National
Appeals court to hear DOMA case next week
House Dems urge Boehner to drop defense of anti-gay law
Litigation challenging the Defense of Marriage Act — as well as House Republicans’ continued defense of the anti-gay law — is receiving renewed attention as a court hearing is set to take place next week in Boston on the constitutionality of the statute.
On Wednesday starting at 10 a.m., a three-judge panel on the First Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments on DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, marking the first time an appellate court has considered the constitutionality of the statute.
Normally, oral arguments before the court last 30 minutes, but that time has been extended for an entire hour because judges are hearing two cases: Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services, filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.
The three-judge panel will be made up of Chief Judge Sandra Lynch as well as Judges Juan Torruella and Michael Boudin. Lynch was appointed by a Democrat, former President Bill Clinton, while Torruella was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan and Boudin was appointed by former President George H.W. Bush.
Representing GLAD at the hearings will be plaintiffs in the GLAD case as well as Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s civil rights project director, who in 2003 successfully argued for the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Maura Healey is set to argue on behalf of her state’s lawsuit against DOMA.
The Justice Department, which, after dropping its defense of DOMA, joined in efforts to declare the law unconstitutional, will also have a presence in the courtroom. Stuart Delery, who’s gay and the acting assistant attorney general for the civil division, is set to represent the Obama administration. He was promoted Feb. 27 to the position.
Defending the anti-gay law in court will be Paul Clement, a solicitor general under former President George W. Bush whom House Speaker John Boehner hired to defend the statute. Clement will be coming to Boston to defend DOMA fresh from oral arguments before the Supreme Court in D.C. against the health care reform law.
The arguments that attorneys will make before judges will likely reflect the basis of the lawsuits they filed. GLAD contends that DOMA violates its plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause, while the State of Massachusetts has said DOMA interferes with a state’s Tenth Amendment right to regulate marriage. The Justice Department will likely join in these arguments.
On the other side, Clement will likely argue that DOMA is justified because it ensures uniformity with marriage laws and that marriage should be reserved for opposite-sex couples to ensure procreation.
In both DOMA cases that are coming before the First Circuit, DOMA was found unconstitutional at the district court level. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro, a Nixon appointee, ruled in July 2010 that the anti-gay law was unconstitutional in both cases.
The cases come before the First Circuit just a month after a California federal court ruled against DOMA in the case of Golinski v. United States. In February, the U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White ruled against DOMA on the basis that the anti-gay law “unconstitutionally discriminates against married same-sex couples.”
Jason Wu, a staff attorney for GLAD, said the California district court decision may play out in the oral arguments before the appellate court.
“It always helps when another court affirms what we believe is right, which is that DOMA represents a straight-forward equal protection violation and there is really no good reason to treat gay married couples differently from straight married couples,” Wu said. “The court in Golinksi agreed with us; the district court in Massachusetts, Judge Tauro’s opinion agreed with us. And that’s what will be presented to the First Circuit.”
Wu said GLAD hopes for a decision from the First Circuit in “a timely fashion” after the oral arguments, but said he couldn’t offer a more precise prediction for when a ruling would be handed down. The case dragged out after the Obama administration dropped the defense of DOMA and the House took up defense of the statute, and Wu said the prolonged duration of the lawsuit has harmed plaintiffs.
“It’s been almost two years actually since the district court’s ruling came down in our favor, and in that two-year period, our plaintiffs continue to be harmed,” Wu said. “One of our plaintiffs is owed $50,000, I believe, in tax harm. One of our plaintiffs, Herb Burtis, is 82 years old and continues to be denied the survivor Social Security benefits from his deceased spouse.”
Despite his hopes the case will be resolved, Wu added he expects the Supreme Court will take up the case after a decision is handed down.
“We need resolution as to the constitutionality of DOMA for all married couples in the country because it’s not just couples in Massachusetts who are being harmed by DOMA everyday,” Wu said.
House Republicans elected to take up defense of DOMA in court after the Obama administration early last year announced it would no longer defend the anti-gay statute. In the past week, the Republican defense of DOMA has come under fire from Democrats.
