Local
Judge rules against Choi in ‘vindictive’ prosecution claim
Gay activist on trial for arrest over White House protest
A federal judge ruled on Oct. 11 that gay former Army Lt. Dan Choi cannot argue in his ongoing trial that he was targeted for “selective” or “vindictive” prosecution following his arrest last year for chaining himself to the White House fence in a protest against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
In a 17-page decision, Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia overturned an earlier ruling by Magistrate Judge John Facciola that allowed Choi’s lawyers to pursue allegations of selective or vindictive prosecution in the trial, which began Aug. 29.
Lamberth’s decision, among other things, granted a petition by prosecutors for a Writ of Mandamus, a formal and unusual request challenging a ruling of a trial judge by appealing to a higher court or to another judge with greater authority.
Under Lamberth’s decision, Facciola is prohibited from “considering selective or vindictive prosecution as a defense to the merits of the prosecution,” prohibited from “allowing evidence as to either claim” and barred from entertaining any motion filed by Choi to dismiss the case based on selective or vindictive prosecution.
Facciola is presiding over a non-jury trial in which Choi is being prosecuted for a misdemeanor charge of disobeying a lawful police order to disperse from the White House fence. Although the prohibition against Choi’s use of a defense based on selective or vindictive prosecution is a blow to the defense, one of his attorneys, Norman Kent, said Sunday that the defense will move forward on other grounds and that Choi’s defense team remains confident that Choi will be found not guilty.
Choi was the only one of a group of protesters arrested during the November 2010 protest that did not agree to plead guilty to the charge in exchange for having the case dismissed if they weren’t arrested again at the White House within a four-month period.
Through his attorneys, Choi has argued that he had a constitutional right to handcuff himself to the White House fence. The attorneys also have contested the government’s case on a technicality, saying police ordered Choi to disperse from the sidewalk. They note that Choi was standing on an elevated ledge on which the White House fence is attached, not the sidewalk itself and thus Choi was not legally bound to obey the police order.
Lamberth said in his decision that prosecutors were correct in arguing that under longstanding court rules of evidence, a case alleging selective or vindictive prosecution must be initiated in a pre-trial motion, not during the trial itself.
Choi’s attorneys — Kent of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and Robert Feldman of New York — have argued that they lacked sufficient evidence of selective or vindictive prosecution prior to the start of the trial. The two said persuasive evidence of a selective-vindictive prosecution only emerged during their cross-examination of government witnesses during the trial itself.
Following strong opposition by the prosecutor in the case, Facciola ruled on Aug. 31 that preliminary evidence existed to show a selective or vindictive prosecution could have occurred against Choi. Facciola ruled that Choi’s lawyers could go forward with using selective-vindictive enforcement as a defense.
Feldman and Kent argued that Choi’s decision to handcuff himself to the White House fence in November 2010 was identical to two prior White House protests in which he and others handcuffed themselves to the fence. They noted that while prosecutors charged Choi in the earlier protests under a local municipal statute that carried no jail time, in the November 2010 protests, they charged Choi under a more stringent federal statute that includes a possible sentence of six months in jail.
Feldman and Kent alleged that prosecutors chose the more stringent statute in the November case because Choi’s protests were embarrassing the Obama administration over the gays in the military issue. They said the harsher prosecution was in retaliation for Choi’s political message that the White House wasn’t moving fast enough to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela George, the lead prosecutor in the case, disputed that assertion, saying the government prosecuted Choi for refusing to obey a lawful order by police to move away from the White House fence. She said Choi’s political message was irrelevant to the government’s case and had no role in the decision to prosecute him.
In court briefs, George said prosecutors charged Choi under a more stringent law in the November case because it was the third time in less than a year that he had been arrested for the same illegal conduct and the government has legal discretion to select different statutes or regulations under which to make an arrest in such a case.
Facciola put the trial on hold on Aug. 31 after George said the government would take the unusual step of challenging his ruling through a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. Under U.S. District Court rules, the court’s chief judge rules on such a petition.
Kent told the Blade on Oct. 16 that following consultation with Choi he and Feldman are strongly considering appealing Lamberth’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. He said Choi’s legal team would make a final decision on whether to file an appeal by Oct. 20, a deadline set by Judge Facciola for the two sides to inform the court whether an appeal will be made or whether the trial will resume.
