.

Reaching a destination, such as a refugee settlement, does not necessarily end exposure to exploitation. In many camp settings, individuals continue to face restricted access to resources, dependency on aid systems, and informal economies that can be exploitative. Where formal support systems are overstretched or under-resourced, informal structures emerge again. These structures may involve gatekeeping access to services, manipulation of aid distribution, or continued financial or social exploitation. The conditions that enable trafficking do not disappear; they evolve.

Beyond East Africa, modern slavery takes other forms that mirror the same patterns of vulnerability and exploitation. Labor trafficking to the Gulf has become a major issue for migrants from Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania. 

A beach in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, on Oct. 3, 2024. Labor trafficking to the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf counties has become a major issue for migrants from East Africa. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

Recruitment agencies promise good jobs, but many migrants end up in forced domestic labour, with confiscated passports, unpaid wages, and conditions amounting to slavery. Some never return home. Organ trafficking has also been documented, with victims from Africa ending up in countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, Russia, and China. Kidneys are the most commonly trafficked organs. Some victims are coerced; others are deceived; some are killed. Women, girls, and LGBTQI+ individuals are disproportionately targeted for sexual exploitation. For refugees, “survival sex” becomes a coping mechanism in the absence of protection and resources. Modern slavery thrives because the global economy rewards cheap labour. Migrants from East Africa are used in construction, domestic work, agriculture, and manufacturing. Their exploitation is hidden behind the products the world consumes.

From a humanist perspective, the existence of such systems raises urgent ethical questions. If all human beings have equal dignity, why are some forced to risk exploitation to survive? If rights are universal, why are they not accessible in practice? Human trafficking and modern slavery in refugee movements are not only criminal issues, they are moral failures. They reflect a gap between principles and reality. They expose the distance between what we claim to value and what we allow to happen.

Addressing these issues requires more than isolated interventions. Safe and legal migration pathways must be expanded. Border accountability must be strengthened. Anti-trafficking measures must be integrated into refugee protection. Refugee-led initiatives must be supported. Those with lived experience are best positioned to identify risks and solutions.

Modern slavery and human trafficking are not always visible in chains or confinement. In many cases, they exist within systems that appear as ordinary border crossings, transit routes, and refugee settlements. Recognizing these systems is the first step toward change. The movement of people across borders should not come at the cost of their dignity, safety, or freedom. Yet, for many, it does. Until safe alternatives exist, and accountability is enforced, these hidden systems of exploitation will continue.

The question is not whether they exist.  

The question is whether we are willing to confront them.

Aby lives in the Gorom Refugee Settlement Camp in South Sudan.

Continue Reading

Opinions

A surtax would end this war quickly

We fought a king once before and won

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Today nearly 99% of us watch wars on television. We see news reports, and watch bombs exploding and people dying, somewhere else. The only people actually involved are those who volunteered to serve in the military, and the national guard. I am sure most of them didn’t join to fight illegal wars like the one the felon in the White House is waging in Iran. But I respect them, and their willingness to serve our country.

But we are in Iran, and the felon is now asking Congress for $200 billion more for this war. We have been spending over a billion dollars a day. Who is paying for this? Right now, no one. We are simply adding it to the national debt, for our children to worry about. I propose a 5 or 10% surtax on every person, to cover the cost of this illegal war. Just have it added to your tax bill. If Congress passed such a surtax, I am sure we would already be out of Iran, as people would rise up to stop this illegal and unnecessary war very quickly. 

I am old enough to remember the Vietnam War, and what we did to try to end it. It took time, but the people spoke. I did not serve, but unlike the felon in the White House, was willing to. I got my draft notice, along with a subway token, and reported to Whitehall street in NYC. It was as the Arlo Guthrie song, “Alice’s Restaurant,” said it would be. I got there at 7 a.m. and at 3 p.m. was told they wouldn’t take me because of my bad knee, sending me home with my 1Y designation. My friends had given me a going away party the night before, and my mom cried. So, it was a little embarrassing when my friends found I was still home. But my mom was happy and cried again.

I had been to anti-war demonstrations in D.C. in front of the DOJ, and got tear gassed. I demonstrated in London, in Russel Square, in front of the American embassy. While so many more were involved in that war because of the draft, we knew then if a 5% surtax had been levied, it would have ended much faster. Seems we never learn. 

Today there is no draft, and no surtax. It is taking a while for people to recognize the felon who opposes any help for people to pay for their healthcare, easily asks for the $200 billion in funds for a totally unnecessary war. He closed USAID, which showed the United States in a positive light, helping people around the world, and that agency’s budget was only $25 billion.  On top of not asking Americans to pay for this illegal war, he is giving tax breaks to millionaires, billionaires, and corporations, adding more to the national debt. What is the definition of insanity? Today it is clearly having voted for, and still supporting, the felon in the White House. 

