News
HISTORIC: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, Prop 8
DOMA violates equal protection; Prop 8 supporters lack standing
Gay marriage advocates rallying at the Supreme Court earlier this year during oral arguments for two major cases. The court struck down two anti-gay laws today, opening the door for expanded rights for same-sex couples in many jurisdictions. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
In a historic development, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two decisions on Wednesday that advanced marriage rights for gay couples and will almost certainly reshape the national debate on the issue.
In one 5-4 ruling, the court determined that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it violates due process and equal protection for same-sex couples under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That decision means the U.S. government must begin recognizing same-sex marriages for a broad range of benefits, including those related to federal taxes and immigration law.
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion and was joined by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Kennedy said. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
The dissenting justices were Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. In his opinion, Roberts says Congress acted constitutionally in passing DOMA and took issue with the authority the court granted itself in overturning the anti-gay statute.
Writing his dissent, Scalia said the decision of the court robs the American public of its ability to decide the issue of same-sex marriage through the democratic process.
“Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many,” Scalia writes. “But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better.”
In another 5-4 decision, the court determined anti-gay forces don’t have standing to defend California’s Proposition 8. That decision leaves in place a district court injunction that prohibits the state of California from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage. Gay couples will be able to marry in the state once the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lift its stay.
Roberts wrote the majority opinion for the court and was joined by Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan. Kennedy wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor.
“The Article III requirement that a party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court seek relief for a personal, particularized injury serves vital interests going to the role of the Judiciary in our system of separated powers,” Roberts writes. “States cannot alter that role simply by issuing to private parties who otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse.”
The court’s ruling in the case against Prop 8, known as Hollingsworth v. Perry, is specific only to California — meaning the justices didn’t grant the expansive ruling that supporters of marriage equality had sought to bring marriage equality to all 50 states.
Shortly after HRC President Chad Griffin walked out of the court with plaintiffs in the marriage cases, he received a call from President Obama who was aboard Air Force One. Obama congratulated Griffin for the victories as reporters and onlookers watched.
The decisions were handed down 10 years to the day that the Supreme Court announced its landmark decision in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws throughout the country.
The challenge to DOMA, known as United States v. Windsor, was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and others in 2011 on behalf of lesbian New York widow Edith Windsor. Upon the death of her spouse Thea Spyer in 2009, Windsor had to pay the U.S. government $363,000 in estate taxes because of DOMA — a penalty that she wouldn’t have faced if she were married to a man.
The decision striking down DOMA affirms the initial rulings against the federal anti-gay law last year by U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones and the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Obama administration helped in securing the ruling against DOMA. After it stopped defending DOMA in 2011, the U.S. Justice Department began filing briefs against the law and sent attorneys to litigate against it during oral arguments. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued against DOMA before the Supreme Court, saying the law doesn’t hold up under the standard heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption it’s unconstitutional.
But the Supreme Court didn’t get to the issue of heightened scrutiny in the DOMA case because it found the law was unconstitutional under the less stringent standard of rational basis review.
The case against Prop 8 was filed by the California-based American Foundation for Equal Rights in 2009 on behalf of two plaintiff couples — a lesbian couple, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, and a gay male couple, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo — who were unable to marry because of the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
The attorneys representing them were Theodore Olson, a former U.S. solicitor general during the Bush administration, and David Boies, a so-called “dream team” of attorneys who represented opposite sides in the 2000 case Bush v. Gore.
Because the state officials — California Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris — refused to defend Prop 8 in court, anti-gay groups that put Prop 8 on the ballot in 2008 such as ProtectMarriage.com took up the responsibility of defending the measure. The California Supreme Court certified the groups had standing under state law and the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed they had standing.
But the high court determined that these groups — even though attorney Charles Cooper spoke on behalf on them in oral arguments — don’t have standing because they lack any legal injury in the wake of the lower court’s determination that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
The Obama administration had also assisted in efforts to secure a ruling against California’s Proposition 8. The Justice Department filed a friend-of-the-court brief in February saying the ban was unconstitutional and Verrilli argued in court against Prop 8, suggesting all eight states with domestic partnerships should be required to grant marriage rights to gay couples.
The issue of standing also came up in the DOMA case for two reasons. One, the court had questioned whether the U.S. Justice Department could have appealed the district court ruling to the Second Circuit because the initial ruling against DOMA was what the Obama administration wanted. Two, the court questioned whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a five-member Republican-majority panel within the U.S. House, had standing to take up defense of DOMA in the administration’s stead.
But the court determined an active controversy remains in the case because the U.S. government still hasn’t refunded Windsor the $363,000 she paid in estate taxes. Once the court determined it has jurisdiction based on the Obama administration’s appeal of the lawsuit, it didn’t get to the issue of whether BLAG has standing.
In his ruling, Kennedy writes the continuation of litigation in the absence of a federal ruling on DOMA would cause uncertainty.
“[T]he costs, uncertainties, and alleged harm and injuries likely would continue for a time measured in years before the issue is resolved,” Kennedy writes in the ruling. “In these unusual and urgent circumstances, the very term ‘prudential’ counsels that it is a proper exercise of the Court’s responsibility to take jurisdiction.”
