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.
Florida
DeSantis signs emergency bill that restores Fla. ADAP funding
Temporary funds to last through June 30
After the Florida Department of Health made huge cuts to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program in January, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has signed emergency legislation restoring HIV access to more than 12,000 Floridians.
Two months ago, as the Washington Blade reported, the Sunshine State cut the vast majority of those in ADAP by shifting the income levels required for eligibility — without following standard procedure when changing government policy outside of legislative or executive action.
The bill, signed by DeSantis on Tuesday, passed both chambers of the Florida Legislature unanimously and appropriates $30.9 million in emergency bridge funding through June 30, 2026. It restores Florida’s ADAP income eligibility to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level — the level it was prior to the January cuts. The legislation also requires the FDOH to submit detailed monthly financial reports to legislative leadership beginning April 1.
Under the old policy, eligibility would have been limited to those making no more than 130 percent of the federal poverty level, or $20,345 per year.
“For 10 weeks, 12,000 Floridians living with HIV did not know if they could fill their next prescription. Today, they can,” Esteban Wood, director of advocacy and legislative affairs at AIDS Healthcare Foundation, said in a statement.
The detailed reports now required to be sent to legislative leadership must include all federal revenues and expenditures, including manufacturer rebates; enrollment figures by county and insurance status; prescription utilization by drug class; and any projected funding shortfalls. This is the first time the Legislature has required this level of financial transparency from the program.
DeSantis signed the legislation one day after a Leon County Circuit Court judge denied AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s request for an injunction to block the significant changes the DeSantis administration is making to the program, which it claims faces a $120 million shortfall for calendar year 2026.
AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a national organization focused on protecting and expanding HIV healthcare access and prevention methods, filed a lawsuit over the change in eligibility, arguing the Florida Department of Health did not follow the laid out path for formally changing policy and was acting outside established procedures.
Typically, altering eligibility for a statewide program requires either legislative action or adherence to a multistep rule-making process, including: publishing a Notice of Proposed Rule; providing a statement of estimated regulatory costs; allowing public comment; holding hearings if requested; responding to challenges; and formally adopting the rule. According to AIDS Healthcare Foundation, none of these steps occurred.
The long-term structure of ADAP will be determined by the 2026–2027 fiscal year state budget, something that lawmakers have until June 30 to finish.
Federal Government
Markwayne Mullin confirmed as next DHS secretary
Okla. senator to succeed Kristi Noem
The U.S. Senate confirmed Markwayne Mullin as the next secretary of Homeland Security on Monday, as the agency continues to grapple with what lawmakers have described as a “never-ending” funding standoff, with Democrats attempting to withhold funding from one of the nation’s largest and most costly agencies.
Mullin — a Republican senator from Oklahoma, former mixed martial arts fighter, and plumbing business owner — was confirmed in a 54–45 vote. Two Democrats — U.S. Sens. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) — sided with Republicans in supporting his confirmation.
The new agency head is expected to follow the policy direction set by President Donald Trump, emphasizing stricter immigration enforcement. This includes proposals to support immigration agents at polling sites and to cut funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.”
Mullin replaces Kristi Noem, who was fired earlier this month following a widely scrutinized 2-day congressional hearing on Capitol Hill.
During the hearing, Noem faced intense questioning over her response to several crises, including the fatal shooting of two American citizens in Minneapolis by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, a $220 million border security advertising campaign that featured her on horseback near Mount Rushmore amid one of the largest federal workforce reductions in U.S. history, and the federal response to major natural disasters such as the July 2025 Texas floods and Hurricane Helene in 2024.
Noem had previously drawn criticism for a series of policy decisions in South Dakota that broadly focused on restricting the rights of LGBTQ individuals. In 2023, she signed House Bill 1080, banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. She also signed legislation and executive orders restricting trans athletes’ participation in women’s sports, as well as the state’s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” which critics argued enabled discrimination against LGBTQ individuals. Additionally, the state canceled contracts related to LGBTQ support services — including suicide prevention and health care navigation programs‚ and later agreed to a $300,000 settlement with trans advocacy group, The Transformation Project.
Despite her removal from DHS, Noem will remain in the Trump-Vance administration as a special envoy for the “Shield of the Americas,” an initiative aimed at promoting U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere, including efforts to counter cartel networks, reduce Chinese influence, and manage migration.
The new head of DHS has served in Congress since 2013, in both houses of the federal legislature. While in the Senate and a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Mullin has been a vocal critic of policies aimed at expanding LGBTQ inclusion. He led a group of lawmakers in urging the Administration for Community Living to reverse a rule requiring states to prioritize Older Americans Act services based on sexual orientation and gender identity, arguing the policy could have unintended consequences.
