National
‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill vulnerable to legal challenges on many fronts: experts
First Amendment brought up as possible claim for lawsuit
With Ron DeSantis expected to sign the “Don’t Say Gay” bill any day now, legal experts are already seeing myriad ways to challenge the measure in court from multiple angles under federal law and the U.S. Constitution — and a lawsuit may emerge shortly after the Florida governor pens his name to the measure.
Legal challenges could emerge given the measure’s impact on LGBTQ students and families as well as LGBTQ teachers under the federal civil rights law on employment and education, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Cases could be made under the U.S. Constitution, experts say, given arguable threats to freedom of speech under the First Amendment as well as the singling out of LGBTQ families under the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Christopher Stoll, senior staff attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said he thinks “it’s almost certain that the bill will be challenged if it becomes law” and in terms of timing, pro-LGBTQ legal groups “are certainly prepared to do that if the bill is signed.”
“I think it raises a number of issues, but the primary ones are Equal Protection and First Amendment,” Stoll said. “This bill singles out LGBTQ families as being so shameful that they need to be excluded from the classroom in a way that other families are not, and that has an obvious discriminatory effect on children, same-sex couples, and other LGBTQ families.”
Other pro-LGBTQ groups that have brought legal challenges to anti-LGBTQ measures in the courts are holding their cards close to their vest on potential lawsuits against the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. The American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal didn’t respond to a request to comment.
Key portions of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, titled HB 1557, reveal the potential penalty for the slightest hint of talk about LGBTQ kids and families in schools, therefore the potential for challenging the measure in court as a discriminatory law. The possibilities for legal challenges could be seen as a warning to DeSantis signing the “Don’t Say Gay” bill into law would come at great expense to the state if it were to defend the law in court, not to mention the provision of the bill that allows families to sue if they feel the school their children attends engaged in instruction of LGBTQ issues in contravention of the measure.
Under the legislation, schools for children in kindergarten through grade 3 may not engage in “instruction” about sexual orientation and gender identity, or generally throughout the education system “in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.” Although the legislation allows for internal review and resolution if a parent brings a complaint against the school for violating the measure, the “Don’t Say Gay” bill also empowers a parent of a student who feels the law was violated to “bring an action against a school district” in court to seek damages.
Proponents of the bill downplay it as a parental rights measure aimed at preventing K-3 students from being taught sex education or teachers engaging in critical general theory writ-large in the Florida school system, but the measure contains no limiting principle restricting its impact to those concepts. In fact, Republican lawmakers at an earlier stage in the legislative process rejected an amendment proposed by a Democrat that would redefine the prohibition under the measure to “sexual activity.”
David Flugman, a lawyer at the New York-based Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC whose practice includes LGBTQ rights, said restrictions of the measure on speech in schools make the protections under the First Amendment a possible choice for “a serious challenge” to the “Don’t Say Gay” measure.
“I do think that there are First Amendment grounds to challenge this on from the perspective of teachers,” Flugman said. “The state has a pretty strong interest in what’s taught in schools and what ages. Now, usually that goes through the Department of Education or something like that as opposed to the legislature doing it this way. But the fact that you’re basically barring an entire topic of conversations, that on its face seems like it’s content-based speech regulations, which is usually subject to strict scrutiny under First Amendment law.”
Although the question of standing might be an issue if no action has been brought against a particular teacher, Flugman said he could imaging other entities, including a teacher’s union, to represent teachers on their behalf.
But not all experts agree a First Amendment challenge is the way to go for a lawsuit against the “Don’t Say Gay” measure in court given the expected state role in managing the curriculum and standards of its schools.
Dale Carpenter, a conservative law professor at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law who’s written in favor of LGBTQ rights, said the language in the bill on “instruction” is guiding curriculum, which is “ordinarily within the authority of the state” and therefore not grounds for a First Amendment challenge.
“It should not be applied to offhand discussion or conversation or acknowledgement of students’ same-sex parents or something like that,” Carpenter said. “So to the extent that is what the bill is doing, there’s not a really good basis for challenging that part of the bill under the First Amendment.”
Carpenter, however, conceded a First Amendment challenge may be possible under the bill’s provision that more generally prohibits schools from engaging in LGBTQ issues in ways that are “not age-appropriate.”