To make things worse and give us even less chance to stop his destruction of our democracy, the felon is trying to make it harder to vote. Millions of women who changed their names for marriage will not have a birth certificate with their current name on it, or a passport with their current name, allowing them to vote if the felon has his way. Reality is less than 50% of Americans even have a passport. The fact the Constitution gives states the right to set voting procedures, isn’t deterring the felon and his fascist cohorts, from trying to do it. He is doing it while we are losing American lives, the lives of heroes, who he has fighting a war he would have never signed up to fight himself. He is running it from the gold-leaf painted Oval Office, and from Mar-a-Lago, where he is golfing. He is a racist, sexist, homophobic, POS, working with the war criminal in Israel, causing a renewed spate of antisemitism and Islamophobia, and possibly creating World War III. 

If you care about the future of the United States, you must stand up and speak out. We must defeat every Republican sycophant of his in the midterms — it’s the only way to let the felon know that we will not put up with his shit anymore. His grifting, and that of his family and appointees, must end. We the people, must not let him destroy 250 years of democracy, because he thinks he is a king. We fought a king once before and won. We will defeat him too. We will not let the felon implement the rest of Project 2025 and will take his name off everything he illegally plastered it on. He will be relegated to the trash heap of history, where he belongs, and we will reclaim our democracy for the next 250 years. 


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Opinions

SAVE Act could silence millions of trans voters

New administrative barriers pose threat to voting rights

Published

on

Activists hold signs opposing the passage of the SAVE Act outside of the U.S. Capitol on March 18. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

In Washington, debates over voting rights usually arrive loudly — through court rulings, protests, or sweeping legislation that captures national attention. 

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, now under debate in Congress, may reshape voting access in a quieter way — through paperwork. The bill would require Americans registering to vote in federal elections to present documentary proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate. Supporters argue the measure would strengthen election integrity and restore public confidence in the voting process. But for millions of eligible voters, particularly transgender Americans, the practical consequences could be far more complicated.

According to Gallup, about 1.3% of U.S. adults identify as transgender, representing roughly 3.3 million Americans. Far from disengaged politically, transgender voters participate in elections at high rates. Data released by Advocates for Trans Equality shows 75% of transgender respondents reported voting in the 2020 election, compared with 67% of the general population. Registration rates are also higher. 

This is a community that shows up for democracy. Yet the SAVE Act could place new administrative barriers directly in its path. Birth certificates, the document many supporters believe should verify citizenship are among the most difficult identity records for transgender Americans to update. According to data released by The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School  and the U.S. Transgender Survey, 44% of transgender adults had updated their name on government identification, but only 18% had successfully updated their birth certificates.

That gap matters.

If birth certificates become a central requirement for voter registration, millions of eligible transgender Americans could face bureaucratic obstacles that other voters rarely encounter. 

History offers a warning. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, Kansas implemented a similar proof-of-citizenship law that blocked more than 30,000 eligible voters from registering before the Kansas Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional.

At the same time, evidence suggests voter fraud remains extraordinarily rare. Research cited by the American Immigration Council estimates fraud at roughly 0.0001% of votes cast. 

The question before lawmakers is not whether election security matters. It clearly does. The question is whether policies designed to solve a rare problem could intentionally disenfranchise legitimate voters.

The broader cultural debate surrounding gender identity often becomes emotionally charged, particularly when conversations turn to pronouns or language. Yet polling suggests the issue remains unfamiliar to many Americans. A 2022 YouGov poll found only 22% of Americans personally know someone who uses gender-neutral pronouns.

Meanwhile, the problems weighing on everyday Americans are far larger: rising grocery prices, health care costs, housing shortages, and economic struggles in both rural towns and urban neighborhoods. Yet, many conservatives choose to focus unnecessary time, energy, and resources litigating the use of pronouns.

A healthy democracy should be able to debate cultural questions without allowing them to become barriers to the ballot box.

So, what should transgender Americans, and allies, do in this moment? First, stay engaged politically. Contact legislators and explain how identification requirements affect real voters. Personal stories often reach policymakers in ways statistics alone cannot.

Second, document the impact. Write letters to local newspapers, share experiences publicly, and ensure the real-world effects of voting policies are visible.

Third, consider running for office. Local school boards, city councils, and state legislatures shape many of the rules governing elections. Finally, protest with discipline and purpose. The most transformative movements in history — from Mahatma Gandhi to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. — were rooted in peaceful persistence and moral clarity.

The SAVE Act may ultimately pass, fail, or change significantly as Congress debates it. But the larger principle at stake should guide the conversation. America’s democracy has always grown stronger when more citizens can participate, not when the path to the ballot becomes harder to navigate. For transgender voters, and for the country as a whole, that principle remains the quiet foundation of the republic.


James Bridgeforth, Ph.D., is a national columnist on the intersection of politics, morality, and civil rights. His work regularly appears in The Chicago Defender and The Black Wall Street Times.

Continue Reading

Popular