Federal Government
Attorney details the harms of waiving anti-discrimination rules for religious universities
Incentives aligned for continuation of anti-LGBTQ discrimination
Democratic lawmakers re-introduced the Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act on Friday, which marked the 13th anniversary of the 18-year-old New Jersey college student’s death by suicide after he was targeted with homophobic harassment by his peers.
The bill, which establishes cyberbullying as a form of harassment, directing colleges and universities to share anti-harassment policies to current and prospective students and employees, was introduced by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) and Patty Murray (Wash.), along with U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (Wis.), Chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus.
Advocacy groups including the Tyler Clementi Foundation, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and The Trevor Project have endorsed the legislation, which comes as issues concerning anti-LGBTQ harassment in institutions of higher education have earned renewed scrutiny on Capitol Hill and beyond.
Earlier this month, the Washington Blade connected with an expert to discuss these and other subjects: Paul Southwick, a Portland, Oregon-based litigation attorney who leads a legal advocacy group focused on religious institutions of higher education and their treatment of LGBTQ and other marginalized communities.
On Tuesday, he shared a statement responding to Friday’s reintroduction of the Tyler Clementi bill, stressing the need for equal enforcement of its provisions in light of efforts by conservative Christian schools to avoid oversight and legal liability for certain federal civil rights regulations:
“We are still evaluating the bill regarding how the bill would interact with the religious exemption in Title IX,” Southwick said. “We fully support the expansion of anti-harassment protections for students and corresponding requirements for educational institutions.”
He added, “We also believe that such protections and requirements should extend to students at taxpayer funded, religiously affiliated educational institutions, regardless of whether those institutions claim, or receive, an assurance of religious exemption from Title IX regulations” through the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.
Baylor University’s unprecedented Title IX exemption
In response to a request from Baylor University, a conservative Baptist college located in Waco, Texas, the Education Department in July granted a first of its kind religious-based exemption from federal regulations governing harassment, a form of sex-based discrimination proscribed under Title IX.
Southwick explained that during the Obama administration, the federal government began to understand and recognize discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity as forms of sex-based discrimination covered by the statute. The Biden-Harris administration issued a directive for the Education Department to formalize the LGBTQ inclusive definitions under Title IX, with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that is now underway at the agency.
Beginning with the Department’s 2010 “dear colleague” letter clarifying the administration’s view that discrimination against LGBTQ people constitutes sex-based discrimination under the law, Southwick said the pushback from religious schools was immediate. In the years since, many have successfully petitioned the Education Department for “exemptions so they can discriminate against queer, trans and non-binary people,” but these carveouts were limited “to things like admissions, housing, athletics.”
No one had argued that “federally funded educational institutions [should] have no regulation by the federal government as to whether they’re protecting their students from harassment,” he remarked – at least not until the Baylor case.
Addressing the unprecedented move in a letter to the Department on September 5, U.S. Reps. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), and Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) urged the agency to “clarify the narrow scope of this exemption and assure students at religious institutions that they continue to have protections against sex-based harassment.”
Southwick told the Blade other members of Congress have expressed an interest in the matter, as have some progressive nonprofit groups.
Asked for comment, a spokesperson for the Department confirmed receipt of the lawmakers’ letter and said the agency will respond to the members.
The Department’s issuance of the exemption to Baylor came despite an open investigation into the university by its Office of Civil Rights over a Title IX complaint brought in 2021 by Southwick’s organization, the Religious Exemption Accountability Project (REAP), on behalf of a queer student who claimed she was subjected to homophobic abuse from other students while university officials to whom she reported the harassment failed to intervene.
It is not yet clear whether the agency will close its investigation as a result of its decision to exempt Baylor from Title IX’s harassment rules.
Veronica Bonifacio Penales, the student behind the complaint against Baylor, is also a plaintiff in REAP’s separate class action lawsuit challenging the Education Department’s practice of waving Title IX rules for faith-based colleges and universities – which, the plaintiffs argue, facilitates anti-LGBTQ discrimination in violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
The case, Hunter v. U.S. Department of Education, is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Other religious schools are likely to follow Baylor’s lead
Southwick said the agency’s decision in the Baylor case “puts students at risk of harassment without a civil remedy against their school’s failures to properly address harassment,” adding, “Taxpayer funded educational institutions, whether religious or secular, should never be permitted to escape oversight from OCR in how they handle anti-harassment claims from LGBTQIA+ or other students protected by federal non-discrimination law.”