“That part of the bill might be challenged on vagueness grounds under the First Amendment because the fear would be, since nothing is spelled out about this age appropriate or development appropriate language, your expression might be chilled in the classroom, might deter people from even speaking in a way that would be protected,” Carpenter said. “So that’s a possible challenge. I don’t know that it’s very strong, but it’s a possible challenge.”
Carpenter added another possible First Amendment challenge to the bill may be possible if a particular Florida school were to interpret the language to include not just instruction, but offhand conversation. A disciplined teacher, Carpenter said, could bring a lawsuit against the measure on First Amendment grounds because the law would have been “applied in a way that was overly broad.”
Legal experts also point to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 2020 in Bostock v. Clayton County, which determined anti-LGBTQ discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, thus illegal under federal civli rights law, as fertile ground to challenge the “Don’t Say Gay” measure.
Flugman said he could “definitely see” a clear-cut case based on Title VII against the “Don’t Say Gay” measure from LGBTQ teachers in Florida who feel the need to keep quiet about their sexual orientation or gender identity.
“Title VII is pretty broad in that; it’s not just hiring or firing, but it’s the terms of employment and how someone is treated at work and the benefits and all of that,” Flugman said. “And so, you know, if someone is basically being forced to hide their identity in a school in Florida as a result of this bill, I think that you absolutely could see a claim under Title VII against the school district for that.”
The Biden administration already weighed in on the legality of the bill via the Department of Education by suggesting the “Don’t Say Gay” would contravene Title IX, which bars discrimination on the basis of sex in education, thus could jeopardize the state’s federal funding for its schools.
Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona issued the warning to Florida in a statement after the Florida Legislature gave its final approval to the measure, which he called “hateful” and a distraction from issues such as recovery from the coronavirus pandemic.
“The Department of Education has made clear that all schools receiving federal funding must follow federal civil rights law, including Title IX’s protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” Cardona said. “We stand with our LGBTQ+ students in Florida and across the country, and urge Florida leaders to make sure all their students are protected and supported.”
Stoll said he has “not spoken with anyone at the government” regarding potential penalties from the Biden administration for Florida under the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, but supports efforts from the standpoint of civil rights laws in the wake of the Bostock ruling.
“I certainly agree that you know, because federal anti-discrimination laws have now been interpreted by the Supreme Court to protect LGBTQ people that any discriminatory measure like this bill certainly is potentially vulnerable to consequences under Title IX or Title VII or other other federal anti-discrimination laws,” Stoll said.
But the wide-ranging possible impact of the law on LGBTQ students, families, and teachers as well as the potential impact on the Florida education system by empowering parents to sue the school their child attends if they feel it violated the “Don’t Say Gay” bill’s provisions make possibilities for legal challenges to the measure virtually endless.
Carpenter, asked by the Blade about the provision in the bill allowing parents to sue in a way that is different from managing other curriculum standards in Florida, envisioned a legal challenge to the “Don’t Say Gay” bill not unlike a challenge to the anti-abortion law Senate Bill 8 in Texas.
“I think once a parent brings some kind of action, and if the school tries to restrict the teacher’s speaking, then the teacher can launch a challenge to the heart of the bill,” Carpenter said. “The concern is these parents are going to bring some kind of action anytime “gay” is mentioned in the classroom, even though it’s not a curriculum matter. That’s the concern, and if school started enforcing it that way, then the defense could be brought to say, ‘Hey, that’s not something that’s within the curricular determinations of the state.'”
Flugman said he could see a lawsuit against the “Don’t Say Gay” measure based on a right to education similar to a case his team litigated in the Sixth Circuit, although he conceded he doesn’t know the case law is developed within the 11th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Florida.
“The case in the Sixth Circuit came up in the context of race discrimination in certain Michigan schools in Detroit,” Flugman said. “But could you make an argument like along those lines? It’s a lot more inchoate. There’s not a firmly established right there, a creative plaintiff could frame the claim there as well and try and get some traction.”
U.S. Federal Courts
Judge temporarily blocks executive orders targeting LGBTQ, HIV groups
Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit in federal court
A federal judge on Monday blocked the enforcement of three of President Donald Trump’s executive orders that would have threatened to defund nonprofit organizations providing health care and services for LGBTQ people and those living with HIV.
The preliminary injunction was awarded by Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in a case, San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump, filed by Lambda Legal and eight other organizations.
Implementation of the executive orders — two aimed at diversity, equity, and inclusion along with one targeting the transgender community — will be halted pending the outcome of the litigation challenging them.
