National
Legal effort to overturn DOMA offers ‘promising path’
Attorneys prepare for May court hearing in Boston
The organization spearheading a lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act is busy with preparations for what could be a monumental court case for LGBT Americans.
Lawyers on both sides of Gill v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management will come before the Federal District Court in Boston on May 6 to argue their cases.
The litigation, filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, aims to overturn Section 3 of DOMA, which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, said the GLAD litigation is “a very important, very well prepared case” and “offers a very promising path to beginning to undo the destructive and unconstitutional so-called Defense of Marriage Act.”
“GLAD thought through very carefully the best way to present the core concerns, powerful stories and a smart remedy to maximize our chances of winning in the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said.
Wolfson said he’s certain that GLAD’s attorneys will “be very forceful” in explaining why the federal government’s treatment of same-sex married couples is “unacceptable and unconstitutional.”
The plaintiffs in the case are seven married same-sex couples and three widowers, including Dean Hara, the spouse of Gerry Studds, the late Massachusetts congressman and first openly gay person to serve in Congress.
GLAD contends that as a result of DOMA, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996, these plaintiffs have been harmed in various ways, including the denial of survivor benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security benefits, as well as being forced to pay additional federal income taxes. The litigation contends DOMA violates plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause.
Gary Buseck, GLAD’s legal director, said preparations for the court appearance involve submitting several documents to the court to make their case before Judge Joseph Tauro.
The documents, he said, include memoranda of law to the court, a series of affidavits from the plaintiff couples and widowers, and expert affidavits showing why these couples should be treated as a suspect class for heightened scrutiny from the court.
“What we’re trying to think about is best arguments and how to succinctly present our best arguments,” he said. “We’re trying to think about — given what the government has put to writing — what are they likely to lead with, and are we content with the responses that we’ve written, and trying to imagine what the judge might ask.”
Representing the seven married same-sex couples and three widowers seeking federal marriage benefits in Massachusetts will be Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s civil rights project director.
Six years ago, Bonauto was the lead attorney in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the state lawsuit that brought same-sex marriage to Massachusetts, making the Bay State the first in the country to legalize gay nuptials.
Buseck said Bonauto is working on being “as heavily as prepared as possible” so she can “answer any question.”
Buseck said the court appearance on May 6 for the GLAD case wouldn’t be the same as the trial earlier this year for Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a lawsuit in California aimed at overturning Proposition 8.
Because the U.S. government filed a motion to dismiss and GLAD filed a request for summary judgment, Buseck said he’s expecting about 45 minutes to an hour of courtroom activity May 6 instead of a trial lasting several weeks, as in the Perry case.
“We don’t know exactly how much time we’re going to have,” he said. “It’s not like an appeals court where they give you a set of block of time and that’s what you get. This is going to be a little more informal than that.”
The Justice Department didn’t respond to DC Agenda’s request to discuss the case.
Buseck said GLAD can guess how the U.S. government will present itself during the court appearance because of the briefs the Justice Department has already issued.
He noted the Obama administration has said it doesn’t agree with the findings Congress presented in 1996 when it passed DOMA and that it considers the statute is discriminatory, but will nonetheless defend the statute because it believes the statute is constitutional.
Buseck predicted that the government will argue it was rational for Congress to enact DOMA in 1996 in an effort to maintain the status quo and “wait and see how this cultural debate plays out.”
“That’s been their fundamental argument to date, and presumably that’s where they’re going to stick,” he said. “So we’re ready for that. We’ve had to respond to those arguments in writing already.”
Legal experts following the case of Gill v. OPM expect it to reach the U.S. Supreme Court and, if successful, the lawsuit would force the U.S. government to recognize same-sex marriages for federal tax purposes and for Social Security benefits.
Buseck said he thinks it’s possible a decision could come down from a trial court in the summer, but more likely a ruling will be issued this fall.
Following the decision, Buseck said the case would likely go to the First Circuit Court of Appeals at the beginning of next year with a possible decision in Spring 2012. If the case were to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, it could go on the 2012 term and be decided in June 2013.
But Buseck emphasized that those dates were a “ballpark” estimate and said “there’s a lot of things that could change those dates.”
Running concurrently with the Gill lawsuit in the Federal District Court in Boston is another case challenging DOMA last year by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley: Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
Like the Gill case, the state lawsuit challenges the section of DOMA that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, but contends that it violates Massachusetts’ state right to regulate marriage under the Tenth Amendment.
The Commonwealth case will be heard in the same court and by the same judge, but the court date is scheduled for May 26.
Buseck said the Commonwealth case and the Gill case “complement each other” but “are in different boxes as far as legal theories go.”
“My sense is the judge will probably just for efficiencies’ sake somehow work on these cases together and it’s been my guess — but I’ve no reason to know that — I won’t be surprised if we get decisions on the same day,” Buseck said.
