National
Supreme Court won’t review Texas decision against same-sex benefits
Litigation remains ongoing in state court
The U.S. Supreme Court won’t take up a Texas decision against same-sex benefits.
(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
The Supreme Court announced it has denied certiorari, or refused to take up the petition seeking review of the decision, in an order list Monday reflecting decisions justices made during a conference last week Friday. It takes a vote of four justices to take up a case, but the vote on petitions isn’t made public.
The petition was filed in September by Wallace Jefferson, an attorney at the Austin-based law firm Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP.
Jefferson told the Washington Blade after the announcement the rejection of the petition was based on ongoing review in the state judiciary.
“I believe the Supreme Court deferred review because the Texas Supreme Court remanded the case for further consideration,” Jefferson said. “We anticipate that the Texas courts will fully embrace Obergefell’s holding, just as the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has done.”
Jonathan Mitchell, a Stanford, Calif., based attorney who represents opponents of same-sex benefits, deferred comment to Jonathan Saenz of the anti-LGBT group Texas Values, who hailed the decision in a statement.
“This is an incredible early Christmas present from the U. S. Supreme Court for taxpayers,” Saenz said. “We’re grateful that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed our lawsuit to go forward. Mayor Annise Parker defied the law by providing spousal benefits to same-sex couples at a time when same-sex marriage was illegal in Texas, and we intend hold the city accountable for Parker’s lawless actions and her unauthorized expenditures of taxpayer money.”
To the consternation of gay rights advocates, the Texas Supreme Court in June determined the 2015 Obergefell decision “is not the end” of the same-sex marriage issue and state workers have no established right to obtain benefits, such as health insurance, for their same-sex spouses in the same way as other employees.
“The Supreme Court held in Obergefell that the Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages to the same extent that they license and recognize opposite-sex marriages, but it did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons, and — unlike the Fifth Circuit in De Leon — it did not hold that the Texas DOMAs are unconstitutional,” Justice Jeffrey Boyd wrote in the decision.
The case was filed by Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks after former Houston Mayor Annise Parker, a lesbian, instructed her city to provide spousal benefits to city employees in same-sex marriages. Parker cited the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling against the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act as the basis for her decision. Pidgeon and Hicks contended state law, which at the time barred same-sex marriage, prevented Parker from taking that action.
Legal observers found the Texas Supreme Court’s conclusion to be totally off-track with the Obergefell decision.
After all, the Supreme Court made clear in Obergefell the ruling compels states to afford the “constellation of benefits” of marriage to same-sex couples. The Texas decision also came the same week the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Obergefell by overturning an Arkansas Supreme Court decision upholding a state law against placing both lesbian parents’ names on the birth certificates of their children.
Many observers pointed to the makeup of the Texas Supreme Court — justices who are elected, not appointed — as they reason they came to the decision. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and other Republican lawmakers urged the court to take the case after justices initially refused and allowed a lower court decision in favor of benefits to stand.
(Side note: One of the justices in the Texas decision was Associate Justice Don Willett, whom President Trump has nominated to a seat on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump also named Willett to his short list of potential U.S. Supreme Court nominees.
In part because of his decision in the Houston benefits case, LGBT advocates have come out against Willett’s confirmation to the Fifth Circuit. Last month, the LGBT legal group Lambda Legal organized 26 other national, state, and local LGBT groups to express opposition to Willett before the Senate Judiciary Committee.)
The Texas Supreme Court decision fell short of outright denying spousal benefits for married same-sex couples and instead remanded the case to a trial court for reconsideration. The lawsuit remains pending before trial court.
Jefferson said there’s “no telling” when the trial court will reach its determination and the case “will proceed according to the trial court’s scheduling.”
Mark Phariss, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that brought marriage equality to Texas, had filed a friend-of-the-court brief calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Texas decision and expressed disappointment justices wouldn’t take up the case.
“I am very disappointed that the Supreme Court did not grant cert today,” Phariss said. “It means we must continue to fight in the courts in the State of Texas for full marriage equality. Today ‘Equal Justice Under Law’, as promised by the inscription to the front of the Supreme Court building, was not rendered. Ultimately, we will prevail, because history, justice, equality, and fairness are on our side.”
The denial of the petition by the Supreme Court isn’t the first time the federal judiciary has declined to review the Texas benefits decision.
In August, Lambda Legal and the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP filed a lawsuit in a federal court to affirm the Obergefell decision ensures health coverage and other benefits to the same-sex spouses of city employees. Months later in November, U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore dismissed the case on the basis that plaintiffs’ claims weren’t ripe for review.
However, Gilmore recognized a constitutional requirement to provide spousal benefits on equal terms based on the Obergefell decision.
“In light of this precedent, which the Texas trial court is required to follow, it seems constitutionally impermissible for the city to deny benefits to the same-sex spouses of its employees,” Gilmore wrote.
The U.S. Supreme Court announced it won’t take up the benefits case on the day before it’s set to hear oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in which a Colorado baker is asserting a First Amendment right to deny wedding cakes to same-sex couples.
Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of GLAAD, said in a statement the denial of certiorari in the Texas is disconcerting, especially on the day before justices are set to consider a major gay rights case.
“With all eyes on tomorrow’s oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop religious exemptions case, the Supreme Court has just let an alarming ruling by the Texas Supreme Court stand which plainly undercuts the rights of married same-sex couples,” Ellis said. “Today’s abnegation by the nation’s highest court opens the door for an onslaught of challenges to the rights of LGBTQ people at every step.”
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
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
Pride season has begun