“This is a critical win — not only for the nine organizations we represent, but for LGBTQ communities and people living with HIV across the country,” said Jose Abrigo, Lambda Legal’s HIV Project director and senior counsel on the case.
“The court blocked anti-equity and anti-LGBTQ executive orders that seek to erase transgender people from public life, dismantle DEI efforts, and silence nonprofits delivering life-saving services,” Abrigo said. “Today’s ruling acknowledges the immense harm these policies inflict on these organizations and the people they serve and stops Trump’s orders in their tracks.”
Tigar wrote, in his 52-page decision, “While the Executive requires some degree of freedom to implement its political agenda, it is still bound by the constitution.”
“And even in the context of federal subsidies, it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous,” he said.
Without the preliminary injunction, the judge wrote, “Plaintiffs face the imminent loss of federal funding critical to their ability to provide lifesaving healthcare and support services to marginalized LGBTQ populations,” a loss that “not only threatens the survival of critical programs but also forces plaintiffs to choose between their constitutional rights and their continued existence.”
The organizations in the lawsuit are located in California (San Francisco AIDS Foundation, Los Angeles LGBT Center, GLBT Historical Society, and San Francisco Community Health Center), Arizona (Prisma Community Care), New York (The NYC LGBT Community Center), Pennsylvania (Bradbury-Sullivan Community Center), Maryland (Baltimore Safe Haven), and Wisconsin (FORGE).
U.S. Supreme Court
Activists rally for Andry Hernández Romero in front of Supreme Court
Gay asylum seeker ‘forcibly deported’ to El Salvador, described as political prisoner
More than 200 people gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday and demanded the Trump-Vance administration return to the U.S. a gay Venezuelan asylum seeker who it “forcibly disappeared” to El Salvador.
Lindsay Toczylowski, president of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a Los Angeles-based organization that represents Andry Hernández Romero, is among those who spoke alongside U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Human Rights Campaign Campaigns and Communications Vice President Jonathan Lovitz. Sarah Longwell of the Bulwark, Pod Save America’s Jon Lovett, and Tim Miller are among those who also participated in the rally.
“Andry is a son, a brother. He’s an actor, a makeup artist,” said Toczylowski. “He is a gay man who fled Venezuela because it was not safe for him to live there as his authentic self.”
(Video by Michael K. Lavers)
The White House on Feb. 20 designated Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, as an “international terrorist organization.”
President Donald Trump on March 15 invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which the Associated Press notes allows the U.S. to deport “noncitizens without any legal recourse.” The Trump-Vance administration subsequently “forcibly removed” Hernández and hundreds of other Venezuelans to El Salvador.
Toczylowski said she believes Hernández remains at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT. Toczylowski also disputed claims that Hernández is a Tren de Aragua member.
“Andry fled persecution in Venezuela and came to the U.S. to seek protection. He has no criminal history. He is not a member of the Tren de Aragua gang. Yet because of his crown tattoos, we believe at this moment that he sits in a torture prison, a gulag, in El Salvador,” said Toczylowski. “I say we believe because we have not had any proof of life for him since the day he was put on a U.S. government-funded plane and forcibly disappeared to El Salvador.”
“Andry is not alone,” she added.
Takano noted the federal government sent his parents, grandparents, and other Japanese Americans to internment camps during World War II under the Alien Enemies Act. The gay California Democrat also described Hernández as “a political prisoner, denied basic rights under a law that should have stayed in the past.”
“He is not a case number,” said Takano. “He is a person.”
Hernández had been pursuing his asylum case while at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego.
A hearing had been scheduled to take place on May 30, but an immigration judge the day before dismissed his case. Immigrant Defenders Law Center has said it will appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which the Justice Department oversees.
“We will not stop fighting for Andry, and I know neither will you,” said Toczylowski.
Friday’s rally took place hours after Attorney General Pam Bondi said Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who the Trump-Vance administration wrongfully deported to El Salvador, had returned to the U.S. Abrego will face federal human trafficking charges in Tennessee.
National
A husband’s story: Michael Carroll reflects on life with Edmund White
Iconic author died this week; ‘no sunnier human in the world’
Unlike most gay men of my generation, I’ve only been to Fire Island twice. Even so, the memory of my first visit has never left me. The scenery was lovely, and the boys were sublime — but what stood out wasn’t the beach or the parties. It was a quiet afternoon spent sipping gin and tonics in a mid-century modern cottage tucked away from the sand and sun.
