National
Will Obama appeal DOMA court rulings?
Justice Dept. has until Oct. 12 to decide
President Obama’s commitment to repealing the Defense of Marriage Act is likely to come under enhanced scrutiny next week when the U.S. Justice Department announces its decision on whether or not it will appeal federal court rulings against the statute.
Legal experts across the board are expecting the administration to appeal the decisions as many LGBT advocates grumble that the defense of DOMA in court undermines Obama’s campaign pledge to advocate for same-sex couples.
Richard Socarides, a gay New York attorney and former adviser to President Clinton, said he expects the Justice Department to appeal the cases because he believes the administration hasn’t shown any signs of changing its position after defending DOMA at the district court level.
“I think that they’re going to continue to battle the gay rights movement in the courts,” Socarides said. “I think it continues to be one of the most unfortunate decisions of the president’s entire first two years in office and really something that is perhaps the most troubling part of these first two years of his presidency.”
Socarides said he doesn’t think the administration is compelled to appeal the decisions to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals even as he acknowledged that debate has taken place over whether the president can decide against upholding a federal statute.
“I think that it’s clear now that the president has the option of declining to defend laws that he believes are not constitutional,” Socarides said. “This law has now been declared unconstitutional, so he could agree with the federal district court … and choose not to defend it.”
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, also predicted the administration will appeal the decisions made in the DOMA cases because he believes Justice Department officials think they’re required to do so.
Still, Wolfson said the extent to which the Justice Department defends DOMA at the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals would be an appropriate gauge to determine the Obama administration’s commitment to supporting LGBT people.
“I think the Justice Department can argue they have to appeal, but they should not be trying to win at all costs, and they should urge the court to adopt a presumption of unconstitutionality for the cruel exclusion from marriage that they themselves admit is discrimination,” Wolfson said.
On July 8, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in two separate cases — Gill v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services — that the part of DOMA prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
The Obama administration defended DOMA when both those cases came before the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts.
In response to a query on the whether the administration would appeal the rulings, the White House deferred comment to the Justice Department, which didn’t respond.
The deadline for making a decision in the Commonwealth case — filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley — is Oct. 12.
The Justice Department doesn’t have to appeal the decision in the Gill case, filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, until Oct. 18 because the court didn’t enter judgment in the case until later.
Still, Lee Swislow, GLAD’s executive director, said her organization is anticipating the Obama administration will announce its decision for both cases at the same time.
“From an efficiency point of view, the cases are clearly connected and it would make sense for the government to appeal both of them on the same day,” she said.
Announcing a decision to appeal both cases at the same time would also limit the amount of negative press the White House would receive to one day as opposed to stringing out criticism over a series of days.
Swislow said she’s expecting the administration to appeal both lawsuits and said doing so means the Justice Department is doing its duty of defending federal laws.
“I don’t think you can read much into it in terms of the administration’s support in general of LGBT rights,” she said. “From a legal point of view, they have to defend the law or write an official letter to Congress on why they’re not appealing.”
After the Justice Department appeals the decisions to the First Circuit, Swislow said she expects a series of briefs will be filed to the appellate court on both sides, including friend-of-the-court briefs from supporters and opponents of DOMA.
Once oral arguments take place, those involved with the litigation will await the decision of the court.
“We could have a decision anywhere from a year from now to a year-and-a-half from now if they follow their average, and that’s all we have to go on is how long it usually takes at the First Circuit court,” Swislow said.
Once the First Circuit has made its rulings, Swislow said deciding whether or not to appeal the case further to the U.S. Supreme Court would be different for the Obama administration.
Swislow said Justice Department officials could say they’ve “done their job” and not challenge the ruling further — even as she acknowledged her organization would love a win for the cases at the Supreme Court.
“If we win at the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the question of whether to take it to the Supreme Court or not, I think, is a different calculation,” she said.
Even as many LGBT rights supporters bemoan the administration’s defense of DOMA, others say continued support for the law in court could have some advantages.
