National
Gay troops seek reinstatement through ‘Don’t Ask’ lawsuit
Lawsuit challenges constitutionality of gay ban
Mike Almy, a former Air Force officer, is among the plaintiffs seeking reinstatement in the military through a new 'Don't Ask' lawsuit. (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Three service members who are seeking a return to the U.S. armed forces after being discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are the focus of a new lawsuit filed in a California federal court challenging the constitutionality of the military’s gay ban.
The lawsuit was filed Monday at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, among the groups leading the fight to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and Morrison & Foerster LLP, a legal firm based in San Diego, Calif.
The three plaintiffs are gay former service members who were expelled from the U.S. armed forces under the military’s gay ban: Mike Almy, an Air Force communications officer who was discharged in 2006; Anthony Loverde, an Air Force technician who was discharged in 2008; and Jason Knight, a Navy translator who was discharged in 2007.
In a Blade interview, Almy said he’s seeking reinstatement into the Air Force because he loves the armed forces and “spent his whole career serving the military” before being discharged after 13 years.
“I obviously don’t miss ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ but that aspect aside, I greatly love and miss the military and just can’t wait to go back in as an officer and a leader,” he said.
The litigation asks the court to employ the Witt standard established by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as the basis for reinstating the three discharged service members.
The Witt standard came into being in 2008 after the Ninth Circuit ruled in the case of Witt v. Air Force that the U.S. government must show the presence of a gay service member in the armed forces is detrimental to unit cohesion before discharging him or her.
Additionally, the lawsuit asks the California federal court to strike down “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on the grounds that the 1993 law violates gay service members’ freedom of speech and due process rights under the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In this respect, the litigation is similar to another lawsuit currently pending before the Ninth Circuit challenging “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Log Cabin Republicans v. United States.
Now that the litigation has been filed, the U.S. Justice Department has 60 days to respond to the complaint. The Obama administration has previously defended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the courts and is expected to continue defending the statute against this lawsuit.
M. Andrew Woodmansee, a partner at Morrison & Foerster, said a case management conference for the litigation before a district court judge should take place in March. He said he’s not expecting a trial for this lawsuit, but instead, a ruling by summary judgment in summer 2011.
Woodmansee said it’s “virtually impossible” to predict whether the legislation would succeed at the district court level — or even the appellate court or U.S. Supreme Court level — but said he believes the lawsuit has a “very strong” chance of succeeding based on the strong military records of the plaintiffs seeking reinstatement.
“There are a lot of factors to consider, but I think this case is very strong because it’s also very simple in that sense we are looking at three individual service members who want nothing more than to go back and serve their country,” he said.
Repeal advocates have filed the lawsuit as legislation remains pending before the U.S. Senate that would lead to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), as of Monday had 40 co-sponsors, according to the Human Rights Campaign, and is expected to come up for a vote during the lame duck session of Congress.
In a statement, Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN’s executive director, said the lawsuit is part of “an aggressive, far-reaching litigation strategy” that his organization is planning if Congress fails to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this month.
“This dispute can be resolved by Congress or by the courts.” Sarvis said. “With this filing we put Congress on notice that a cadre of service members and our national legal team stand ready to litigate strategically around the country.”
If Congress doesn’t repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sarvis said SLDN plans to file another lawsuit early next year on behalf of young people who want to enter military service, but can’t because of the military’s gay ban, and a lawsuit for discharged service members who want to serve in the National Guard or the reserves.
While repeal advocates pursue both litigation and legislation as avenues to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the Obama administration has emphasized that congressional action and not action from the courts is the preferred way to the end the law. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said a legislative end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would provide adequate training time to implement open service in the U.S. armed forces.
On Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated the point that the legislative route is the preferred way to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in response to a question from the Washington Blade on the new lawsuit.
“One of the two entities — either Congress or the courts — is going to repeal or do away with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Gibbs said. “The best way to do it would be to do it through Congress. The House has passed that legislation, and it is clear that well more than a majority of U.S. senators believe that that’s the case as well.”
Woodmansee said he thinks legislative action should be taken on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but added litigation remains an option should Congress be unable to finish the job.
“Throughout this country’s history, the courts stand ready to act when Congress doesn’t, and that’s what we’ve done here,” Woodmansee said. “We’ve been trying to effect a deal through the legislature, and if they won’t act, then we have no choice … but to go the courts and ask them to do their job, and that is provide a check as the third branch of government.”
National
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Delegates also voted for other LGBTQ-inclusive measures
The United Methodist Church on Wednesday removed a ban on gay clergy that was in place for more than 40 years, voting to also allow LGBTQ weddings and end prohibitions on the use of United Methodist funds to “promote acceptance of homosexuality.”
Overturning the policy forbidding the church from ordaining “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” effectively formalized a practice that had caused an estimated quarter of U.S. congregations to leave the church.
The New York Times notes additional votes “affirming L.G.B.T.Q. inclusion in the church are expected before the meeting adjourns on Friday.” Wednesday’s measures were passed overwhelmingly and without debate. Delegates met in Charlotte, N.C.
According to the church’s General Council on Finance and Administration, there were 5,424,175 members in the U.S. in 2022 with an estimated global membership approaching 10 million.
The Times notes that other matters of business last week included a “regionalization” plan, which gave autonomy to different regions such that they can establish their own rules on matters including issues of sexuality — about which international factions are likelier to have more conservative views.
Federal Government
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
New rules protect LGBTQ students from discrimination
Four Republicans state attorneys general have sued the Biden-Harris administration over the U.S. Department of Education’s new Title IX policies that were finalized April 19 and carry anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ students in public schools.