Virginia
Miyares joins efforts to fight Title IX changes
Republican Va. AG part of multi-state effort
BY NATHANIEL CLINE | Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares has joined a multi-state effort to stop new Title IX rules from going into effect.
The list of new rules designed to protect victims of campus sexual assaults and the rights of LGBTQ students has come under attack by Republican attorneys general in several states.
Miyares called the changes a “dangerous overhaul” of Title IX, and said the new rules would negatively impact students, families and schools in the commonwealth. The ruling also comes after Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s administration overhauled the commonwealth’s transgender student policies.
“The Biden administration’s unlawful rule would jeopardize half a century of landmark protections for women, forcing the administration’s social agenda onto the states by holding federal funding hostage,” Miyares said in a statement. “They are avoiding Congress and the constitutional process because they know it will not pass. We cannot roll back Title IX in the name of false equity.”
Attorney generals from Tennessee, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia have also signed onto the suit, which was filed in Tennessee. Separate lawsuits have been filed in other states, including Louisiana and Texas.
Title IX, which has undergone several transformations based on the political party in office, was created to address women’s rights and prohibits any federally funded school or education program from discriminating against any student based on sex since it was established in 1972.
The Department of Education said some differences compared to the previous version developed under the Trump administration, include protections against all sex-based harassment and discrimination, prohibits schools from sharing personal information, and supports students and families.
Narissa Rahaman, executive director for Equality Virginia, said in a statement that the rule prevents opponents from weakening “crucial” civil rights protections including for LGBTQ students by ensuring that pregnant and parenting students have a right to equal education opportunities, protecting student survivors and guaranteeing the rights of LGBTQ students to come to school as themselves without fear of harassment or discrimination.
“Students across races, places, and genders prove every day that they can do great things, especially when there are strong Title IX protections in place, which is why the Biden administration’s updates to the Title IX rules are essential to ensure every student can thrive at school,” said Rahaman.
The new rule is slated to take effect on Aug. 1 and will apply to complaints of alleged conduct that occurs on or after that date, according to the Department of Education.
Protections
While the ruling protects students and employees from all sex-based harassment and discrimination, it will also impact LGBTQ students and employees, including providing complete protection from sex-based harassment, and prohibiting schools from sharing personal information.
Schools must act “promptly and effectively” to protect and treat all students and staff who make complaints “equitably.” Schools must also provide support measures to complainants and respondents, and act to end any sex discrimination in their programs and prevent any recurrence.
The rule further clarifies the definition of “sex-based harassment,” which means to treat someone unfairly because of their gender; and the scope of sex discrimination, including schools’ obligations not to discriminate based on sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
The federal agency said the changes will empower and support students and families by requiring schools to disclose their nondiscrimination policies and procedures to all students, employees, and other participants in their education programs so that students and families understand their rights.
The final rule also protects against retaliation for students, employees, and others who exercise their Title IX rights, and supports the rights of parents and guardians to act on behalf of their elementary school and secondary school children.
The rule also protects student privacy by prohibiting schools from disclosing personally identifiable information with limited exceptions, which is something the Youngkin administration has opposed.
Advocates say one of the rights students should have is the power to decide who finds out about their transgender status, to protect them from being bullied or harassed.
Virginia policies
In 2021, the first model policies for trans students were designed under former Gov. Ralph Northam to provide school officials guidance on the treatment of trans and nonbinary students and to protect the privacy and rights of these students.
However, some schools declined to adopt the model policies, and the state law that led to them lacked enforcement incentives or penalties.
The current policies adopted by the Youngkin administration were revised to require parental approval for any changes to students’ “names, nicknames, and/or pronouns,” direct schools to keep parents “informed about their children’s well-being” and require that student participation in activities and athletics and use of bathrooms be based on sex, “except to the extent that federal law otherwise requires.”
Virginia schools have also not fully adopted the newly revised policies, and state law has not changed since the policies were overhauled in 2023.
The Virginia Department of Education faces two lawsuits over the policies adopted by the Youngkin administration.
“All Virginia students, including our transgender and nonbinary students deserve to feel safe and welcomed at schools,” said Wyatt Rolla, a senior trans rights attorney with the ACLU of Virginia. “Accessing restrooms, locker rooms and other facilities that are necessary when you are at school learning is a key part of our schools being inclusive of those transgender [and] non binary students that are part of our community.”
Athletics not included
The provisions under the new Title IX rule did not mention anything about requiring schools to allow trans students to play on teams that align with their gender identity. Virginia has taken its own shot at banning trans athletes from competing in sports through legislation.
In February, the Youngkin administration attempted to challenge the Virginia High School League’s policy on transgender athletes, the Daily Progress reported.
The proposed policy would have matched with the administration’s current policies that students should be placed on teams based on their biological sex rather than their gender identity.
The Virginia High School League, which oversees interscholastic athletic competition for Virginia’s public high schools, allows for trans athletes to participate on teams that match their gender identity, but under certain conditions.
Simultaneously, lawmakers in the Virginia General Assembly controlled by Democrats killed bills, including Senate Bill 68, during the previous session that would have essentially banned transgender students from competing in sports.