Despite Fire Island’s reputation for hedonism, our meeting was more accident than escapade. Michael Carroll — a Facebook friend I’d chatted with but never met — mentioned that he and his husband, Ed, would be there that weekend, too. We agreed to meet for a drink. On a whim, I checked his profile and froze. Ed was author Edmund White.
I packed a signed copy of Carroll’s “Little Reef” and a dog-eared hardback of “A Boy’s Own Story,” its spine nearly broken from rereads. I was excited to meet both men and talk about writing, even briefly.
Yesterday, I woke to the news that Ed had passed away. Ironically, my first thought was of Michael.
This week, tributes to Edmund White are everywhere — rightly celebrating his towering legacy as a novelist, essayist, and cultural icon. I’ve read all of his books, and I could never do justice to the scope of a career that defined and chronicled queer life for more than half a century. I’ll leave that to better-prepared journalists.
But in those many memorials, I’ve noticed something missing. When Michael Carroll is mentioned, it’s usually just a passing reference: “White’s partner of thirty years, twenty-five years his junior.” And yet, in the brief time I spent with this couple on Fire Island, it was clear to me that Michael was more than a footnote — he was Ed’s anchor, editor, companion, and champion. He was the one who knew his husband best.
They met in 1995 after Michael wrote Ed a fan letter to tell him he was coming to Paris. “He’d lost the great love of his life a year before,” Michael told me. “In one way, I filled a space. Understand, I worshiped this man and still do.”
When I asked whether there was a version of Ed only he knew, Michael answered without hesitation: “No sunnier human in the world, obvious to us and to people who’ve only just or never met him. No dark side. Psychology had helped erase that, I think, or buffed it smooth.”
Despite the age difference and divergent career arcs, their relationship was intellectually and emotionally symbiotic. “He made me want to be elegant and brainy; I didn’t quite reach that, so it led me to a slightly pastel minimalism,” Michael said. “He made me question my received ideas. He set me free to have sex with whoever I wanted. He vouchsafed my moods when they didn’t wobble off axis. Ultimately, I encouraged him to write more minimalistically, keep up the emotional complexity, and sleep with anyone he wanted to — partly because I wanted to do that too.”
Fully open, it was a committed relationship that defied conventional categories. Ed once described it as “probably like an 18th-century marriage in France.” Michael elaborated: “It means marriage with strong emotion — or at least a tolerance for one another — but no sex; sex with others. I think.”
That freedom, though, was always anchored in deep devotion and care — and a mutual understanding that went far beyond art, philosophy, or sex. “He believed in freedom and desire,” Michael said, “and the two’s relationship.”
When I asked what all the essays and articles hadn’t yet captured, Michael paused. “Maybe that his writing was tightly knotted, but that his true personality was vulnerable, and that he had the defense mechanisms of cheer and optimism to conceal that vulnerability. But it was in his eyes.”
The moment that captured who Ed was to him came at the end. “When he was dying, his second-to-last sentence (garbled then repeated) was, ‘Don’t forget to pay Merci,’ the cleaning lady coming the next day. We had had a rough day, and I was popping off like a coach or dad about getting angry at his weakness and pushing through it. He took it almost like a pack mule.”
Edmund White’s work shaped generations — it gave us language for desire, shame, wit, and liberation. But what lingers just as powerfully is the extraordinary life Ed lived with a man who saw him not only as a literary giant but as a real person: sunny, complex, vulnerable, generous.
In the end, Ed’s final words to his husband weren’t about his books or his legacy. They were about care, decency, and love. “You’re good,” he told Michael—a benediction, a farewell, maybe even a thank-you.
And now, as the world celebrates the prolific writer and cultural icon Edmund White, it feels just as important to remember the man and the person who knew him best. Not just the story but the characters who stayed to see it through to the end.
Why being a good man — and father — still matters
PHOTOS: WorldPride Street Festival and Closing Concert
Baltimore Trans Pride to take place Saturday
PHOTOS: WorldPride Parade
Judge temporarily blocks executive orders targeting LGBTQ, HIV groups
PHOTOS: WorldPride Boat Parade
Activists rally for Andry Hernández Romero in front of Supreme Court
The best U.S. cities for LGBTQ homebuyers in 2025
A hilarious ‘Twelfth Night’ at Folger full of ‘elegant kink’