Buoyed by Baylor’s successful effort, requesting exemptions to Title IX rules for purposes of allowing the harassment of LGBTQ students, faculty, and staff is likely to become routine practice for many of America’s conservative institutions of higher education, Southwick said.
The nonprofit group Campus Pride maintains a list of America’s “absolute worst, most unsafe campuses for LGBTQ youth,” schools that “received and/or applied for a Title IX exemption to discriminate against LGBTQ youth, and/or demonstrated past history and track record of anti-LGBTQ actions, programs and practices.”
193 colleges and universities have met the criteria.
Many of the thousands of LGBTQ students enrolled in these institutions often have insufficient support, Southwick said, in part because “a lot of the larger civil rights organizations and queer rights organizations are very occupied, and rightly so, with pushing back against anti-trans legislation in the public sphere.”
Regardless, even in America’s most conservative schools like Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina, Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, and Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan, Southwick noted that pro-equality students, faculty, and staff have pushed for change.
He added that while there are, no doubt, young people who harbor anti-LGBTQ views, “they often become much more progressive the longer they’re in school, because there’s just queer people coming out everywhere, you know, and it’s hard to hate people who are your friends.”
The powerful influence and role of financial incentives
Southwick said meaningful reform at the institutional level is made more difficult by the reality that “financial incentives from the government and from the market are aligned to favor the continuation of discrimination.”
“Once the money stops flowing, they will almost all instantly change their policies and start protecting queer students,” he said, but added that colleges and universities have little reason to change without the risk that discriminatory policies and practices will incur meaningful consequences, like the loss of government funding and accreditation.
Another challenge, Southwick said, is the tendency of institutions of higher education to often prioritize the wishes and interests of moneyed alumni networks, boards of trustees, and donors, groups that generally skew older and tend to be more conservative.
Southwick said when he and his colleagues at REAP discuss proposed pro-LGBTQ reforms with contacts at conservative religious universities, they are warned “over and over again,” that “donors will be angry.”
Following the establishment of nationwide prohibitions against segregation and other forms of racial discrimination with passage of the federal 1964 Civil Rights Act and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which applied to public schools, and Runyon v. McCrary (1976), which covered private schools, Southwick noted that “A lot of Christian schools and college colleges continued to deny admission to black students.”
One by one, however, the so-called “segregation academies” would permanently close their doors or agree to racial integration, Southwick said – buckling under pressure from the U.S. government’s categorical denial of federal funding to these institutions, coupled with other factors like the decision of many professional associations to deny membership to their professors and academics.
Another important distinction, Southwick added: unlike Title IX, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “does not have a religious exemption.”
Federal Government
Bureau of Prisons declines to reconsider transgender inmate policy
Democratic lawmakers raised concerns this week, lawsuit filed
Following a letter sent Monday by several Democratic senators raising concerns about the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ updated transgender inmate policy, the BOP responded to a request for comment from the Washington Blade, saying it does not plan to reverse the changes implemented earlier this year.
The policy was revised in 2025 to comply with President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
In a statement to the Blade, BOP spokesperson Donald Murphy said the updated policy is rooted in medical guidance and data-driven decision making.
“The BOP implemented the February 2025 policy to ensure that inmates with gender dysphoria are properly diagnosed and treated consistent with best medical practices,” he said. “Unlike the prior administration’s one-size-fits-all approach, the BOP’s new policy ensures individualized assessments and treatments. And while the previous administration’s policies on treating inmates with gender dysphoria was driven by radical ideology, the BOP’s current policy is based on medical studies, medical expert opinions, state correctional policies, caselaw, and penological concerns. Absent court order, there are no plans to reconsider or revisit the policy.”
U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) signed the letter, arguing that the policy change fails to adequately prioritize the safety of trans inmates — protections they say are guaranteed under the Constitution.
This inquiry comes days after a federal lawsuit was filed against the Justice Department specifically on the concern that trans inmates are not receiving adequate care.
Earlier this month, the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, a legal organization focused on LGBTQ rights since 1977, filed a lawsuit in District Court of the District of Columbia against the Trump-Vance administration in collaboration with GLAD Law, Lowenstein Sandler LLP, and Wardenski P.C.
The suit, filed on May 6, alleges the administration is “ignoring federal protections” designed to prevent sexual abuse of incarcerated trans people.
“Transgender people in prison are sexually abused or assaulted at nearly 10x the rate of the general prison population,” the press release announcing the lawsuit states, adding that federal legislation was enacted to address those risks.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Paulina Poe, is a trans woman currently incarcerated in a men’s facility. According to the complaint, she has been “propositioned, groped, sexually harassed, and assaulted” by male inmates and subjected to strip searches by male officers — circumstances the Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations were intended to prevent.