Mullin also makes history as the first Native American — and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation — to lead the Department of Homeland Security. He was also among the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results despite no evidence of widespread fraud, and was present in the U.S. House of Representatives chamber on Jan. 6.
Federal Government
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
Bill described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
Members of Congress, advocates, and people from across the country gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest proposed federal legislation that voting rights activists have deemed “Jim Crow 2.0.”
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections.
President Donald Trump has also pushed for the proposed legislation to include a section that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In addition to changing voter registration requirements, the bill would limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not have — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
A 2021 investigation by the Associated Press found that fewer than 475 people voted illegally or improperly, a tiny fraction of the estimated 160 million Americans who voted in the 2020 election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the event.
“It will kick millions of American citizens off the rolls. And they don’t even require you to be told,” the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate told protesters and reporters outside the Capitol. “If this law passes — and it won’t — you’re gonna show up in November … and they’ll say… sorry, you’re no longer on the voting rolls.”
He, like many other speakers, emphasized the bill in the context of American history, pointing to what he described as its racist roots and its impact on Black and brown Americans.
“I have called this act, over and over again, Jim Crow 2.0 … because they know it’s the truth.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was one of the lawmakers leading opposition to the legislation and spoke at the rally.
“It’s not just voting rights that are on the line — our democracy is on the line,” the California lawmaker said. “It’s not a voter I.D. bill. It’s a bait and switch bill.”
He added historical context, noting the significance of voting rights legislation passed more than 60 years ago. In 1965, Alabama civil rights activists marched to protest barriers to voter registration. Alabama state troopers violently attacked peaceful demonstrators at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, using tear gas, clubs, and whips against more than 500 — mostly Black — protesters.
“61 years ago — not to the day — but this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday and pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said. “61 years later, Donald Trump and this Republican majority wants to take us backwards. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) also spoke, emphasizing that he views the effort as a Republican-led and Trump-backed attempt to restrict voting access, particularly among Black, brown, and predominantly Democratic communities.
“President Trump told Republicans when they were meeting behind closed doors that ‘The SAVE Act will guarantee Republicans win the midterms and ensure they do not lose an election for 50 years,’” Luján said. “The first time I think Donald Trump’s been honest … This voter suppression bill is only that. Taking away vote by mail? I hope my Republican colleagues from states that voted for Donald Trump or where vote by mail is popular have the courage and the backbone to stand up and say no to this nonsense, because their constituents are going to push back.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) also spoke.
“Our Republican colleagues have already cut Medicaid, Medicare, people don’t know how they’re gonna be able to afford energy,” she said, providing context for the broader political moment. “We’re in the middle of a war that they can’t even get straight while we’re in it and don’t have a way to get out of it. And we are now faced with defending our democracy?”
She then showed the crowd something that she said has been with her throughout her political journey in Washington.
“I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives when I was elected in 2016, and I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as United States senator. And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on Jan. 6 and all I could think to do was pray … This document allowed my great great great grandfather, who had been enslaved in Georgia, to have the right to vote. We took this and turned it into a scarf. It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction code from 1867. This is my proof of what we’ve been through. This is also our inspiration.”
“I got to travel between the Edmund Pettus Bridge two times. And even as I thought about this moment, I recognized that while we wish we weren’t in it, while we don’t know why we’re in it, I do know we were made for it … So I came today to tell you that, um, just like the leader said, that he calls it Jim Crow 2.0. I call it Jim Crow 2.NO.”
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., also spoke, highlighting the impact of the bill’s proposed provisions affecting trans people.
“This bill is not about saving America. This bill is about stealing an election. This bill is about suppressing voters,” Robinson said. “This bill not only tries to disenfranchise voters that deserve their right to vote, it also tries to criminalize trans kids and their families … It tries to criminalize doctors providing medically necessary care for our trans youth.”
The SAVE Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but has not yet been considered in the U.S. Senate.
DeSantis signs emergency bill that restores Fla. ADAP funding
Menaka Guruswamy celebrated as India’s first openly LGBTQ MP
Trans-led HIV clinic in Portsmouth struggles amid funding cuts
D.C. goes gaga for Gaga
Gay priest credited with boosting church support for LGBTQ Catholics
‘How We Survived’ panel set for March 25
Calendar: March 21-26
PHOTOS: Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary
‘Inherit the Wind’ isn’t about science vs. religion, but the right to think
