National
Republicans argue DOJ can’t litigate against DOMA
Boehner group asserts Obama admin got what it wanted from lower court ruling
Former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement argues DOJ lacks standing in his latest DOMA brief .(Public domain photo)
Attorneys representing House Republicans in litigation against the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court are asserting that the Justice Department lacks standing to participate in the lawsuit.
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, under the direction of U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, makes the argument in a 38-page brief filed on Friday in response to the court’s jurisdictional questions on standing in the challenge to Section 3 of DOMA, known as Windsor v. United States.
BLAG argues the Justice Department lacks standing because the Obama administration received the result it wanted from lower courts — including the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals — striking down DOMA.
“It obtained the precise relief it believed was appropriate based on the precise theory (heightened scrutiny) it advocated,” the brief states. “The executive can fare no better before this Court. While this Court’s affirmance would have a greater precedential impact, the executive cannot ground its appellate standing on a desire for an opinion with the identical effect on this case and controversy, but a broader precedential scope for other cases.”
The brief is signed by private attorney Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general hired at $520 an hour to defend DOMA, and House General Counsel Kerry Kircher, among other lawyers.
But BLAG contends the court can nonetheless hear the case because it has standing to defend DOMA now that the Obama administration has declined to continue defending it.
“Indeed, without the House’s participation, it is hard to see how there is any case or controversy here at all,” the brief states. “Both Ms. Windsor and the executive agree that DOMA is unconstitutional and that Ms. Windsor was entitled to a refund. And the lower courts granted them all the relief they requested. Only the House’s intervention provides the adverseness that Article III demands.”
The Obama administratio discontinued defense of DOMA in court in February 2011 and since that time has filed briefs against the anti-gay law and litigated against it in oral arguments. House Republicans have taken up defense of the law in the administration’s stead following a 3-2 party line in BLAG.
In the brief, the committee also invokes as a source of its standing the rules passed at the start of the 113th Congress by the Republican-controlled House giving authority to the committee to speak for the House against DOMA. The rules were approved by a vote of 228-196.
Notably, the brief in a footnote asserts the House Democrats also believe that BLAG has standing to defend DOMA, even though they oppose House Republican intervention in the lawsuit.
“While the Democratic Leader and the Democratic Whip have declined to support the position taken by the Group on the merits of DOMA Section 3’s constitutionality in this and other cases, they support the Group’s Article III standing,” the brief states.
Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said the case against DOMA should indeed proceed on the merits regardless of who has standing in the lawsuit.
“We believe that the case should proceed to the merits, regardless of who has standing, and that the Supreme Court should rule DOMA unconstitutional once and for all,” Hammill said.
The BLAG brief was but one that was filed on Friday in response to jurisdictional questions in the DOMA case. In another 39-page brief, the ACLU asserts that the Supreme Court has standing to hear the case because a “controversy” remains in the case; existing law and appellate practice affirm the court has jurisdiction; and practice concerns favor the court exercising jurisdiction.
“[L]eaving DOMA’s constitutionality to the courts of appeals poses its own set of problems for married gay couples,” the brief states. “It may well take years for ‘a uniform rule’ to emerge. … And absent this Court’s intervention, uniformity may never come. In the meantime, married gay couples will continue to be denied equality under the law and essential government benefits that all other married couples can depend on.”
The ACLU also veers away from a position on whether BLAG has standing in the case — saying it at most can be an intervenor or have “piggyback” standing in the lawsuit — but maintains the court has jurisdiction to hear the case regardless of whether BLAG has standing.
“Whether BLAG would have had independent Article III standing if the United States had not petitioned for certiorari is a counterfactual question that this Court need not answer,” the brief states. “Indeed, because of controlling Second Circuit precedent, neither court below found it necessary to resolve the nature of BLAG’s standing.”
The brief is signed by attorneys that include private attorney Roberta Kaplan, who’s slated to deliver oral arguments against DOMA before the Supreme Court on March 27, as well as James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s LGBT Project.
The court hired Vicki Jackson, a Harvard law professor, to argue that neither the Justice Department nor BLAG have standing to participate in the DOMA case. In a brief filed last month, she contended the Supreme Court doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case.
The Justice Department was due on Friday to file its own brief on the jurisdictional questions presented by the court and another brief on the constitutionality. The brief wasn’t available as of this posting.
After those briefs, the next step in the lawsuit is for the ACLU to file its brief on the merits against the constitutionality of DOMA, which is due on Tuesday. Oral arguments in the DOMA case are set for March 27.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.
In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.
The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.
He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”
Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”
Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.
Federal Government
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams
In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”
The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.
“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”
Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”
Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”
“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”
Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.
Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.
The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.
New York
Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade
One of the victims remains in critical condition
On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.
According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.
The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.
The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.
In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.
The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.
New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.
“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”
Trans cyclist’s victory sparks outrage in conservative media
Activist recalls experience in Tel Aviv after Israel-Iran war began
Congress passes ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ with massive cuts to health insurance coverage
Nina West’s ‘Sugar in the Tank’ tour comes to Rehoboth Beach
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
Upwards of 100K people march in Budapest Pride
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
Celebrate the Fourth of July the gay way!
Silver Spring holds annual Pride In The Plaza