During a hearing before the House Appropriations Legislative Branch subcommittee on Tuesday, House Chief Administrative Officer Dan Strodel asserted Republican leadership had collected nearly $742,000 to fund defense of DOMA in court. Boehner had last year raised the cost cap of defending DOMA to $1.5 million.
Strodel testified that the money had come from the House Salaries, Officers and Employees account. Boehner had threatened to redirect funds from the Justice Department to pay for defense of the law, but Strodel said those funds hadn’t contributed to defense of the statute.
According to the Huffington Post, the issue of defending DOMA prompted a fiery debate between Democrats and Republicans.
Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) reportedly asked House General Counsel Kerry Kirchner why the House is defending an “unconstitutional law that separates all of us” and said the money could go to better uses, such as “resources to the family of Trayvon Martin in Florida.”
Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) toed the Republican line on DOMA saying, “When is the Department of Justice going to do their job? You can’t pick which laws you want to defend and which laws you don’t feel like enforcing.”
On Monday, six House Democrats — Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.), David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.) — sent a letter to Boehner renewing their earlier request for a briefing on his defense of DOMA as they urged him to stop defending the law in the wake of a California federal court’s decision against the statute.
“There simply is no legitimate federal interest served by denying married same-sex couples the federal responsibilities and rights that other married couples receive, and the harm caused to these families is unjustifiable,” the letter states. “Two federal courts have agreed, and it is no longer credible to claim that the law is not constitutionally suspect.”
Boehner’s office didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s request for comment on the letter, but Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesperson, dismissed the letter when talking to the Huffington Post.
“Washington Democrats had two years of unified control over the House, the Senate and the White House to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act,” Steel was quoted as saying. “They chose not to try. We will continue to respect the law, which passed both Houses of Congress with bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.”
Activity also continues in other DOMA cases. On Monday, the Justice Department submitted briefs in the Golinski case asking the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to expedite consideration of the case. Boehner’s lawyers last month appealed the decision to the the appellate court.
Boehner’s intervention in McLaughlin v. Panetta, the lawsuit filed on behalf of gay troops against DOMA by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, is also expected soon. The House has until April 28 to decide if it will defend the anti-gay law against the lawsuit.
Vice President JD Vance and his wife, second lady Usha Vance, will visit Hungary next week.
An announcement the White House released on Thursday said the Vances will be in Budapest, the Hungarian capital, from April 7-8.
JD Vance “will hold bilateral meetings with” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. The announcement further indicates the vice president “will also deliver remarks on the rich partnership between the United States and Hungary.”
The Vances will travel to Hungary less than a week before the country’s parliamentary elections take place on April 12.
Orbán, who has been in office since 2010, and his Fidesz-KDNP coalition government have faced widespread criticism over its anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
The Associated Press notes polls indicate Orbán is trailing Péter Magyar and his center-right Tisza party.
President Donald Trump removed Attorney General Pam Bondi from her post Thursday, following growing criticism over how she and the Department of Justice handled a range of issues, including matters related to sex offender and Trump ally Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump announced Bondi’s removal on Truth Social, where he also said Todd Blanche will serve as acting head of the Justice Department.
“Pam Bondi is a great American patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my attorney general over the past year,” Trump wrote on the platform. “Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown on crime across our country, with murders plummeting to their lowest level since 1900.”
Trump was seen as recently as Wednesday with the now-former attorney general at a Supreme Court hearing on citizenship.
The decision contrasts with Trump’s previous public praise of Bondi, the 87th U.S. attorney general and former 37th attorney general of Florida, who served in that role from 2011-2019 before joining the Trump-Vance administration. He has frequently lauded her loyalty and said he speaks with her often. Bondi was also one of president’s defense lawyers during his first impeachment trial.
Privately, however, Trump had grown frustrated that Bondi was not “moving quickly enough” to prosecute critics and political adversaries he wanted to face criminal charges, according to multiple sources. The New York Times reported that her inability to charge former FBI Director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James with any crimes is a large factor in the president’s choice to fire her from the government’s primary law enforcement agency.
The move comes as Trump has sought to minimize public turmoil within his administration, avoiding the perception of a revolving-door Cabinet that defined his first term.
Lee Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York who unsuccessfully ran for governor, has emerged as a leading contender to lead the Justice Department. He has been one of Trump’s most reliable allies.