Defenders of the Obama administration have said defending anti-gay laws such as DOMA sets a precedent that would prevent future administrations from allowing litigation against pro-laws to go unchallenged.
In an article about the future of litigation against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, was quoted last week in Politico as suggesting the administration’s defense of the law in court would allow the federal hate crimes law to stay on the books.
“What happens when there’s a legal challenge to, say, hate crimes [law] in a next administration, a possible Republican administration?” Sarvis reportedly said. “Will they defend the federal statute?”
Swislow expressed similar beliefs that defending DOMA would set a precedent for subsequent administrations that could be hostile to LGBT rights.
“We expect them to defend this case and we’re not mad at them for defending this case, and, yes, the process of the Justice Department — that mandate, really — to defend the law can help us,” she said.
But Socarides scoffed at the notion that defending laws like DOMA would keep pro-gay laws safe under future administrations.
“I know that a lot of people make it in defense of the administration, but to me, it’s an entirely ludicrous argument,” Socarides said. “That argument turns all logic on its head. We’re not going to defend civil rights because some day the Republicans may choose not to defend civil rights.”
In another respect, appealing the lawsuits to the First Circuit could be beneficial to same-sex couples throughout New England because the higher court has jurisdiction over more states.
A favorable ruling at the First Circuit could invalidate part of DOMA for not just married same-sex couples in Massachusetts, but also couples living in Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire.
Swislow said an appeal of the DOMA cases is “really in our interest” because a victory only at the district court level would “only affect our particular plaintiffs” and not anyone else.
“It’s much better, in fact, to have the case appealed so that the victory in the appellate court … affects the First Circuit [and] a victory in the Supreme Court affects the whole country,” she said.
Doug NeJaime, a gay law professor at Loyola Law School, also said an appeal in the GLAD case could be beneficial to married same-sex couples across the nation because of the strong case made by plaintiffs.
“This is a very carefully and limited challenge seeking some federal recognition of married same-sex couples, but only affecting states where couples are allowed to actually enter into marriages that are recognized,” NeJaime said. “So, I think this would actually be a good issue to have work its way up the appellate chain.”
Still, Socarides said the Obama administration shouldn’t be considered a friend to the LGBT community for appealing the lawsuits because the president hasn’t said he’s appealing them for the purpose of having a stronger ruling.
“If the United States came back and said we believe this is unconstitutional, but we’re going to appeal it because we want a ruling from a court of appeals declaring it unconstitutional, that would be terrific, but they don’t say that, do they?” he said.
(Obama photo is a Blade file photo by Michael Key)
National
DOJ seeks to dismiss some claims in gay FBI employee’s bias lawsuit
David Maltinsky was fired after displaying Pride flag at desk
Attorneys for gay former FBI employee David Maltinsky, who was fired from his job as a non-agent employee at the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office in October 2025 after more than 16 years of service for displaying an LGBTQ Pride flag at his workstation, filed court papers on July 15 opposing a motion by government attorneys to dismiss some but not all of the provisions in his unlawful discrimination lawsuit seeking to overturn the firing.
Maltinsky’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in D.C. on Nov. 19, 2025, states that FBI Director Kash Patel acted illegally by violating Maltinsky’s First Amendment constitutional rights and the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 by ordering his firing on grounds that he “exercised poor judgement with an inappropriate display of political signage” by displaying the Pride flag.
The firing came at a time when Maltinsky successfully completed 16 weeks of the FBI’s 19-week training program at the FBI training academy in Quantico, Va. to become an FBI Special Agent, according to the lawsuit.
In addition to Patel, who took office as FBI director in February 2025 under the Trump administration, the lawsuit names as defendants the FBI itself, Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, and the U.S. Department of Justice, which oversees the FBI.
“Defendants discriminated against Maltinsky for engaging in protected speech, for his sexual orientation, and for opposing discrimination – a clear and brazen violation of federal law and the Constitution,” the lawsuit states in an amended complaint filed May 5, 2026.
The Department of Justice, which is representing the FBI in its response to the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to a request from the Washington Blade for comment on the lawsuit and why it is seeking dismissal of some but not all of the lawsuit’s multiple allegations, including its claim that the firing violated Maltinsky’s First Amendment rights.
