National
‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is dead
Calif. court ruling means gays can serve openly
DADT training at Quantico, VA. (Blade photo by Michael Key)
A federal appellate court in California on Wednesday overturned a stay on an injunction that had barred the U.S. government from enforcing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” allowing gay service members to start serving openly in the armed forces.
In the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the plaintiffs’ request to lift the stay of the injunction that was put in place last year by a U.S. district judge.
“Appellee/cross-appellant’s motion to lift this court’s November 1, 2010, order granting a stay of the district court’s judgment pending appeal is granted,” the decision states.
The decision to lift the stay on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” injunction comes from a three-judge panel within the Ninth Circuit made up of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and Circuit Judges Kim Wardlow and Richard Paez.
After ruling in September that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was unconstitutional, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips put an injunction in place to halt the enforcement of the military’s gay ban. The injunction lasted for eight days until the Ninth Circuit placed a stay on the order upon request from the Justice Department, making gays once again unable to serve openly in the military.
The ruling on Wednesday reverses this decision and once again allows for open service. The Ninth Circuit must still decide on the constitutionality of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but until it does, the anti-gay law will no longer be enforced.
Cynthia Smith, a Defense Department spokesperson, said the Pentagon is studying the decision with the Justice Department, but will comply with the court order and take “immediate steps to inform the field of this order.”
“In the meantime, implementation of the [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] repeal voted by the Congress and signed into law by the president last December is proceeding smoothly, is well underway, and certification is just weeks away,” Smith added.
The panel’s decision, dated July 6, notes that the U.S. government never asserted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was constitutional in briefs seeking to uphold the statute. Further, the appellate court notes U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement in February that the Obama administration determined that the Defense of Marriage Act — and laws related to sexual orientation — are unconstitutional.
“Appellants/cross-appellees state that the process of repealing [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] is well underway, and the preponderance of the armed forces are expected to have been trained by mid-summer,” the decision states. “The circumstances and balance of hardships have changed, and appellants/cross-appellees can no longer satisfy the demanding standard for issuance of a stay.”
R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, which brought the case to court, said the Ninth Circuit’s decision to lift the stay “removes all uncertainty” for gay service members who are “no longer under threat of discharge as the repeal implementation process goes forward.”
“As a captain in the United States Army Reserve, I have observed the reactions of my colleagues to the Department of Defense’s move toward open service, and can say with complete confidence that our military is ready, willing and able to take this step,” Cooper said. “Log Cabin Republicans are proud of our role in ending this unconstitutional and un-American policy once and for all.”
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United and the sole military veteran plaintiff in the lawsuit, praised the decision for bringing about an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” at a time when certification is still outstanding to end the military’s gay ban legislatively.
“With the wait for certification dragging out beyond a reasonable time frame, the court has once again stepped in to require the Pentagon to stop enforcing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and this time it very well may be for good,” Nicholson said. “I am proud to have worked personally worked with Log Cabin on this case for more than five years now and to have represented the gay military community as the sole named veteran on this lawsuit. Despite the criticisms and years of waiting, this case has yet again successfully eviscerated this outdated, harmful, and discriminatory law.”
Under the repeal law signed in December, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” won’t be off the books until 60 days pass after the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify the military for open service. Although training throughout the military has been underway since February, certification has yet to take place.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said the lifting of the stay is “most welcomed” and could have been avoided if the president and defense leaders had certified repeal at an earlier time.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of SLDN (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
“It’s the hope of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network that this favorable ruling will not be challenged by the Defense Department,” Sarvis said. “In fact, this whole matter could have been avoided had we had certification back in the spring. It’s time to get on with that important certification, end the confusion for all service members, and put a final end to this misguided policy.”
Dan Woods, an attorney with White & Case LLC who’s handling the case for Log Cabin, said the Justice Department can appeal the lifting of the stay to either the full Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court.
“I have no idea what the government’s going to do,” Woods said. “And really they shouldn’t have appealed in the first place and they shouldn’t take this any further. They just should acknowledge, once and for all, that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is dead.”
A White House spokesperson deferred comment on the Ninth Circuit decision to the Justice Department and the Pentagon.
Woods warned gay service members not to come out until the government makes an announcement and whether or not it plans to appeal the decision to lift the stay on the injunction.
“I’m urging people to sort of wait and see what the government does before people come out, but people should stayed tuned and see what the government’s next move is and maybe people will be free to serve openly in the armed forces very soon,” Woods said.
In addition to lifting the stay, the appellate court also grants the plaintiff’s request to expedite oral arguments in the case and states the case should be calendared for the week of Aug. 29.
Woods said the continued oral arguments — even with the injunction in place — are necessary because the litigation in the Log Cabin lawsuit is still ongoing.
“The only thing that’s really been decided is that the stay of the injunction,” Woods said. “The government is still arguing in its appeal that the injunction. It’s arguing that Log Cabin doesn’t have standing to bring the case and things like that, and we wanted to put these issues to bed once and for all and so we asked the court for an expedited hearing on all these other issues.”
NOTE: This post has been updated.
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.
Rev. Kipp Nelson of St. Johns’s on the Lake Methodist Church in Miami shared a statement praising the new developments:
“It is a glorious day in the United Methodist Church. As a worldwide denomination, we have now publicly proclaimed the boundless love of God and finally slung open the doors of our church so that all people, no matter their identities or orientations, may pursue the calling of their hearts.
“Truly, all are loved and belong here among us. I am honored to serve as a pastor in the United Methodist Church for such a time as this, for our future is bright and filled with hope. Praise be, praise be.”
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.
Blade Summer Kickoff Party returns to Rehoboth
Andy Cohen coming to D.C.
Want to dance for a good cause?
Calendar: May 3-9
Brittney Griner considered suicide in Russian prison
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Pride season has begun
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
