National
Supreme Court takes up Prop 8, DOMA cases
Justices to settle two major issues on same-sex marriage
The U.S. Supreme Court took up litigation challenging DOMA and Prop 8 (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Ending months of anticipation, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled on Friday it would take up litigation challenging California’s Proposition 8 and one case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act.
Justices decided to take up the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which seeks to overturn the state constitutional amendment California voters passed in 2008 that took away marriage rights for same-sex couples.
They also decided to take up Windsor v. United States, litigation challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. That lawsuit was filed by Edith Windsor, a New York widow who was forced to pay $363,000 in estate taxes in 2009 upon the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer.
The court made the news in an orders list published Friday following a conference the justices held on the same day. Four justices must vote affirmatively to grant a writ of certiorari in any particular case, but that vote isn’t public information.
Windsor, 83, expressed excitement in a statement that her lawsuit would be the one to challenge DOMA at the Supreme Court. Her lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union along with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and other groups.
“When Thea and I met nearly 50 years ago, we never could have dreamed that the story of our life together would be before the Supreme Court as an example of why gay married couples should be treated equally, and not like second-class citizens,” Windsor said. “While Thea is no longer alive, I know how proud she would have been to see this day. The truth is, I never expected any less from my country.”
This news that the court will take up the Perry case is disappointing to many who had hoped justices would decline to hear the litigation and allow a U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down the measure to stand.
John Eastman, chair of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, said the decision of the Supreme Court to take up the Prop 8 lawsuit suggests justices are poised to reverse decisions from lower courts against the same-sex marriage ban.
“We believe it is a strong signal that the Court will reverse the lower courts and uphold Proposition 8,” Eastman said. “That is the right outcome based on the law and based on the principle that voters hold the ultimate power over basic policy judgments and their decisions are entitled to respect.”
Still, LGBT advocates expressed excitement that the Supreme Court has decided to take up the Prop 8 case and has the opportunity to rule against California’s same-sex marriage ban once and for all.
Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin – who also co-founded the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization behind the Prop 8 lawsuit – said the decision marks another “milestone” day for same-sex couples.
“The passage of Proposition 8 caused heartbreak for so many Americans, but today’s announcement gives hope that we will see a landmark Supreme Court ruling for marriage this term,” Griffin said. “As the Court has ruled 14 times in the past, marriage is a fundamental right and I believe they will side with liberty, freedom and equality, moving us toward a more perfect union as they have done in the past.”
The decision means litigation will continue at the Supreme Court and the court will rule on them by the middle of next year. Justices can affirm a Ninth Circuit decision striking down Prop 8 or uphold the anti-gay measure as constitutional. For DOMA, the court could either uphold the federal recognition of same-sex marriage, or strike it down and allow federal benefits to flow to same-sex couples.
No news was made on three other DOMA cases before the Supreme Court: the consolidated case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services; Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management and Golinski v. United States. If justices declined to hear the cases at the Friday conference, it would be announced in another orders list set for publication on Monday.
Doug NeJaime, who’s gay and a professor at Loyola Law School, said justices may have elected to take up the Windsor case — the only DOMA lawsuit in which a federal appeals court ruled against DOMA by applying heightened scrutiny — to apply that same standard to Prop 8.
“If sexual orientation classifications merit heightened scrutiny, as the Second Circuit held, all laws that discriminate against lesbians and gay men – including state marriage prohibitions like Prop. 8 – would be suspect,” NeJaime said.
But NeJaime added taking up both Windsor and Perry may also mean justices see “a material distinction” between a federal law denying recognition to same-sex marriage and a state law preventing same-sex couples from marrying. That could mean the court will split the difference in its rulings, finding DOMA unconstitutional but upholding Prop 8.
In addition to announcing it would take up the litigation, the Supreme Court also asks parties involved in both cases to brief and argue certain questions.
For the Prop 8 case, the parties must answer whether proponents of the same-sex marriage ban have standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to defend the same-sex marriage ban in court. Whether anti-gay groups, such as Protect Marriage, have standing to defend the law in court has been a long-standing issue in the case. California Gov. Jerry Brown and California Attorney General Kamala Harris have refused to defend the law in court, leaving anti-gay groups left as the one’s responsible to defend the law.
For the DOMA cases, the court asks parties to answer two questions. The first is whether the executive branch agreement with the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear the case. In February 2011, the Obama administration announced that DOMA is unconstitutional and it would no longer defend the law in court.
The second question related to DOMA is whether the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group has standing to defend the law. After the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend DOMA, House Republicans under the leadership of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) decided to take up defense of the law in the administration’s stead.
The Supreme Court has continually put off making a decision on whether to take up the Prop 8 and DOMA litigation. The cases were first docketed for the conference on Sept. 24, but made no decision at that time. The cases were then docketed for the Nov. 20 conference, but then rescheduled for Nov. 30. No decision was made at that later date. For the recent conference on Nov. 30, it was speculated justices put off making a decision because they needed to more time to decide which combination of the four DOMA cases it wanted to take up.
The next step in the process is for the petitioner — or the party that made an appeal to the Supreme Court — to file opening briefs. Generally, the deadline to do this is 45 days after the court has decided to take up a case. Opposing parties have 30 days to respond, and the petitioner has another 30 days to respond to that. Others parties during this time may also file friend-of-the-court briefs before the court.
Oral arguments will be scheduled by the clerk’s office and likely be announced next week. They’re expected to take place in late Winter or Spring of next year. The court must render a decision before its term ends in June.
No news was also made in another LGBT-related case before the Supreme Court related to Arizona domestic partner benefits. Gov. Jan Brewer appealed to court an injunction barring her from enforcing a law taking away benefits Arizona state employees with same-sex partners. As with the other DOMA cases, if justices have declined to hear the case at the Friday conference, their decision would be announced in another orders list on Monday.
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