In its “Partial” motion filed on June 15, 2026, to dismiss some provisions in the lawsuit, the Justice Department through Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate and Associate Branch Director Christopher Hall, stated that the lawsuit fails to provide sufficient evidence that Maltinsky was fired because he is gay.
“The Amended Complaint contains no factual allegations that Director Patel or any other decisionmaker expressed hostility toward gay employees, relied on Plaintiff’s sexual orientation in making employment decisions, even knew Plaintiff’s sexual orientation or otherwise indicated that Plaintiff’s status as a gay man played any role in the challenged actions,” the motion states.
Based on that, among other things, the motion says the lawsuit’s claim that the firing violated the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be dismissed. A 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled that the 1964 law bans employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity along with its other categories including race, religion, and gender.
In its arguments that the decision to fire Maltinsky was illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust, the lawsuit’s amended complaint points out that FBI officials at the Los Angeles Field Office where Maltinsky worked presented the Pride flag to him and gave him full permission to display it at his workstation.
“The FBI encouraged and honored Maltinsky’s work by awarding him the 2020 Director’s Award For Excellence-Outstanding Service in Diversity and Inclusion,” the lawsuit says. “In 2022, the Attorney General for the Department of Justice awarded Maltinsky the Attorney General’s Award for Equal Employment Opportunity, DOJ’s highest award for performance in support of the Equal Employment Program,” it says.
“In special recognition of Maltinsky’s efforts to improve the FBI, in June 2021 LAFO [Los Angeles Field Office] leadership entrusted to Maltinsky two Pride flags that had been flown from the flagpole located in front of the LAFO,” the lawsuit complaint continues. “Maltinsky displayed one of those flags at his workstation.”
Although the lawsuit doesn’t say so directly, all of that happened during the administration of President Joe Biden and previous FBI Director Christopher Wray, who held the director’s position from August 2017 to January 2025, when Donald Trump took office as president.
Nathaniel Zelinsky, one of the attorneys representing Maltinsky regarding the lawsuit, told the Blade that because the Justice Department did not contest the lawsuit’s First Amendment provisions, the case will move forward to the discovery stage, in which he and fellow attorneys can seek and obtain government documents, and most likely go to trial. He said that regardless of whether the judge approves the dismissal of the lawsuit provisions the government has asked for, the other provisions and the case as a whole will continue.
“And those First Amendment claims are extremely serious,” he said. “The government, by its admission, fired David Maltinsky because they did not like the speech he displayed when he put up the Pride flag that was gifted to him by the FBI,” Zelinsky said. “The federal government cannot discriminate against its workers based on their speech.”
North Carolina
Authorities investigate officer-involved shooting outside Asheville gay bar
Incident took place near Shakey’s on Wednesday
An officer-involved shooting outside of a gay dive bar, Shakey’s, in downtown Asheville, N.C., left one man dead Wednesday.
The bar released a statement the following morning regarding the incident, stating that bar staff had asked a patron to leave earlier in the night citing concerning behavior. The bar said that later the man was spotted with a gun in the parking lot.
The bar proceeded to call 911, locked the doors to the establishment, and followed dispatcher instructions on how to keep patrons of the bar safe while officers arrived. These protocols included getting patrons away from the windows and staying low to the ground.
According to Shakey’s, shots were fired outside of the business. When the Asheville Police Department officers arrived, they fired back. The individual died from their injuries, according to the police.
“Because of everyone’s quick actions, cooperation, and concern for one another, every customer and every employee inside Shakey’s made it home safely. We are incredibly thankful,” Shakey’s said on their Instagram page. They thanked Asheville police, emergency dispatchers, EMS, and all first responders who were on scene.
On Thursday, a spokesperson for the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, Chad Flowers, stated that the suspect involved in the shooting was Arturo Castillo Palomar.
The Washington Blade reached out to the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation for a comment regarding the possibility of the event being considered a hate crime. They said the issue is currently under investigation and that the findings would be turned over to the district attorney for review.
