National
Justice Dept. brief against DOMA lauded as ‘watershed moment’
Administration says law ‘unconstitutionally discriminates’
LGBT rights supporters are heralding a recently filed legal brief against the Defense of Marriage Act — the first of its kind against the anti-gay law from the Obama administration — as a landmark document that will aid in bringing about the end of DOMA.
Filed on July 1 by the Justice Department, the 31-page brief argues that Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional because laws related to sexual orientation under precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court should be subject to heightened scrutiny, or must be shown to advance a significant government interest to stay on the books.
“Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act … unconstitutionally discriminates,” the brief states. “It treats married same-sex couples who are legally married under their states’ laws differently than similarly situated opposite-sex couples, denying them the status, recognition and significant federal benefits otherwise available to married persons.”
The Justice Department contends LGBT people are a suspect class, or a group likely subject to differential treatment, because they’ve been subject to a history of discrimination, they exhibit immutable characteristics, and they’re minorities with limited political power. Additionally, the brief contends sexual orientation bears no relation to a person’s ability to contribute to society.
The brief argues that Congress enacted DOMA in 1996 out of motivation “in substantial part by animus toward gay and lesbian individuals and their intimate relationships” and states Congress advanced no other material interest in passing the law.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement that the brief represents “a watershed moment” in the LGBT rights movement.
“Now the federal government has taken that historic stand a step further and put real meat on the bones of why there is no basis for DOMA to stand,” Solmonese said. “This step represents real leadership from the Obama administration and further hastens the day in which we will leave this odious law in the dustbin of history.”
Notably, the brief recalls the U.S. government’s role in discriminating against LGBT people in its description of the ways in which LGBT people have received different treatment over the course of history. The Justice Department recalls that former President Eisenhower signed an executive order adding “sexual perversion” as grounds for dismissal for federal employees.
“The federal government enforced Executive Order 10450 zealously, engaging various agencies in intrusive investigatory techniques to purge gays and lesbians from the civilian workforce,” the brief states. “The State Department, for example, charged ‘”skilled” investigators’ with ‘interrogating every potential male applicant to discover if they had any effeminate tendencies or mannerisms,’ used polygraphs on individuals accused of homosexuality who denied it, and sent inspectors to ‘every embassy, consulate and mission’ to uncover homosexuality.'”
The brief was filed in the case of Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Plaintiff Karen Golinski, a lesbian federal court employee, sought medical coverage for her spouse, but the U.S. government denied this coverage because of DOMA. The Justice Department asks the federal court not to dismiss this claim.
Tara Borelli, a Lambda Legal staff attorney who’s representing Golinski in the litigation, said the “very forthright way” that the brief looks at the history of discrimination against LGBT people from the U.S. government — as well as state and local governments — is particularly striking.
“It is a very honest look at the painful way that the government has discriminated against gay people and the toll that’s taken on our community,” Borelli said.
The Justice Department also responds to an earlier brief that the House, which was filed in defense of the law under the direction of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). The brief was written by private attorney Paul Clement, whom Boehner hired to litigate on behalf of DOMA in the lawsuits against the anti-gay law.
At one point, the brief disputes the House’s claim that marriage should be left between one man and one woman because that union is the best situation for child-rearing.
“There is no sound basis for concluding that same-sex couples who have committed to marriages recognized by state law are anything other than fully capable of responsible parenting and child-rearing,” the brief states. “To the contrary, many leading medical, psychological and social welfare organizations have issued policies opposing restrictions on lesbian and gay parenting based on their conclusions, supported by numerous studies, that children raised by gay and parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.”
John Aravosis, the gay editor of AMERICAblog who drew attention to the anti-gay rhetoric in the first brief in supporting DOMA that came out of the Obama administration in 2009, said the language in the most recent Justice Department brief “looked pretty amazing.” Still, he criticized the administration for filing it late on a Friday night before a holiday weekend.