“He’s our secret weapon,” Trump said of Zeldin in February during a White House event promoting the coal industry, adding, “He’s getting those approvals done in record-setting time.”
Bondi has also growing faced scrutiny from Congress.
The House Oversight Committee recently subpoenaed her to testify about the department’s handling of certain files, where she declined to answer key questions during a contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing in February.
The Tampa native has a long history of opposing LGBTQ rights through her roles in government. As Florida attorney general, she fought against the legalization of same-sex marriage, arguing it would cause “serious public harm,” pushing forward a legal battle that cost taxpayers nearly half a million dollars. She also asked the Florida Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that found the state’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.
More recently, Bondi established a “Title IX Special Investigations Team” within the Justice Department focused on restricting transgender women and girls from participating in women’s and girls’ sports teams and accessing facilities aligned with their gender identity. She also told Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia to turn over the medical records of anyone under 19 who received gender-affirming care.
Her removal follows Trump’s decision last month to oust another controversial female Cabinet figure, Kristi Noem.
The White House
VIDEO: Gay journalist detained for booing Trumps at ‘Chicago’ opening night
Eugene Ramirez booed first family at Kennedy Center
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump attended the opening night of “Chicago” at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Tuesday. They were greeted by a mix of cheers, applause, and some audible boos.
Among them was Eugene Ramirez, a gay Washington resident, who later shared his account of the night after being briefly detained by security for booing the president and giving a thumbs-down gesture — an expression of what many would call a textbook definition of constitutionally protected speech to criticize the government.
Ramirez attended the opening night performance with a group of friends, hoping to catch a final show before the center undergoes two years of major changes under Trump oversight. The musical, based on a 1926 play of the same name, has become synonymous with Broadway success.
With music by John Kander, lyrics by Fred Ebb, and a book by Ebb and Bob Fosse, “Chicago” has cemented itself as a cultural staple — known for its signature Fosse choreography, stripped-down staging, and sleek, campy aesthetic. The story follows Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly, women who murder their husbands but — with the help of the manipulative, charismatic, and narcissistic attorney Billy Flynn — walk away scot-free.
It remains the longest-running American musical in Broadway history, and its 2002 film adaptation famously won the Academy Award for Best Picture. On this night, however, the production also became the backdrop for a very modern moment of political protest.
“I accompanied five friends to opening night of ‘Chicago’, as a way to enjoy a final performance in the Kennedy Center as we know it,” Ramirez began to recount to the Washington Blade, describing the moment his group settled into their seats inside the ornate Opera House theater.
Just before the performance began, the twice impeached president and first lady appeared in the balcony box, drawing immediate attention from the audience below. Theatergoers stood, cheered, clapped, and waved, while Ramirez made a different choice.
While accounts of the crowd’s reaction have varied, Ramirez said his response was intentional, immediate, and within his rights. Moments after booing and giving a thumbs-down while recording on his iPhone, security intervened.
The video of Ramirez booing the Trump’s is here:
“Within moments, the director [of security] and another guard approached and escorted me to a side area where several other security guards were waiting,” he said. “I was detained until everyone was seated and the lights dimmed.”
As he was escorted away, Ramirez said his instincts as a journalist kicked in. A former lead anchor for Sinclair’s national evening news broadcast, he said the situation immediately felt off — or more aptly put — as if he could see the strings being pulled from someone attempting to control the narrative.
“Journalism is a vocation, not just a job. I immediately knew there wasn’t just an uncomfortable interaction with security,” he said. “The Kennedy Center is a federally funded cultural institution, and being questioned about speech related to the president in that setting felt like something the public should know about.”
Ramirez explained the difference between a standard visit by a public official and this performance: the president’s appearance wasn’t just ceremonial; it was very clearly a media moment.
“The White House press pool was there, and it was clear this was an effort to manage the president’s image in the media,” Ramirez continued. “The irony was not lost on me that this was happening on opening night of ‘Chicago’, a musical about manipulating the press to shape public perception.”
According to Ramirez, the explanation he received from Kennedy Center Director of Safety and Security Karles C. Jackson Sr., was brief, but illuminating.
