National
Anti-gay Bush official sentenced to jail
Bloch guilty in criminal contempt of Congress case
Bloch
A Bush administration official who came under criticism for refusing to enforce anti-discrimination policies protecting gay federal workers was sentenced on March 30 to one month in jail on a charge of criminal contempt of Congress.
Scott J. Bloch, who served as head of the U.S. Office of Special Council from 2004 to 2008, is appealing the sentence, which was handed down in Washington by U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson. Robinson also sentenced him to one year of unsupervised probation and 200 hours of community service.
She agreed to put a stay on the sentence while Bloch’s attorney, William Sullivan, files an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Sullivan said the appeal is based on Bloch’s contention that he did not know the offense of contempt of Congress, to which he pleaded guilty in April 2010, carries a required minimum sentence of 30 days in jail.
The appeal seeks to overturn Robinson’s denial last month of a motion by Bloch to withdraw his guilty plea.
Robinson said she interpreted the statute to include a required jail term of at least one month for those convicted of or who plead guilty to criminal contempt of Congress. She noted that at the time Bloch pleaded guilty, he explicitly acknowledged — in response to her questions in the courtroom — that a prosecutors’ plea bargain agreement he accepted did not prevent her from sentencing him to a prison term of up to six months.
Sullivan strongly disputes her interpretation of the statute, saying in court papers that two other judges have sentenced people convicted under the contempt of Congress statute to probation without any jail time. Robinson said those cases were irrelevant because the statute gives her discretion to sentence Bloch to up to six months in jail.
Bloch’s sentencing last week marked yet another twist in a seven-year saga that began in 2004, upon his appointment by President George W. Bush as head of an office charged with protecting federal employees from discriminatory personnel practices. The independent Office of Special Counsel, which Bloch headed, is also charged with protecting federal employees who become whistleblowers by disclosing corruption or gross incompetence within federal government agencies.
Immediately upon taking office, Bloch announced that he disagreed with a longstanding interpretation of a U.S. civil service law believed to protect federal workers from job-related discrimination based solely on their sexual orientation. Saying he interpreted the statute to limit its coverage of gays to matters involving “homosexual acts,” Bloch said gay or lesbian federal employees could no longer be protected against improper personnel practices based on their sexual orientation.
His position on gay federal workers triggered an immediate outcry from LGBT advocacy organizations and their allies in Congress. A spokesperson for Bush surprised some political observers when he said it remained the policy of the White House and the administration that gay or lesbian federal workers were, in fact, protected against sexual orientation discrimination.
LGBT rights groups, while expressing appreciation for the Bush administration statement, pointed out that Bloch appeared to be ignoring the statement by continuing to operate the Office of Special Counsel as if gay and lesbian federal employees were not protected.
In addition to criticism over his position on gay federal workers, Block came under attack over allegations that he improperly sought to purge employees in his office who disagreed with him, including at least two gay employees. The latter allegations led to a congressional investigation into Bloch and the Office of Special Counsel.
Allegations that eventually led to his being charged with contempt of Congress began in 2006, when investigators raised questions about whether Bloch arranged for a computer services company called Geeks on Call to “scrub” files from his office computer as well as from the computers of two of his political appointees at the Office of Special Counsel.
Bloch was under investigation at the time by the inspector general of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management that he allegedly improperly retaliated against former Office of Special Counsel employees.
In May 2008, the FBI raided Bloch’s office and home, confiscating computers and various files. In October 2008 the White House requested and received his resignation.
The case docket for the U.S. District Court, which is now handling Bloch’s criminal case, shows that his sentencing date was postponed several times since he pleaded guilty nearly a year ago. The main cause of the postponements has been his attorney’s dispute with the judge over whether the contempt of Congress statute carries a mandatory jail term of at least 30 days.
In an unusual development, federal prosecutors joined defense attorney Sullivan in arguing in court filings that they did not agree with Robinson’s interpretation that the statute carries a required jail term. Assistant U.S. Attorney Glenn Leon, the lead prosecutor in the case, argued in court papers that the government believes the statute gives judges discretion to sentence someone to probation without a prison term.
“Both parties entered into the plea agreement believing that 2 U.S.C. 192 [the contempt of Congress statute] was a probation-eligible offense,” Leon said in a court brief. “In light of the Court’s ruling to the contrary, the government believes that fairness requires it to not oppose the defendant’s motion to withdraw, because otherwise the plea agreement would not reflect what the parties negotiated and agreed to in good faith.”
Some critics, including gay blogger John Aravosis of AmericaBlog, questioned whether the Obama administration was siding with Bloch to prevent a legal precedent that could result in the jailing of Obama administration officials who might get into trouble with the law in the future.
During a court hearing last week, Robinson agreed to consider another request by Sullivan that she allow Bloch to serve his one-month jail sentence in home confinement if the sentence is upheld on appeal.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’
A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.
HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.
Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”
“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”
Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.
The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.
“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”
“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”
Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.
“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.
“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.
“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”
SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:
“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.
“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.
“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.
“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service, signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.
“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently to meet its recruiting goals.
“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest for more and more power. This appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is just a means to an end.”
Federal Government
Trump admin cancels more than $800 million in LGBTQ health grants
As of early May, half of scrapped NIH grants were LGBTQ focused
The Trump-Vance administration has cancelled more than $800 million in research into the health of sexual and gender minority groups, according to a report Sunday in The New York Times.
The paper found more than half of the grants through the National Institutes of Health that were scrapped through early May involved the study of cancers and viruses that tend to affect LGBTQ people.
The move goes further than efforts to claw back diversity related programs and gender affirming care for transgender and gender diverse youth, implicating swaths of research by institutions like Johns Hopkins and Columbia along with public universities.
The Times notes that a $41 million cut impacting Florida State University will stall “a major effort to prevent HIV in adolescents and young adults, who experience a fifth of new infections in the United States each year.”
A surge of federal funding for LGBTQ health research began under the Obama-Biden administration and continued since. Under his first term, Trump dedicated substantial resources toward his Ending the HIV Epidemic in the United States initiative.
Cuts administered under the health secretary appointed in his second term, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have put the future of that program in question.
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Trump admin cancels more than $800 million in LGBTQ health grants
Brazilian crossdresser opens studio to help fellow crossdressers
ILGA World reinstates Israeli LGBTQ rights group
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Episcopal bishop to speak at WorldPride human rights conference
D.C. liquor board extends drinking hours for WorldPride
Executive director of LGBTQ Catholic group to travel to Rome for conclave
Cozy Night In Ideas And Inspiration
-
U.S. Supreme Court12 hours agoSupreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
-
World Pride 20255 days agoEpiscopal bishop to speak at WorldPride human rights conference
-
World Pride 20254 days agoD.C. liquor board extends drinking hours for WorldPride
-
The Vatican5 days agoExecutive director of LGBTQ Catholic group to travel to Rome for conclave