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.”
National
Federal authorities arrest Don Lemon
Former CNN anchor taken into custody two weeks after Minn. church protest
Federal authorities on Thursday arrested former CNN anchor Don Lemon in Los Angeles.
CNN reported authorities arrested Lemon after 11 p.m. PT while in the lobby of a hotel in Beverly Hills, Calif., while he “was leaving for an event.” Lemon’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, in a statement said his client was in Los Angeles to cover the Grammy Awards.
Authorities arrested Lemon less than two weeks after he entered Cities Church in St. Paul, Minn., with a group of protesters who confronted a pastor who works for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (An ICE agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed Renee Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis woman who left behind her wife and three children. U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents on Jan. 24 shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old nurse who worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs, in Minneapolis.)
Lemon insists he was simply covering the Cities Church protest that interrupted the service. A federal magistrate last week declined to charge the openly gay journalist in connection with the demonstration.
“Don Lemon was taken into custody by federal agents last night in Los Angeles, where he was covering the Grammy awards,” said Lowell in his statement. “Don has been a journalist for 30 years, and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done. The First Amendment exists to protect journalists whose role it is to shine light on the truth and hold those in power accountable.”
“Instead of investigating the federal agents who killed two peaceful Minnesota protesters, the Trump Justice Department is devoting its time, attention and resources to this arrest, and that is the real indictment of wrongdoing in this case,” Lowell added. “This unprecedented attack on the First Amendment and transparent attempt to distract attention from the many crises facing this administration will not stand. Don will fight these charges vigorously and thoroughly in court.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi on X confirmed federal agents “at my direction” arrested Lemon and three others — Trahern Jeen Crews, Georgia Fort, and Jamael Lydell Lundy — “in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.”
Fort is also a journalist.
At my direction, early this morning federal agents arrested Don Lemon, Trahern Jeen Crews, Georgia Fort, and Jamael Lydell Lundy, in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.
More details soon.
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) January 30, 2026
Lemon, who CNN fired in 2023, is expected to appear in court in Los Angeles on Friday.
“Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of a free society; it is the tool by which Americans access the truth and hold power to account. But Donald Trump and Pam Bondi are at war with that freedom — and are threatening the fundamentals of our democracy,” said Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson on Friday in a statement. “Don Lemon and Georgia Fort were doing their jobs as reporters. Arresting them is not law enforcement it is an attack on the Constitution at a moment when truthful reporting on government power has never been more important. These are the actions of a despot, the tactics of a dictator in an authoritarian regime.”
The White House
Expanded global gag rule to ban US foreign aid to groups that promote ‘gender ideology’
Activists, officials say new regulation will limit access to gender-affirming care
The Trump-Vance administration has announced it will expand the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid for groups that promote “gender ideology.”
Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau in a memo, titled Combating Gender Ideology in Foreign Assistance, the Federal Register published on Jan. 27 notes “previous administrations … used” U.S. foreign assistance “to fund the denial of the biological reality of sex, promoting a radical ideology that permits men to self-identify as women, indoctrinate children with radical gender ideology, and allow men to gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women.”
“Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being. It also threatens the wellbeing of children by encouraging them to undergo life-altering surgical and chemical interventions that carry serious risks of lifelong harms like infertility,” reads the memo. “The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women and children but, as an attack on truth and human nature, it harms every nation. It is the purpose of this rule to prohibit the use of foreign assistance to support radical gender ideology, including by ending support for international organizations and multilateral organizations that pressure nations to embrace radical gender ideology, or otherwise promote gender ideology.”
President Donald Trump on Jan. 28, 2025, issued an executive order — Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation — that banned federal funding for gender-affirming care for minors.
President Ronald Reagan in 1985 implemented the global gag rule, also known as the “Mexico City” policy, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services.
Trump reinstated the rule during his first administration. The White House this week expanded the ban to include groups that support gender-affirming care and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
The expanded global gag rule will take effect on Feb. 26.
“None of the funds made available by this act or any other Act may be made available in contravention of Executive Order 14187, relating to Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, or shall be used or transferred to another federal agency, board, or commission to fund any domestic or international non-governmental organization or any other program, organization, or association coordinated or operated by such non-governmental organization that either offers counseling regarding sex change surgeries, promotes sex change surgeries for any reason as an option, conducts or subsidizes sex change surgeries, promotes the use of medications or other substances to halt the onset of puberty or sexual development of minors, or otherwise promotes transgenderism,” wrote Landau in his memo.
Landau wrote the State Department “does not believe taxpayer dollars should support sex-rejecting procedures, directly or indirectly for individuals of any age.”
“A person’s body (including its organs, organ systems, and processes natural to human development like puberty) are either healthy or unhealthy based on whether they are operating according to their biological functions,” reads his memo. “Organs or organ systems do not become unhealthy simply because the individual may experience psychological distress relating to his or her sexed body. For this reason, removing a patient’s breasts as a treatment for breast cancer is fundamentally different from performing the same procedure solely to alleviate mental distress arising from gender dysphoria. The former procedure aims to restore bodily health and to remove cancerous tissue. In contrast, removing healthy breasts or interrupting normally occurring puberty to ‘affirm’ one’s ‘gender identity’ involves the intentional destruction of healthy biological functions.”
Landau added there “is also lack of clarity about what sex-rejecting procedures’ fundamental aims are, unlike the broad consensus about the purpose of medical treatments for conditions like appendicitis, diabetes, or severe depression.”
“These procedures lack strong evidentiary foundations, and our understanding of long-term health impacts is limited and needs to be better understood,” he wrote. “Imposing restrictions, as this rule proposes, on sex-rejecting procedures for individuals of any age is necessary for the (State) Department to protect taxpayer dollars from abuse in support of radical ideological aims.”