“He said, ‘they don’t want booing,’ and even called out my thumbs-down gesture. He never clarified who ‘they’ were, but whether it was the administration or the Kennedy Center, the distinction felt meaningless,” he explained. “Mr. Jackson ultimately told me he was just trying to do his job, shook my hand, and allowed me to return to my seat once the lights dimmed and the overture started playing.”
Ramirez said he didn’t blame the guard individually, noting the broader context of the Kennedy Center’s uncertain future and the pressures staff were under.
“With the center closing in the coming months, some of these security guards being pressured to restrict our freedom of speech may only have a few weeks of work left.”
He believes the decision to remove him was driven less by disruption than optics, particularly given the presence of the press.
“It was very clearly about protection — whether protecting the president from visible dissent, or his image before the media present. There was no disruption as almost everyone was standing and reacting loudly to the arrival of the president and first lady, with cheers, applause, and hand gestures. The difference was that my reaction, unlike most, was negative.”
Drawing on his experience covering public officials, Ramirez said the incident felt more about controlling perception than security.
“Usually, law enforcement may monitor or intervene if there’s a disruption, but here there was no disruption at all. Simply expressing dissent in a public, cultural space drew the attention of security. It made it feel less like a matter of decorum and more like an effort to control the narrative around the president,” he said. “It’s about what happens when dissent is treated as disruption rather than a right.”
“The show hadn’t started. I threatened no one. Billy Flynn would have approved of the optics. The rest of us should be paying attention.”
Ramirez framed the incident as part of a broader constitutional concern, one that is plaguing the Trump-Vance administration as they continue to reject rules and normalcy set forth by other reserved presidents.
“Being singled out by security at a federally funded institution for expressing dissent shouldn’t be brushed off; it undermines the First Amendment,” he said, looking at it slightly distanced from it now. “Being of Cuban heritage, and a journalist, it’s a right I’m not willing to give up readily.”
“Publicly funded cultural institutions should allow visible dissent, even in politically charged moments,” he added. “Of course, I understand the need to manage disruptions during a performance, but that was not the case here.”
The themes of “Chicago”, a long-running satire about media manipulation and public perception, added another layer of irony to the experience, Ramirez explained.
“The satire truly leapt off the stage! A show about controlling the narrative, manipulating the press, and covering up truths by leaning on showmanship and distractions. The show is decades old, but could’ve been written today. We’re being razzle-dazzled daily and it’s getting harder to tell fact from fiction, no matter where you get your news.”
He, being gay, also acknowledged how hard it must have been for the performers on stage, assuming that at least some in the cast were also members of the LGBTQ community — and artists — two things Trump doesn’t always get along with.
“It was not lost on me that many of the actors on that stage, that the president and first lady presumably applauded, are members of the LGBTQ community which this administration has rolled back protections for under the guise of religious liberty and free speech, resulting in blatant discrimination.”
He pointed to a particular number that felt surreal given the circumstances.
“Its ‘Razzle Dazzle’ number celebrates keeping audiences off balance; at its climax, a massive American flag descends as the song celebrates blinding audiences to what is real. Watching that scene after being detained for a thumbs-down was surreal.”
Ramirez said the show’s closing lines were especially sharp given the presidential audience and what he just experienced.
“At the end of the show,
Velma says: ‘You know, a lot of people have lost faith in America.’
Roxie replies: ‘And for what America stands for.’
Velma: ‘But we are the living examples of what a wonderful country this is.’
Roxie: ‘So we’d just like to say thank you and God bless you.’
They had both just gotten away with murder!”
His closing lines, however, were a bit more pointed than “scintillating sinners” Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly’s were in the show.
“Democracy only works when citizens are allowed to boo,” he said. “Tuesday night at the Kennedy Center, ‘Chicago’ made that point better than I ever could.”
The Blade reached out to the Kennedy Center but did not receive a comment back.
How Pepper the courthouse dog helps victims of abuse
Women’s FEST returns to Rehoboth Beach next week
Belarusian lawmakers approve bill to crackdown on LGBTQ rights
Calendar: April 3-9
How new barriers to health care coverage are hitting D.C.
‘Out for McDuffie’ event held at D.C. gay bar
Thousands attend ‘No Kings’ protests in D.C.
Ghanaian president welcomed to Philadelphia amid backlash over anti-LGBTQ bill
PHOTOS: ‘No Kings’ rally and march