California
Calif. governor signs 6 pro-LGBTQ bills, vetoes 1
Gavin Newsom rejected measure he claimed is legislative overreach
Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed and vetoed a slew of bills into state law. Among them were seven pertaining to California’s LGBTQ community. Newsom signed six while vetoing one. His actions drew applause and scorn from advocacy groups in the state.
The six signed bills:
Assembly Bill 1775 allows transgender veterans, who were banned from service last year by the Trump-Vance administration, to access housing assistance, use California’s discharge upgrade assistance program, and get support for gaining employment.
Assembly Bill 1930 strengthens privacy protections for healthcare patients and providers by creating clear guidelines for California agencies, individuals, and corporations to respond to out-of-state subpoena requests relating to abortion or gender-affirming care. This includes a requirement to contact the California Attorney General at least seven days prior to responding to the subpoena or providing legal documents. This should add additional protection to those residing in California from investigations in states where abortion or gender-affirming care has more restrictions.
Senate Bill 934 targets conversion therapy in California and increases the amount of time a patient has to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit against a provider for attempting to change the patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill takes aim at the widely debunked practice that treats queerness as a mental disorder that could be cured through psychotherapeutic methods. Conversion therapy has been illegal in California since 2012; however, a recent Supreme Court decision threw the ban into question, prompting lawmakers to write this new bill that legally defines it as medical malpractice.
Senate Bill 1023 expands access to PrEP, a medication that protects people from contracting HIV. The bill requires insurers to cover the drug through the medical benefit and the pharmacy benefit pathways, allowing for more providers to give patients PrEP.
Senate Bill 1114 strengthens privacy protections for voluntary self-identification data about sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill limits when California government agencies can share this data and bars it from being disclosed outside of the state government, with few exceptions.
Senate Bill 1328 expands support for LGBTQ students and staff in California colleges. The bill requires any institution of higher education to designate an employee at any campus, satellite campus, branch campus, or outreach center to support the needs of LGBTQ individuals.
Equality California, the largest statewide LGBTQ civil rights group in the country, commended the governor for his support of legislation that protects and supports the queer community amid escalating threats, attacks, and rollbacks from the federal government.
Executive Director Tony Hoang said in a written statement, “California is once again demonstrating that when LGBTQ+ people are targeted, our state will respond with action,” adding, “We are grateful to Gov. Newsom for signing these measures.”
The vetoed bill:
Assembly Bill 2164 would have banned California from extraditing anyone residing in California for providing abortions or gender-affirming care in another state. Newsom vetoed this bill despite agreeing with its principles, claiming in a written statement that “extradition is an exclusively executive function” and that he did not want to limit the “executive authority of an incoming governor.”
This bill was created in response to Louisiana’s attempt to extradite a California physician for allegedly sending abortion pills in the mail to a Louisiana woman. Newsom responded forcefully to the extradition request, publicly denying it and stating, “We will not allow extremist politicians from other states to reach into California and try to punish doctors based on allegations that they provided reproductive health care services.”
In a written statement responding to the veto, Lizzy Hinkley, the legal director of the bill’s lead sponsor, Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, criticized Newsom, stating, “[the] outgoing governor’s principled stance is cold comfort to Californians living and working in the real world post-Dobbs. A high-brow, academic justification for refusing to codify legal protections only reveals an ignorance for the lived reality of patients and providers — and does nothing to help them.”
National
HRC report: LGBTQ students face ‘far greater challenges’ in non-supportive states
Survey finds anti-LGBTQ school harassment, bullying highest in 17 states
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the educational arm of the national LGBTQ advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign, has released a report showing LGBTQ public school students are more likely to face bullying, harassment, and “other barriers” in states that have less overall supportive LGBTQ laws and policies.
The report is based on the HRC Foundation’s National Educator Survey of School Climate and Bullying, which was released on Sept. 17.
“The report finds that harassment, bullying, and other barriers to LGBTQ+ inclusion are more prevalent in states with limiting policies, where educators report widespread restrictions on LGBTQ+ resources, visible expressions of support, and assistance for transgender students,” a statement released by HRC says.
“As just one example,” the statement adds, “while 59 percent of educators in states with limiting policies report restrictions on supporting their transgender students, just 6 percent to 8 percent of educators in states with supportive policies report the same, underscoring the impact of these policies on school climate, student well-being, and the stakes of the upcoming midterm elections for LGBTQ+ youth and inclusive classrooms.”
The report says the survey consisted of responses by 826 educators in 42 states who worked as teachers, principals, counselors, administrators, and others who worked in support services. All worked at schools with students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, most being public schools and a smaller number being charter schools, the report says.
It says the survey was conducted between April 15 and May 21, 2026, and included a survey questionnaire with about 55 questions covering a wide range of LGBTQ related school issues.