Landau added the State Department “has determined that applying this rule to non-military foreign assistance broadly is necessary to ensure that its foreign assistance programs do not support foreign NGOs and IOs (international organizations) that promote gender ideology, and U.S. NGOs that provide sex-rejecting procedures, and to ensure the integrity of programs such as humanitarian assistance, gender-related programs, and more, do not promote gender ideology.”
“This rule will also allow for more foreign assistance funds to support organizations that promote biological truth in their foreign assistance programs and help the (State) Department to establish new partnerships,” he wrote.
The full memo can be found here.
Council for Global Equality Senior Policy Fellow Beirne Roose-Snyder on Wednesday said the expansion of the so-called global gag rule will “absolutely impact HIV services where we know we need to target services, to that there are non-stigmatizing, safe spaces for people to talk through all of their medical needs, and being trans is really important to be able to disclose to your health care provider so that you can get ARVs, so you can get PrEP in the right ways.” Roose-Snyder added the expanded ban will also impact access to gender-affirming health care, food assistance programs and humanitarian aid around the world.
“This rule is not about gender-affirming care at all,” she said during a virtual press conference the Universal Access Project organized.
“It is about really saying that if you want to take U.S. funds — and it’s certainly not about gender-affirming care for children — it is if you want to take U.S. funds, you cannot have programs or materials or offer counseling or referrals to people who may be struggling with their gender identity,” added Roose-Snyder. “You cannot advocate to maintain your country’s own nondiscrimination laws around gender identity. It is the first place that we’ve ever seen the U.S. government define gender-affirming care, except they call it something a lot different than that.”
The Congressional Equality Caucus, the Democratic Women’s Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Asian and Pacific American Caucus, and the Congressional Black Caucus also condemned the global gag rule’s expansion.
“We strongly condemn this weaponization of U.S. foreign assistance to undermine human rights and global health,” said the caucuses in a statement. “We will not rest until we ensure that our foreign aid dollars can never be used as a weapon against women, people of color, or LGBTQI+ people ever again.”
Advocacy groups are demanding the Trump-Vance administration not to deport two gay men to Iran.
MS Now on Jan. 23 reported the two men are among the 40 Iranian nationals who the White House plans to deport.
Iran is among the countries in which consensual same-sex sexual relations remain punishable by death.
The Washington Blade earlier this month reported LGBTQ Iranians have joined anti-government protests that broke out across the country on Dec. 28. Human rights groups say the Iranian government has killed thousands of people since the demonstrations began.
Rebekah Wolf of the American Immigration Council, which represents the two men, told MS Now her clients were scheduled to be on a deportation flight on Jan. 25. A Human Rights Campaign spokesperson on Tuesday told the Blade that one of the men “was able to obtain a temporary stay of removal from the” 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the other “is facing delayed deportation as the result of a measles outbreak at the facility where they’re being held.”
“My (organization, the American Immigration Council) represents those two gay men,” said American Immigration Council Senior Fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick in a Jan. 23 post on his Bluesky account. “They had been arrested on charges of sodomy by Iranian moral police, and fled the country seeking asylum. They face the death penalty if returned, yet the Trump (administration) denied their asylum claims in a kangaroo court process.”
“They are terrified,” added Reichlin-Melnick.
My org @immcouncil.org represents those two gay men. They had been arrested on charges of sodomy by Iranian moral police, and fled the country seeking asylum. They face the death penalty if returned, yet the Trump admin denied their asylum claims in a kangaroo court process.
They are terrified.
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social) January 23, 2026 at 8:26 AM
Reichlin-Melnick in a second Bluesky post said “deporting people to Iran right now, as body bags line the street, is an immoral, inhumane, and unjust act.”
“That ICE is still considering carrying out the flight this weekend is a sign of an agency and an administration totally divorced from basic human rights,” he added.
Deporting people to Iran right now, as body bags line the street, is an immoral, inhumane, and unjust act. That ICE is still considering carrying out the flight this weekend is a sign of an agency and an administration totally divorced from basic human rights. www.ms.now/news/trump-d…
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social) January 23, 2026 at 8:27 AM
HRC Vice President of Government Affairs David Stacy in a statement to the Blade noted Iran “is one of 12 nations that still execute queer people, and we continue to fear for their safety.” Stacy also referenced Renee Good, a 37-year-old lesbian woman who a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed in Minneapolis on Jan. 7, and Andry Hernández Romero, a gay Venezuelan asylum seeker who the Trump-Vance administration “forcibly disappeared” to El Salvador last year.
“This out-of-control administration continues to target immigrants and terrorize our communities,” said Stacy. “That same cruelty murdered Renee Nicole Good and imprisoned Andry Hernández Romero. We stand with the American Immigration Council and demand that these men receive the due process they deserve. Congress must refuse to fund this outrage and stand against the administration’s shameless dismissal of our constitutional rights.”
Calendar: January 30-February 5
Two Chinese men detained over AI-generated picture of pandas engaging in same-sex behavior
Federal authorities arrest Don Lemon
D.C. LGBTQ sports bar Pitchers listed for sale
Expanded global gag rule to ban US foreign aid to groups that promote ‘gender ideology’
Convert rent check into an automatic investment, Marjorie!
Swing actor Thomas Netter covers five principal parts in ‘Clue’
Eleanor Holmes Norton ends 2026 reelection campaign
ICE agents murder another American citizen in Minneapolis
Corte IDH reconoce a Thalía Rodríguez como familia social de Leonela Zelaya
-
Real Estate5 days agoConvert rent check into an automatic investment, Marjorie!
-
Theater5 days ago
Swing actor Thomas Netter covers five principal parts in ‘Clue’
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
Eleanor Holmes Norton ends 2026 reelection campaign
-
Opinions4 days ago
ICE agents murder another American citizen in Minneapolis