The lawsuit filed on Tuesday, which is led by the attorneys general of Kentucky and Tennessee, follows a pair of legal challenges from nine Republican states on Monday — all contesting the administration’s interpretation that sex-based discrimination under the statute also covers that which is based on the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The administration also rolled back Trump-era rules governing how schools must respond to allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely perceived as biased in favor of the interests of those who are accused.
“The U.S. Department of Education has no authority to let boys into girls’ locker rooms,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement. “In the decades since its adoption, Title IX has been universally understood to protect the privacy and safety of women in private spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms.”
“Florida is suing the Biden administration over its unlawful Title IX changes,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote on social media. “Biden is abusing his constitutional authority to push an ideological agenda that harms women and girls and conflicts with the truth.”
After announcing the finalization of the department’s new rules, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told reporters, “These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights.”
The new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, a question that is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.
LGBTQ and civil rights advocacy groups praised the changes. Lambda Legal issued a statement arguing the new rule “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” adding that it “appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity.”
Federal Government
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Ruling a response to N.C., W.Va. legal challenges
BY ERIN REED | The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that transgender people are a protected class and that Medicaid bans on trans care are unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the court ruled that discriminating based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is discrimination based on gender identity and sex. The ruling is in response to lower court challenges against state laws and policies in North Carolina and West Virginia that prevent trans people on state plans or Medicaid from obtaining coverage for gender-affirming care; those lower courts found such exclusions unconstitutional.
In issuing the final ruling, the 4th Circuit declared that trans exclusions were “obviously discriminatory” and were “in violation of the equal protection clause” of the Constitution, upholding lower court rulings that barred the discriminatory exclusions.
The 4th Circuit ruling focused on two cases in states within its jurisdiction: North Carolina and West Virginia. In North Carolina, trans state employees who rely on the State Health Plan were unable to use it to obtain gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria diagnoses.
In West Virginia, a similar exclusion applied to those on the state’s Medicaid plan for surgeries related to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Both exclusions were overturned by lower courts, and both states appealed to the 4th Circuit.
Attorneys for the states had argued that the policies were not discriminatory because the exclusions for gender affirming care “apply to everyone, not just transgender people.” The majority of the court, however, struck down such a claim, pointing to several other cases where such arguments break down, such as same-sex marriage bans “applying to straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people equally,” even though straight people would be entirely unaffected by such bans.
Other cases cited included literacy tests, a tax on wearing kippot for Jewish people, and interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.
See this portion of the court analysis here:
Of particular note in the majority opinion was a section on Geduldig v. Aiello that seemed laser-targeted toward an eventual U.S. Supreme Court decision on discriminatory policies targeting trans people. Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 ruling, determined that pregnancy discrimination is not inherently sex discrimination because it does not “classify on sex,” but rather, on pregnancy status.
Using similar arguments, the states claimed that gender affirming care exclusions did not classify or discriminate based on trans status or sex, but rather, on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and treatments to alleviate that dysphoria.
The majority was unconvinced, ruling, “gender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.” In doing so, the majority cited several cases, many from after Geduldig was decided.
Notably, Geduldig was cited in both the 6th and 11th Circuit decisions upholding gender affirming care bans in a handful of states.
The court also pointed to the potentially ridiculous conclusions that strict readings of what counts as proxy discrimination could lead to, such as if legislators attempted to use “XX chromosomes” and “XY chromosomes” to get around sex discrimination policies:
Importantly, the court also rebutted recent arguments that Bostock applies only to “limited Title VII claims involving employers who fired” LGBTQ employees, and not to Title IX, which the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination mandate references. The majority stated that this is not the case, and that there is “nothing in Bostock to suggest the holding was that narrow.”
Ultimately, the court ruled that the exclusions on trans care violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The court also ruled that the West Virginia Medicaid Program violates the Medicaid Act and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of anti-trans expert testimony for lacking relevant expertise. West Virginia and North Carolina must end trans care exclusions in line with earlier district court decisions.
The decision will likely have nationwide impacts on court cases in other districts. The case had become a major battleground for trans rights, with dozens of states filing amicus briefs in favor or against the protection of the equal process rights of trans people. Twenty-one Republican states filed an amicus brief in favor of denying trans people anti-discrimination protections in healthcare, and 17 Democratic states joined an amicus brief in support of the healthcare rights of trans individuals.
Many Republican states are defending anti-trans laws that discriminate against trans people by banning or limiting gender-affirming care. These laws could come under threat if the legal rationale used in this decision is adopted by other circuits. In the 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction, West Virginia and North Carolina already have gender-affirming care bans for trans youth in place, and South Carolina may consider a similar bill this week.
The decision could potentially be used as precedent to challenge all of those laws in the near future and to deter South Carolina’s bill from passing into law.
The decision is the latest in a web of legal battles concerning trans people. Earlier this month, the 4th Circuit also reversed a sports ban in West Virginia, ruling that Title IX protects trans student athletes. However, the Supreme Court recently narrowed a victory for trans healthcare from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and allowed Idaho to continue enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for everyone except the two plaintiffs in the case.
Importantly, that decision was not about the constitutionality of gender-affirming care, but the limits of temporary injunctions in the early stages of a constitutional challenge to discriminatory state laws. It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately hear cases on this topic in the near future.
Celebrating the victory, Lambda Legal Counsel and Health Care Strategist Omar Gonzalez-Pagan said in a posted statement, “The court’s decision sends a clear message that gender-affirming care is critical medical care for transgender people and that denying it is harmful and unlawful … We hope this decision makes it clear to policy makers across the country that health care decisions belong to patients, their families, and their doctors, not to politicians.”
****************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
University students have a right to protest
Former CAMP Rehoboth official sentenced to nine months in prison
Christian Siriano to serve as grand marshal of Annapolis Pride Parade
Md. governor signs Freedom to Read Act
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