Choi enjoyed widespread support from LGBT activists when he worked with the LGBT direct action group GetEqual last year in a series of non-violent civil disobedience protests at the White House and other locations to pressure Congress and the Obama administration to push harder for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
But since Obama signed legislation approved by Congress repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and since the repeal took effect on Sept. 20, some activists have questioned the rationale for Choi’s decision to demand a trial in the current case. Some have asked why Choi is contesting the type of civil disobedience arrest that most other protesters acknowledge involves breaking a law and choose to resolve by paying a small fine or agreeing to a plea offer like the one prosecutors made to Choi.
Gay rights attorney and television commentator Mark Levine called non-violent civil disobedience arrests an important and historic tradition in the U.S. civil rights movement made famous by Martin Luther King Jr. in his efforts to end racial discrimination. Levine said the benefit of drawing public attention to an injustice comes from the arrest itself, “not a long drawn out trial that has the potential for wasting court resources that would be better used for something else.”
Choi has said he chose to take his case to trial because he believes his action handcuffing himself to the White House fence is protected by his First Amendment right to free speech and should not be considered an illegal act.
Maryland
White House threatens Anne Arundel schools over gender identity policy
District faces possible legal action or loss of federal funding
By JESSICA CALEFATI | The Trump-Vance administration on Monday threatened to punish Anne Arundel County’s school system with legal action or the loss of federal funding for allegedly withholding information about a student’s gender identity and transition from the child’s parents.
The U.S. Education and Justice Departments together determined that the suburban Maryland district treats students’ gender identities as confidential medical information that cannot be shared with parents, in violation of federal student privacy law, according to a news release. A federal lawsuit filed against the district earlier this month made similar claims.
“As a mother and a grandmother, it is unconscionable that any school district would hide the most sensitive information about children in their care from their own parents,” U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement. “This is not only an affront to basic moral principles, but also to parents’ rights under federal law.”
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Virginia
Winsome Earle-Sears launches campaign against Va. marriage equality amendment
Former LG lost to Abigail Spanberger in 2025 gubernatorial race
Less than a year after losing Virginia’s gubernatorial race, former Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears is campaigning across the state against constitutional amendments that would protect marriage equality and reproductive freedom.
She is launching a statewide “Life and Marriage Tour” ahead of November’s election.
Although same-sex couples can legally marry under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Virginia’s constitution still contains language that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Supporters say removing the language would protect marriage equality should federal precedent change.
The original ban was written into the state constitution in 2006.
It has been hinted at in the past by Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas that he would consider revisiting Obergefell v. Hodges regarding contraception and marriage rights for same-sex couples. He stated this in his concurring opinion regarding the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling, which allows for state-level abortion bans.
Equality Virginia Executive Director Narissa Rahaman said removing the ban would bring the state’s constitution in line with existing law.
“20 years after banning marriage equality, it’s time for our commonwealth to fully complete our evolution — and finish the job on protecting marriage equality for all,” Rahaman said.
In an email to supporters, Earle-Sears said these amendments “raise serious concerns” and could alter principles about which Virginians care.
“That is why our efforts are focused not only on informing voters, but also encouraging them to carefully consider these proposals and vote NO on both amendments,” Earle-Sears said.
Virginia voters will consider three constitutional amendments this November.
Earle-Sears is campaigning for voters to reject two of them: the Virginia Remove Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment and the Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment.
A “Yes” vote on the Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment would include removing a provision that states marriage is between one man and one woman and prohibitng the state from denying a marriage license to two adults based on their sex, gender, or race, according to the Virginia Department of Elections.
In 2025, during debates against now Gov. Abigail Spanberger, Earle-Sears argued it is not discrimination to think that gay people should not be allowed to marry. She claims it conflicts with her faith.
According to ABC 8, in 2024 she wrote that she had a “moral opposition” to marriage equality, after former Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, signed a marriage equality bill that barred denying marriage licenses based on sex, gender, or race.
According to the Virginia Department of Elections, a “Yes” vote on the Reproductive Freedom amendment supports adding a section to the state constitution that would give Virginians the right to make and carry out decisions regarding reproductive healthcare, except in specific exemptions.
