Local
Judge rejects request for stay on D.C. marriage law
A D.C. Superior Court judge Friday denied a Maryland minister’s request for a temporary injunction to prevent the city’s same-sex marriage law from taking effect March 3.
Following a hearing, Judge Brian Holeman issued a preliminary ruling from the bench saying he did not have authority to block a law approved by the city government and cleared by Congress through the normal congressional review process.
Holeman also said he didn’t believe a lawsuit filed by Bishop Harry Jackson seeking to force the city to hold a voter referendum to overturn the marriage law was likely to succeed on the merits. Holeman noted that a key requirement for a court injunction is that the people seeking it can demonstrate a likelihood of winning an underlying case.
“Everyone knows the chances of their winning on the merits are very slim,” said gay rights attorney Mark Levine, who attended the court hearing.
Jackson filed the lawsuit earlier this year after the city’s election board rejected his proposed referendum on grounds that it would violate the D.C. Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In Friday’s hearing, Holeman told attorneys for Jackson and for the city, who argued against the injunction, that he would issue a final, written decision on the injunction request Monday.
“I understood this to mean that his written opinion would be the same as his ruling today — to deny the injunction,” Levine said.
He said Jackson’s lawyers indicated they would quickly take their request for an injunction to the D.C. Court of Appeals, possibly as soon as Friday afternoon or Monday. He noted that most court observers believe the appeals court will uphold Holeman’s ruling against an injunction to block the marriage law.
Holeman denied yet another request by Austin Nimocks, one of Jackson’s attorneys, asking him to rule Friday on both the injunction request and on the merits of the case. Instead, Holeman scheduled a separate hearing on the merits of Jackson’s case seeking a voter referendum for Friday, Feb. 27.
“It’s a hearing I think is very likely to be cancelled,” said Levine.
He was referring to the rapidly approaching deadline that Jackson and his supporters face to pull together the numerous requirements of a voter referendum, including petition signatures from voters across the city.
Under the city’s election law, these requirements must be met between the time the D.C. government passes a law that opponents seek to kill through a referendum and the time Congress completes its 30 legislative day review of such a law. Congress is expected to complete its review on the same-sex marriage measure March 3.
Legal observers have said Jackson has a better — although unlikely — chance of killing the marriage law through a separate process he began earlier this year for a voter initiative. Unlike a referendum, the city’s election law gives up to six months for completing the necessary petition and administrative requirements of placing an initiative on the ballot. However, there is no time limit for Jackson to continue his court appeal seeking to overturn the city and the lower court rulings disqualifying the marriage initiative on grounds that it violates the city’s human rights law.
Similar to their decision on Jackson’s referendum proposal, the D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics and a Superior Court judge have ruled that an initiative seeking to ban same-sex marriage cannot be held because it would violate the city’s Human Rights Act.
Jackson has appealed the board and a Superior Court judge’s rulings disqualifying his initiative proposal to the D.C. Court of Appeals. That court is expected to issue a ruling on the case later this year — after the same-sex marriage law has gone into effect and after gay and lesbian couples beginning marrying.
Nimocks and other attorneys working on Jackson case could not immediately be reached.
District of Columbia
‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case
Sean Charles Dunn faced misdemeanor charge
A jury with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday, Nov. 6, found D.C. resident Sean Charles Dunn not guilty of assault for tossing a hero sandwich into the chest of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent at the intersection of 14th and U streets, N.W. at around 11 p.m. on Aug. 10.
Dunn’s attorneys hailed the verdict as a gesture of support for Dunn’s contention that his action, which was captured on video that went viral on social media, was an exercise of his First Amendment right to protest the federal border agent’s participating in President Donald Trump’s deployment of federal troops on D.C. streets.
Friends of Dunn have said that shortly before the sandwich tossing incident took place Dunn had been at the nearby gay nightclub Bunker, which was hosting a Latin dance party called Tropicoqueta. Sabrina Shroff, one of three attorneys representing Dunn at the trial, said during the trial after Dunn left the nightclub he went to the submarine sandwich shop on 14th Street at the corner of U Street, where he saw the border patrol agent and other law enforcement officers standing in front of the shop.
Shroff and others who know Dunn have said he was fearful that the border agent outside the sub shop and immigrant agents might raid the Bunker Latin night event. Bunker’s entrance is on U Street just around the corner from the sub shop where the federal agents were standing.
“I am so happy that justice prevails in spite of everything happening,“ Dunn told reporters outside the courthouse after the verdict while joined by his attorneys. “And that night I believed that I was protecting the rights of immigrants,” he said.
“And let us not forget that the great seal of the United States says, E Pluribus Unum,” he continued. “That means from many, one. Every life matters no matter where you came from, no matter how you got here, no matter how you identify, you have the right to live a life that is free.”
The verdict followed a two-day trial with testimony by just two witnesses, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent Gregory Lairmore, who identified Dunn as the person who threw the sandwich at his chest, and Metro Transit Police Detective Daina Henry, who told the jury she witnessed Dunn toss the sandwich at Lairmore while shouting obscenities.
Shroff told the jury Dunn was exercising his First Amendment right to protest and that the tossing of the sandwich at Lairmore, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, did not constitute an assault under the federal assault law to which Dunn was charged, among other things, because the federal agent was not injured.
Prosecutors with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. initially attempted to obtain a grand jury indictment of Dunn on a felony assault charge. But the grand jury refused to hand down an indictment on that charge, court records show. Prosecutors then filed a criminal complaint against Dunn on the misdemeanor charge of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers of the United States.