“Why didn’t the president announce the existence of this brief two days earlier when meeting with the community’s leaders in the White House to celebrate the Stonewall anniversary?” Aravosis said. “The brief appears to be quite historic, so why attempt to hide it? It’s hard not to conclude that this brief was intentionally buried by the administration in order to minimize mainstream media coverage.”
The Obama administration notified plaintiffs in a document June 3 that it intended to file a brief against DOMA in the Golinski case. Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokesperson, said the decision to litigate against DOMA is consistent with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement on Feb. 23 that the Obama administration determined that the anti-gay law is unconstitutional.
Doug NeJaime, a gay law professor at Loyola Law School, said the Golinski brief marks the “fullest elaboration of the administration’s new position” on DOMA that Holder announced to Congress in a February letter.
“We had the Holder letter and now we have a whole brief sort of spitting out the arguments that Attorney General Holder made in that letter,” NeJaime said. “It’s a really substantial brief explaining why sexual orientation should get heightened equal protection, and it fits all of the main arguments that gay rights lawyers have been hitting and that are necessary for the court to find that there’s what the administration argues are a quasi-suspect classification.”
NeJaime added he expects similar briefs in other pending lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of DOMA: Gill v. OPM, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States.
Observers say the Justice Department’s decision to take an active role in attacking DOMA in these lawsuits would make the courts more apt to declare the law unconstitutional.
Borelli said the brief from the Justice Department should prompt the courts to “look with even deeper suspicion” at DOMA.
“It should help hasten DOMA’s demise because it’s very powerful that the federal government admits that gay discrimination under the law is simply not suitable,” she said.
Similarly, NeJaime said the brief from the Obama administration gives the argument against the anti-gay law “a more objective and non-advocacy type flavor.”
“It’s not just the adversarial parties before the court, it’s actually the government now saying this is the proper way to analyze this, so I think it carries a lot of weight,” NeJaime said.
But whether the administration’s brief would mean a quicker end to DOMA remains in question. Advocates previously said they expect DOMA litigation to come to the Supreme Court in 2013.
NeJaime added the Obama administration’s position on DOMA may in fact mean the process for striking down DOMA could take longer.
“If anything it may have the effect of delaying the litigation because now we have the House involved as well, and so it actually makes the litigation a little more complicated, but I do think it’s something that favors the courts striking down and eventually getting this up to the Supreme Court,” NeJaime said.
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.
National
GLSEN hosts Respect Awards with Billy Porter, Peppermint
Annual event aims to ‘inspire a lot of people to get active’
GLSEN will host its annual Respect Awards April 29 in New York, with guests including Miss Peppermint and Billy Porter.
Respect Awards director Michael Chavez said that the event will be moving.
“It will inspire a lot of people to get active and take action in their own communities and see how much more work there is to do, especially with all of the harmful things happening,” he said.
At the event, they will recognize the Student Advocate of the Year, Sophia T. Annually, GLSEN recognizes a student from around the country who is impacting their community.
“Sophia is doing incredible work advocating for inclusive sex education that is LGBTQ+ affirming, working with Johns Hopkins University to implement curriculum.” Chavez said.
Chavez calls the students that attend the Respect Awards the “biggest celebrities” of the evening.
“It is really important for the adults, both the allies and the queer folks, to hear directly from these queer youth about what it’s like to be in school today as a queer person,” he said.
GLSEN is a queer youth advocacy organization that has been working for more than 30 years to protect LGBTQ youth.
“GLSEN is all hands on deck right now, because our kids are under direct attack and have been for years now,” said actor Wilson Cruz.
Cruz is the chair of GLSEN’s National Board, which works to fundraise and strategize for the organization.
“I think we are fundamental to the education of LGBTQ students in school,” he said. “We advocate for more comprehensive support at the local, national, and federal levels so our students are supported.”
Chavez is one of the students that was impacted by this work. He led his school’s GSA organization and worked with GLSEN throughout his youth.