The Virginia Department of Elections wrote that if accepted, the amendment would allow the state government to pass laws to regulate abortion care in the third trimester of pregnancy, but require abortion care when it is medically needed to protect the life and health of the pregnant person or because the fetus is not viable.
During the 2025 election cycle, Earle-Sears was clear on her anti-abortion stance.
According to the Virginia Independent, she utilized campaign funds to donate to the Family Foundation of Virginia. The group is a faith-based, anti-abortion, and anti-in vitro fertilization non-profit.
The “Life and Marriage Tour” will include traveling throughout Virginia to speak with citizens, churches, community organizations, and local leaders. The exact locations have yet to be announced.
District of Columbia
D.C. Council approves increased funding for Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs
Increase attached to 2027 budget bill
The D.C. Council on July 14 gave final approval for the city’s fiscal year 2027 budget that includes an amendment calling for increasing the number and size of funding grants that the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs provides for local organizations providing services for the LGBTQ community.
The amendment, called the “LGBTQ Community Grant Amendment Act of 2026,” was introduced earlier this year by D.C. Council member Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5), the Council’s only gay member.
The D.C. LGBTQ Budget Coalition called the Parker amendment “a historic measure that establishes the District’s most sustainable model for a vehicle for investing in LGBTQ communities.”
The Council approved the version of the FY 2027 budget bill with the attached Parker amendment in its first of two required votes on June 9. Shortly after voting unanimously to give final approval of an earlier version of the two-part budget measure on July 7 that includes the Parker amendment, the Council sent the bill to Mayor Muriel Bowser for her signature.
Bowser has expressed strong opposition to several provisions in the $22 billion budget measure passed by the Council that are unrelated to the Parker amendment regarding the Office of LGBTQ Affairs. The mayor has yet to say whether she will sign, veto, or choose not to sign the bill.
The latter option would allow the bill to become law if Congress does not choose to overturn it during its required 30-day legislative review period for all D.C. bills. Political observers believe the Council will vote to override a veto if Bowser chooses to veto the bill.
When contacted by the Washington Blade on July 22 to determine where the mayor stands on the budget bill, mayoral spokesperson Daniel Gleick said only, there was “no update on the budget just yet.”
Among other things, the Parker amendment calls for the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs to issue a $980,000 grant in FY 2027 to a private, nonprofit organization in partnership with the office “for the purpose of supporting programs that promote the welfare of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning community.”
It would allocate $680,000 of that funding total from existing funds from the city’s community affairs grants program and calls for $200,000 in newly appropriated funds.
It says the organization selected would also initiate its own fundraising effort to expand the amount of funds beyond the amount the office would provide, enabling it to provide larger grants to a greater number of local LGBTQ organizations.
“The legislation arrives at a critical moment, as LGBTQ-serving organizations face unprecedented uncertainty,” the D.C. Budget Coalition said in its comment on the Parker amendment. “Growing demand for services is colliding with shrinking resources, federal attacks on LGBTQ programs, and ongoing threats to local funding streams,” the coalition’s statement says.
In what some observers have called a highly controversial action; the budget bill approved by the Council reverses and restores millions of dollars in budget cuts proposed by Bowser in the budget she submitted to the Council earlier this year.
Among other things, the Council’s budget preserves the current level of funding for housing vouchers, childcare, paid family leave, and other programs slated to be cut in the mayor’s proposed budget, according to a report by the Washington Post.
Bowser points out that the Council approved budget bill calls for using $150 million from the city’s reserve fund, which she and others have said could put the city in jeopardy in future years. The mayor has said the cuts were needed to prevent a major funding shortfall brought about by the action by Republicans in Congress to cut the city’s budget by over a billion dollars.
White House threatens Anne Arundel schools over gender identity policy
PHOTOS: Front Royal Pride
Dutch queen opens World Pride in Amsterdam
Gary Sutton, known for ‘warmth and laughter,’ dies at 62
With gas prices soaring again, a staycation is a good plan
Summer in D.C. brings sports, Restaurant Week, festivals, and more
No Pride without Disability Pride
Trump tries to scare Americans into not voting
2026 International AIDS Conference to take place in Rio