“Dunn stood within inches of Victim 1,” the criminal complaint states, “pointing his finger in Victim 1’s face, and yelled, Fuck you! You fucking fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!”
The complaint continues by stating, “An Instagram video recorded by an observer captured the incident. The video depicts Dunn screaming at V-1 within inches of his face for several seconds before winding his arm back and forcefully throwing a sub-style sandwich at V-1.
Prosecutors repeatedly played the video of the incident for the jurors on video screens in the courtroom.
Dunn, who chose not to testify at his trial, and his attorneys have not disputed the obvious evidence that Dunn threw the sandwich that hit Lairmore in the chest. Lead defense attorney Shroff and co-defense attorneys Julia Gatto and Nicholas Silverman argued that Dunn’s action did not constitute an assault under the legal definition of common law assault in the federal assault statute.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael DiLorenzo, the lead prosecutor in the case, strongly disputed that claim, citing various provisions in the law and appeals court rulings that he claimed upheld his and the government’s contention that an “assault” can take place even if a victim is not injured as well as if there was no physical contact between the victim and an alleged assailant, only a threat of physical contact and injury.
The dispute over the intricacies of the assault law and whether Dunn’s action reached the level of an assault under the law dominated the two-day trial, with U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols, who presided over the trial, weighing in with his own interpretation of the assault statute. Among other things, he said it would be up to the jury to decide whether or not Dunn committed an assault.
Court observers have said in cases like this, a jury could have issued a so-called “nullification” verdict in which they acquit a defendant even though they believe he or she committed the offense in question because they believe the charge is unjust. The other possibility, observers say, is the jury believed the defense was right in claiming a law was not violated.
DiLorenzo and his two co-prosecutors in the case declined to comment in response to requests by reporters following the verdict.
“We really want to thank the jury for having sent back an affirmation that his sentiment is not just tolerated but it is legal, it is welcome,” defense attorney Shroff said in referring to Dunn’s actions. “And we thank them very much for that verdict,” she said.
Dunn thanked his attorneys for providing what he called excellent representation “and for offering all of their services pro bono,” meaning free of charge.
Dunn, an Air Force veteran who later worked as an international affairs specialist at the U.S. Department of Justice, was fired from that job by DOJ officials after his arrest for the sandwich tossing incident.
“I would like to thank family and friends and strangers for all of their support, whether it was emotional, or spiritual, or artistic, or financial,” he told the gathering outside the courthouse. “To the people that opened their hearts and homes to me, I am eternally grateful.”
“As always, we accept a jury’s verdict; that is the system within which we function,” CNN quoted U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro as saying after the verdict in the Dunn case. “However, law enforcement should never be subjected to assault, no matter how ‘minor,’” Pirro told CNN in a statement.
“Even children know when they are angry, they are not allowed to throw objects at one another,” CNN quoted her as saying.
Maryland
Democrats hold leads in almost every race of Annapolis municipal election
Jared Littmann ahead in mayor’s race.
By CODY BOTELER | The Democratic candidates in the Annapolis election held early leads in the races for mayor and nearly every city council seat, according to unofficial results released on election night.
Jared Littmann, a former alderman and the owner of K&B Ace Hardware, did not go so far as to declare victory in his race to be the next mayor of Annapolis, but said he’s optimistic that the mail-in ballots to be counted later this week will support his lead.
Littmannn said November and December will “fly by” as he plans to meet with the city department heads and chiefs to “pepper them with questions.”
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Democrats on Tuesday increased their majority in the Virginia House of Delegates.
The Associated Press notes the party now has 61 seats in the chamber. Democrats before Election Day had a 51-48 majority in the House.
All six openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual candidates — state Dels. Rozia Henson (D-Prince William County), Laura Jane Cohen (D-Fairfax County), Joshua Cole (D-Fredericksburg), Marcia Price (D-Newport News), Adele McClure (D-Arlington County), and Mark Sickles (D-Fairfax County) — won re-election.
Lindsey Dougherty, a bisexual Democrat, defeated state Del. Carrie Coyner (R-Chesterfield County) in House District 75 that includes portions of Chesterfield and Prince George Counties. (Attorney General-elect Jay Jones in 2022 texted Coyner about a scenario in which he shot former House Speaker Todd Gilbert, a Republican.)
Other notable election results include Democrat John McAuliff defeating state Del. Geary Higgins (R-Loudoun County) in House District 30. Former state Del. Elizabeth Guzmán beat state Del. Ian Lovejoy (R-Prince William County) in House District 22.
Democrats increased their majority in the House on the same night they won all three statewide offices: governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general.
Narissa Rahaman is the executive director of Equality Virginia Advocates, the advocacy branch of Equality Virginia, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy group, last week noted the election results will determine the future of LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedom, and voting rights in the state.
Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin in 2024 signed a bill that codified marriage equality in state law.
The General Assembly earlier this year approved a resolution that seeks to repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment that defines marriage in the state constitution as between a man and a woman. The resolution must pass in two successive legislatures before it can go to the ballot.
Shreya Jyotishi contributed to this article.
-
District of Columbia2 days ago‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case
-
Sports2 days agoGay speedskater racing toward a more inclusive future in sports
-
Celebrity News4 days agoJonathan Bailey is People’s first openly gay ‘Sexiest Man Alive’
-
Michigan4 days agoFBI thwarts Halloween terror plot targeting Mich. LGBTQ bars