The lawsuit also argues that the policy changes violate constitutional protections and deny trans inmates medically necessary care.
“The Eighth Amendment requires prisons and jails to provide ‘adequate medical care’ to incarcerated people which includes adequate treatment for people diagnosed with gender dysphoria,” says the Transgender Law Center. “‘Adequate medical care’ should be delivered according to accepted medical standards, such as WPATH’s Standards of Care. Some courts have said that in some circumstances ‘adequate medical care’ for gender dysphoria includes providing gender-appropriate clothing and grooming supplies, and the ability to present yourself consistent with your gender identity.”
GLAD Law Staff Attorney Sarah Austin also issued a statement when the lawsuit was announced, saying those responsible for the policy changes — and the rollback of protections under the Prison Rape Elimination Act — will be “held accountable for this egregious and lawless action.”
“The federal government’s unlawful attempt to roll back binding Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations is an especially dangerous step in its ongoing campaign to strip transgender people of legal protections,” Austin said. “The targeting of transgender incarcerated people is a deliberate choice to put vulnerable people in harm’s way simply because of who they are.”
The Justice Department has not responded to the Blade’s request for comment.
Federal Government
Senate Democrats press DOJ over anti-trans prison directives
Markey joins other lawmakers in demanding reversal of policies
U.S. Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) is urging acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and William Marshall III, director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, to reverse a policy affecting transgender inmates that lawmakers say is “endangering” their “health and safety.”
Markey, along with U.S. Sens. Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii), sent the letter that the Washington Blade verified on Monday.
The letter is a direct response to a change in prison policy that went into effect in February 2025, rolling back Biden-era protections for trans inmates. The senators described how President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” forced a policy shift they argue is rooted more in political rhetoric than in medical research or evidence-based correctional practices.
In the letter, the lawmakers wrote “On Feb. 21, 2025, the BOP issued a memo to implement President Trump’s EO, requiring BOP staff to ‘refer to individuals by their legal name or pronouns corresponding to their biological sex,’ banning the use of funds for any ‘items that align with transgender ideology,’ and suspending clothing accommodations, pat search accommodations, and support programs offered to transgender individuals.”
“In a second memo, issued one week later, the BOP banned the use of federal funds for ‘any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.’ These changes have resulted in the denial — or threatened denial — of hormone treatment and gender-affirming accommodations for transgender individuals in BOP custody.”
“On Feb. 19, 2026, the BOP escalated its attacks, issuing a program statement titled, ‘Management of Inmates with Gender Dysphoria.’ It prohibits incarcerated people from receiving gender-affirming care, even if paid for with private funds. This practice forces incarcerated people to discontinue care, regardless of medical recommendations.”
The senators continued, “The agency has repeatedly enacted policies that strip transgender individuals of their gender identity and dignity. This includes requiring staff to refer to transgender individuals by pronouns that ‘align with their biological sex’ rather than gender identity and to confiscate gender-affirming items, such as undergarments, clothing, cosmetics, and wigs.”
“These policies risk triggering mental health crises, including increased suicidality, among incarcerated people with gender dysphoria. The BOP’s repeated guidance to roll back gender-affirming protections — despite a federal court order finding that the BOP’s actions to discontinue gender-affirming care are likely unlawful — generate confusion about the current state of regulations and convey the BOP’s indifference to court orders and the rule of law.”
“By stripping away appropriate medical and psychiatric care, safety protections, and measures to provide dignity, the BOP is exposing transgender individuals to significant harm.”
The Marshall Project, a nonprofit newsroom focused on the U.S. criminal justice system and immigration enforcement through data-driven reporting, also reported on the policy change. The outlet spoke with Shana Knizhnik, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, about the impact of the changes.
“It’s clear that this new policy is a ban on gender affirming healthcare,” Knizhnik, who works for the nationwide chapter of the ACLU said. “This is a policy that disregards the medical needs of our plaintiffs.”
The letter also asked the BOP and the DOJ specific questions regarding why the policy went into effect, as lawmakers suggested the changes appear politically motivated rather than based on new medical evidence regarding treatment for trans inmates.
The senators requested answers to these trans policy-specific questions by May 21, including:
“Does the BOP plan to monitor and assess the impacts of recent policies that eliminate gender-affirming medical and psychiatric care?”