Pentagon
Hegseth announces testosterone initiative as trans troop ban continues
SPARTA Pride criticized Pentagon policy
The U.S. military will begin testing and treating service members with hormone therapy despite banning similar medical care for transgender service members.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that troops ages 30 and older will be subject to annual testosterone screenings, while younger service members will have the option to voluntarily opt in. Some troops may then be recommended for hormone therapy, he explained in a video posted to social media.
“Under the supervision of our world-class medical professionals, warfighters age 30 and older are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment,” Hegseth said in a video posted to X, captioned “The High-T Department of War.”
This push to test testosterone levels, as the hormone is commonly referred to as “T,” runs counter to current medical guidelines. Physicians are generally advised to discuss testosterone therapy only with men who have symptoms consistent with low testosterone and documented low hormone levels on two separate blood tests.
Testosterone is a vital sex hormone that all humans naturally produce. It helps regulate muscle mass, bone density, and sex drive. In men, it is primarily produced in the testicles, while in women it is produced in the ovaries and adrenal glands.
Natural testosterone levels in men decline with age and have long been associated with issues such as erectile dysfunction, low libido, mood changes, and weight gain. However, experts continue to debate whether these conditions should routinely be treated with testosterone therapy.
Hegseth’s announcement aligns with other actions taken by the Trump-Vance administration — including efforts by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — to make testosterone therapy more accessible for men, particularly those assigned male at birth.
Last month, the Food and Drug Administration proposed easing prescribing restrictions on testosterone gels, pills, patches, and injections following a December advisory panel that recommended reducing regulatory hurdles to expand access to testosterone therapy.
Currently, FDA labeling specifies that these medications are approved only for men with hypogonadism, a medical condition that causes abnormally low testosterone levels.
The announcement came as a shock to many LGBTQ advocates because Hegseth and the Defense Department have cited the use of hormone therapy by trans service members as justification for their dismissal under President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.“
The Pentagon continues to pursue implementation of the trans military ban as litigation proceeds. As a result, many trans service members have had their gender-affirming medical care halted, even as similar hormone therapy is now being expanded for cisgender service members. Under the executive order, the military currently disqualifies individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria and has begun formal administrative separation proceedings for trans personnel.
SPARTA Pride, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization made up of trans service members, veterans, and their allies, issued a statement to the Washington Blade following Hegseth’s announcement.
“If hormone therapy helps warfighters perform at their best, then it cannot simultaneously be used as evidence that transgender service members are unfit to serve,” said Kara Corcoran, executive director of SPARTA Pride. “The same class of evidence-based medical treatment cannot be characterized as readiness-enhancing for one group and readiness-destroying for another.”
The legal fight over trans military service remains ongoing.
On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that trans service members already serving in the military could continue to do so, while allowing the armed services to continue refusing to enlist new trans recruits.
The Blade reached out to the Pentagon to ask why cisgender service members could receive hormone therapy while trans service members could not, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
Wanda Alston Foundation announces passing of founding executive director Brian Watson
Beloved local master gardener Frank Asher dies at 69
DOJ seeks to dismiss some claims in gay FBI employee’s bias lawsuit
The government pressured USA Rugby to ban transgender women. A Baltimore team refused to comply.
LGBTQ community center opens in Leesburg, Va.
Lindsey Graham has passed away. Do LGBTQ people have a right to celebrate his death?
The queer Asian comics building collective joy in D.C.
Hegseth announces testosterone initiative as trans troop ban continues
ROSENSTEIN: Vote Susan Stewart for mayor of Rehoboth Beach
Literature is my companion
-
Congress5 days agoLindsey Graham has passed away. Do LGBTQ people have a right to celebrate his death?
-
a&e features5 days ago
The queer Asian comics building collective joy in D.C.
-
Pentagon5 days ago
Hegseth announces testosterone initiative as trans troop ban continues
-
Opinions5 days ago
ROSENSTEIN: Vote Susan Stewart for mayor of Rehoboth Beach