State Sen. Tammy Brankley Mulchi (R-Mecklenburg), who carried Senate Bill 723, said students like her 6-year-old granddaughter should have a choice to play with their own gender during a Feb. 1 Senate Education subcommittee hearing.
Mulchi’s bill would have required schools and colleges to have separate sports for boys and girls based on their biological sex. Any dispute would require a note from a doctor.
“If she [my granddaughter] wants to play an all-girl sport, I want her to play against girls that were born girls and not play against someone that is much stronger than her or can hurt her and take away her chances of a scholarship,” Mulchi said.
However, state Sen. Stella Pekarsky (D-Fairfax) argued during the February hearing that whether students are competing with their respective biological sex or not “children of all ages, sexes have different builds and strengths and no children are alike on the same team.”
******************************************************************************************
Nathaniel is an award-winning journalist who’s been covering news across the country since 2007, including politics at the Loudoun Times-Mirror and the Northern Neck News in Virginia as well as sports for the Plain Dealer in Cleveland, Ohio. He has also hosted podcasts, worked as a television analyst for Spectrum Sports, and appeared as a panelist for conferences and educational programs. A graduate of Bowie State University, Nathaniel grew up in Hawaii and the United Kingdom as a military brat.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was previously published by the Virginia Mercury and is republished with permission.
Nonprofit. Nonpartisan. No paywalls. Fair and tough reporting on the policy and politics that affect all of us is more important than ever. The Mercury brings you coverage of the commonwealth’s biggest issues from a team of veteran Virginia journalists.
We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
Federal Government
US Census Bureau testing survey on LGBTQ households
Agency proposing questions about sexual orientation and gender identity
The U.S. Census Bureau is seeking public comment on a proposed test of sexual orientation and gender identity questions on the American Community Survey. The test would begin this summer and continue into next year.
The Census Bureau published the request as a Federal Register notice. In its press release the agency noted that the ACS is an ongoing survey that collects detailed housing and socioeconomic data. It allows the Census Bureau to provide timely and relevant housing and socioeconomic statistics, even for low levels of geography.
As part of the process for adding new questions to the ACS, the Census Bureau tests potential questions to evaluate the quality of the data collected.
The Census Bureau proposes testing questions about sexual orientation and gender identity to meet the needs of other federal agencies that have expressed interest in or have identified legal uses for the information, such as enforcing civil rights and equal employment measures.
The test would follow the protocols of the actual ACS — with one person asked to respond to the survey on behalf of the entire household. These particular questions are asked about people 15 years of age or older. Households are invited to respond to the survey online, by paper questionnaire or by phone.
The current Federal Register notice gives the public a final opportunity to provide feedback before the Census Bureau submits its recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget for approval. The public may provide feedback through May 30 online.
The Comings & Goings column is about sharing the professional successes of our community. We want to recognize those landing new jobs, new clients for their business, joining boards of organizations and other achievements. Please share your successes with us at: [email protected].
The Comings & Goings column also invites LGBTQ+ college students to share their successes with us. If you have been elected to a student government position, gotten an exciting internship, or are graduating and beginning your career with a great job, let us know so we can share your success.
Congratulations to Manny Cosme, owner of CFO Services Group, who was named Small Business Owner of the Year, for Washington, D.C., by the Small Business Administration.
SBA Administrator Isabel Castillas Guzman said, “Our 2024 National Small Business Week award winners exemplify excellence, innovation, and commitment, and the SBA is proud to showcase their incredible achievements and impact on their communities and our economy.” Upon being notified of the award Manny said, “I am incredibly honored and humbled to receive the Small Business Owner of the Year award from the Small Business Administration. This recognition serves as a testament to my team’s hard work, dedication, innovation, and impact in our local community. As a small business owner, I have always strived to embody excellence in my company’s services and commitment to my clients. My team and I are proud to represent the thriving small business communities across the country, and we remain committed to driving innovation, growth, and positive change in our industry.”
Cosme is the founder and current president and CEO of CFO Services Group. The firm is focused on providing bookkeeping, outsourced accounting departments, and fractional CFO advisory services, to growing small businesses and non-profit organizations. The company is headquartered in D.C., with team members and clientele throughout the United States. In addition to working with private business and non-profit clients, CFO Services Group partners with various economic development agencies, such as local governments, chambers of commerce organizations, CDFIs and SBDC centers, to provide free financial literacy and technical assistance to businesses in underserved communities.
Manny has served as the Vice President of Finance & Administration for the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. He recently served as the Finance Chair for the Greater Washington Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and Vice President of the Equality Chamber of Commerce. He is often sought after in keynote discussions on entrepreneurism and finance for fellow business owners.
PHOTOS: Taste of Point
Miyares joins efforts to fight Title IX changes
US Census Bureau testing survey on LGBTQ households
What property should I purchase if I’m not sure how long I’ll be in D.C.?
Comings & Goings
Pride season has begun
Judy Shepard to receive Presidential Medal of Freedom
Kenyan court bars homophobic protests
Pride journey: Las Vegas