“Since January 20, 2025, how many transgender, nonbinary, intersex, and gender-diverse individuals have been transferred to a different facility to meet the EO’s goal of housing individuals ‘according to their biological sex?’”
“Given that the BOP has stopped enforcing Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations related to gender identity and collecting data on gender identity, how will the BOP protect the physical and emotional health and safety of incarcerated transgender individuals?”
“How does the BOP plan to monitor and assess the impact of eliminating protections against sexual violence for this population?”
“Does the BOP plan to institute a specific process by which transgender individuals may seek assistance or lodge complaints regarding harms they experience from the recent BOP policies and actions implementing President Trump’s EO?”
“Describe the specific criteria the BOP intends to use to determine whether it will allow a ‘social accommodation’ for gender dysphoria.”
Markey also included a personal statement to the Blade explaining why he is using his position on Capitol Hill to push for more information and advocate for reversing the policy.
“This administration continuously shows their contempt for trans people and a total disregard for their rights and humanity. As part of this cruel campaign, the Bureau of Prisons has systematically stripped health care access and basic protections from trans people, abandoning its duty to the people in its custody. I won’t stop fighting until this administration’s hateful anti-trans policies are reversed and trans people’s rights are secured.”
The Blade reached out to the DOJ and the BOP for comment but had not received a response at press time.
Federal Government
DOE investigates Smith College’s trans-inclusive policy
Mass. college accused of violating Title IX
The U.S. Department of Education announced on Monday that it opened an investigation into Smith College for admitting transgender women.
Smith College, a private and famously all-women’s college in Northampton, Mass., established in 1871 and opened in 1875, has a long list of women who make up its historic alumni — including first ladies, influential political figures, and cultural leaders.
The DOE released a statement about the investigation into the institution through the Department’s Office for Civil Rights, saying it was looking into the possibility that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was violated by allowing trans women, referred to in the statement as “biological males,” into women’s intimate spaces protected by IX.
The statement explicitly highlighted that this stems from trans women being granted “access to women-only spaces, including dormitories, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletic teams” while also allowing their audience into the school itself.
This is the first time the Trump-Vance administration has taken a step into admissions processes, a stark jump past investigating policies that allowed trans women to participate in women’s sports and use women’s bathrooms, and allows for the administration to go more after trans acceptance policy as a whole.
Smith’s admission policy allows for “any applicants who self-identify as women,” including “cis, trans, and nonbinary women,” according to the college’s website, and has since 2015, when it updated its policy.
“The college is fully committed to its institutional values, including compliance with civil rights laws,” Smith’s statement in response to the DOE’s investigation said. “The college does not comment on pending government investigations.”
“An all-women’s college loses all meaning if it is admitting biological males,” said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey. “Allowing biological males into spaces designed for women raises serious concerns about privacy, fairness, and compliance under federal law. The Trump administration will continue to uphold the law and fight to restore common sense.”
This move continues to align with actions the Trump-Vance administration has taken to curtail LGBTQ — and specifically trans — rights in America, as members of the administration attempt to break down safeguards and protections that have long been used to protect marginalized communities.
Since Trump took office in his second term, there have been significant legal challenges. According to the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association, there are over 35 court cases that have emerged since his second swearing-in that directly relate to the administration’s attempts to minimize the rights and protections of trans Americans — from medical care and educational protections to military policy.
Much of this anti-trans policy direction was outlined beginning in 2022 with the Project 2025 playbook, which Trump officials have used as a guide to scale back protections for LGBTQ people, Black Americans, poor and Indigenous communities, while also increasing costs for lower-income Americans and providing tax cuts to the wealthy and ultra-wealthy. The plans also “erode” Americans’ freedoms and remove crucial checks and balances that have allowed the executive branch to remain in line with the Constitution without becoming too powerful over either the courts or the legislative branch.
PHOTOS: Blade Summer Kickoff Party
PHOTOS: Taste of Point
Honey, have we been priced out of gay paradise?
Comings & Goings
IDAHOBiT a reminder we all must stand up against transphobia
UK government makes trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban a legislative priority
Bureau of Prisons declines to reconsider transgender inmate policy
Yes, chef!
What’s new in Rehoboth Beach for summer 2026
LGBTQ community must say NO to Janeese Lewis George
-
United Kingdom4 days agoUK government makes trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban a legislative priority
-
Federal Government4 days ago
Bureau of Prisons declines to reconsider transgender inmate policy
-
a&e features4 days ago
Yes, chef!
-
Rehoboth Beach4 days ago
What’s new in Rehoboth Beach for summer 2026