Cruz said Chavez is doing what he hopes today’s GLSEN students do in the future, which is pay the work forward.
“There’s nothing more powerful than people who have experienced the work that GLSEN does and then coming back and allowing us to expand on that work with each generation that comes forward,” he said.
Florida
Homeless transgender woman murdered in Miami Beach
Andrea Doria Dos Passos attacked while she slept
Gregory Fitzgerald Gibert, 53, who was out on probation, is charged with the second-degree murder of 37-year-old Andrea Doria Dos Passos, a transgender Latina woman who was found deceased in front of the Miami Ballet company facility by a security guard this past week.
According to a Miami Beach Police spokesperson the security guard thought Dos Passos was sleeping in the entranceway around 6:45 a.m. on April 23 and when he went to wake her he discovered the blood and her injuries and alerted 911.
She was deceased from massive trauma to her face and head. According to Miami Beach police when video surveillance footage was reviewed, it showed Dos Passos lying down in the entranceway apparently asleep. WFOR reported: In the early morning hours, a man arrived, looked around, and spotted her. Police said the man was dressed in a black shirt, red shorts, and red shoes.
At one point, he walked away, picked up a metal pipe from the ground, and then returned. After looking around, he sat on a bench near Dos Passos. After a while, he got up and repeatedly hit her in the head and face while she was sleeping, according to police.
“The male is then seen standing over her, striking her, and then manipulating her body. The male then walks away and places the pipe inside a nearby trash can (the pipe was found and recovered in the same trash can),” according to the arrest report.
Police noted that in addition to trauma on her face and head, two wooden sticks were lodged in her nostrils and there was a puncture wound in her chest.
Victor Van Gilst, Dos Passos’s stepfather confirmed she was trans and experiencing homelessness.
“She had no chance to defend herself whatsoever. I don’t know if this was a hate crime since she was transgender or if she had some sort of interaction with this person because he might have been homeless as well. The detective could not say if she was attacked because she was transgender,” said Van Gilst.
“She has been struggling with mental health issues for a long time, going back to when she was in her early 20s. We did everything we could to help her. My wife is devastated. For her, this is like a nightmare that turned into reality. Andrea moved around a lot and even lived in California for a while. She was sadly homeless. I feel the system let her down. She was a good person,” he added.
The Miami Police Department arrested Gibert, collected his clothing, noting the red shorts were the same type in the video and had blood on them. Blood was also found on his shoes, according to police. He was taken into custody and charged.
“The suspect has an extensive criminal record and reportedly was recently released from custody on probation for prior criminal charges. Police apprehended the suspect in the city of Miami and the investigation is currently ongoing. This case is further evidence that individuals need to be held accountable for prior violent crimes for the protection of the public. We offer our sincere condolences to the family and friends of the victim,” Miami Beach Mayor Steve Meiner said in a statement.
Joe Saunders, senior political director with LGBTQ rights group Equality Florida, told the Miami Herald that “whenever a transgender person is murdered, especially when it is with such brutality, the question should be asked about whether or not this was a hate-motivated crime.”
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Out in the World: LGBTQ news from Europe and Asia
Weekend brings two shootings in U Street, Dupont Circle areas
GLSEN hosts Respect Awards with Billy Porter, Peppermint
Homeless transgender woman murdered in Miami Beach
Catching up with the asexuals and aromantics of D.C.
Argentina government dismisses transgender public sector employees
Mexican Senate approves bill to ban conversion therapy
Should I divorce my husband for the hot new guy in our building?
Md. governor signs Freedom to Read Act
-
District of Columbia5 days agoCatching up with the asexuals and aromantics of D.C.
-
South America5 days agoArgentina government dismisses transgender public sector employees
-
Mexico4 days agoMexican Senate approves bill to ban conversion therapy
-
Advice4 days agoShould I divorce my husband for the hot new guy in our building?