According to the report, its classification of LGBTQ supportive and non-LGBTQ supportive states is based on a detailed analysis of the LGBTQ related laws and policies of all 50 states, D.C., and U.S. territories conducted by the Movement Advancement Project, or MAP, which describes itself as an “independent, nonprofit thinktank.”
The report includes a chart consisting of 51 boxes representing the 50 states and D.C., with 32 plus D.C. colored as blue and said to have overall LGBTQ supportive policies. The 17 boxes colored in red are said to have overall non-LGBTQ supportive policies and laws, Each of the boxes has the initial of a state or D.C. printed inside it.
In addition to D.C., the chart shows Maryland, Virginia, New York, California, and Massachusetts as among the supportive states. Florida, Texas, West Virginia, and Ohio are among the states shown to be non-LGBTQ supportive.
The HRC statement includes these “key” findings from the survey:
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 59 percent of educators report restrictions on supporting transgender students, compared to just 6-8 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive policies, nearly 50 percent of educators reported restrictions on LGBTQ+ books or resources, compared to just 7 percent of educators in states with supportive policies.
- Roughly 32 percent of educators in states with restrictive policies reported anti-LGBTQ+ harassment was a moderate or serious problem, compared with 11 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 29 percent of educators were very worried about anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, compared to 15 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 36 percent of educators witnessed anti-LGBTQ+ student bullying, compared to 27 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 75 percent of educators reported no restrictions on LGBTQ+-supportive displays, highlighting a substantially more supportive school environment than in states with restrictive policies.
- Educators in states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies also reported significant harassment of students based on appearance (57 percent), race or ethnicity (43 percent), sexual orientation (42 percent), and gender identity or expression (39 percent). (No direct comparison figure from supportive-policy states is provided in the data above.)
“Every young person deserves to feel safe and supportive at school, but this report makes clear that for too many LGBTQ+ students, especially transgender youth, are being failed by policies designed to exclude them,” said HRC President Kelley Robinson in the HRC statement.
“We know that when students feel seen, supported, and affirmed, they are more likely to thrive, but when schools become places of exclusion or hostility, young people pay the price through lower engagement, missed opportunities to learn, and poorer mental and physical health,” Robinson said.
The HRC statement notes that the survey findings come at a time when a growing number of states have passed laws targeting LGBTQ students and the school officials and teachers who support them. It says that for the first time, the survey found that “educators themselves are also experiencing anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, highlighting the growing impact of these policies on school staff as well as students.”
The full survey findings and report can be accessed here:
U.S. Supreme Court
Trump asks Supreme Court to allow restrictions on gender-affirming care in prisons
SCOTUS could further restrict rights of trans inmates
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow its policy limiting gender-affirming treatment for federal inmates to take effect while a legal challenge plays out in court.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the government to continue providing gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy, which had become policy nearly a decade ago for inmates who were transitioning.
The Trump administration argues in its application that its policy restricting transgender rights was properly adopted and that the judge overstepped, posing nationwide “security and prison-administrative concerns.”
If allowed, the policy would halt surgeries, hormones and social accommodations such as wigs while allowing mental health therapy to continue as the legality of the policy reversal is litigated.
The government also argues in the application that the Bureau of Prisons had “determined that sex-trait-modification surgeries, hormone interventions in general, and social accommodations could no longer be justified as treatment for gender dysphoria.”
American Civil Liberties Union attorneys for the inmates said the policy is “a direct threat to the well-being of transgender people in federal custody and an open violation of their fundamental rights,” and said withholding necessary gender-affirming healthcare constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
The Blade has covered the ongoing developments surrounding changes to Federal Bureau of Prisons transgender inmate policy that went into effect earlier in Trump’s term. The changes primarily focus on rolling back Biden-era protections for trans inmates.
Earlier this year, the Blade published a joint letter from multiple senators in response to the rollback of the policy. Multiple senators — including Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii) — sent a letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche and Federal Bureau of Prisons Director William Marshall III calling for them to reverse the policy change, saying it endangers inmates’ health and safety.
The senators described how the policy shift, along with President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” is forcing policy changes they argued are rooted more in political rhetoric than in medical research or evidence-based correctional practices.
Federal Bureau of Prisons responded to the Blade’s request for comment in May, declining to reconsider its transgender inmate policy.
The Blade reached out to the Federal Bureau of Prisons once again over the application to the Supreme Court, but did not hear back before publication.
To school to homeschool to school again
Ryan Murphy’s ‘Monster’ vilifies the lesbian
The right to be an ordinary transgender man
LGBTQ community must vote in big numbers
Victory Fund board investigates former staffers’ allegations against CEO Evan Low
PHOTOS: HRC National Dinner
What’s frightening is also funny in ‘Venus’
I’m 66, he’s 27. Is it love or am I being played?
The LGBTQ real estate map is being redrawn
