Politics
House GOP drops DOMA defense
‘Windsor decision resolves issue of DOMA’s Section 3 constitutionality’
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner has dropped defense of DOMA in court. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key).
House Republicans and the U.S. Justice Department are switching roles in a case against the Defense of Marriage Act that continues because it also challenges a statute restricting veterans’ benefits for troops with same-sex spouses.
In a move widely praised by LGBT advocates on Thursday, House Republican lawyers who had previously defended DOMA — including Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general during the Bush administration — announced they would withdraw as a participant in the lawsuit in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision last month in the Windsor case striking down DOMA.
“The Windsor decision necessarily resolves the issue of DOMA’s Section 3 constitutionality in this case,” the filing states. “While the question of whether [Title 38] is constitutional remains open, the House has determined, in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Windsor, that it no longer will defend that statute. Accordingly, the House now seeks leave to withdraw as a party defendant.”
The lawsuit, known as McLaughlin v. Panetta, was filed on behalf of gay troops and veterans by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and Chadbourne & Parke LLP in 2011 and challenges DOMA as well as Title 38, the law governing veterans’ benefits that also restricts the definition of spouse to opposite-sex couples.
LGBT advocates praised the move from House Republicans, who had taken up defense of DOMA after the Obama administration stopped defending it in 2011, as a decision placing them on the right side of history.
Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, called the move “historic,” noting that House Republicans spent an estimated $2.3 million in defense of DOMA.
“After millions of taxpayer dollars wasted defending discrimination, it’s a historic sign of the times that the House leadership is dropping its pointless quest to maintain second-class status for lesbian and gay couples,” Griffin said.
Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said Republican attorneys should follow suit in other lawsuits related to DOMA and file motions to exit as parties in those cases.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling is clear,” Hammill said “Rather than trying to delay justice for particular married gay and lesbian couples and their families, Speaker Boehner should immediately file motions to end House Republicans’ involvement in the remaining cases and stop spending taxpayer dollars to defend unconstitutional discrimination.”
In addition to the McLaughlin case, another DOMA lawsuit also challenging Title 38 was filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and is known as Cooper-Harris v. United States.
Caren Short, staff attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, called on Republican attorneys to withdraw from the Cooper-Harris case as well.
“We are considering our next steps and hope BLAG will withdraw from the Cooper-Harris case and finally end their shameful crusade against veterans and their spouses,” Short said.
Boehner’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment on whether House Republicans would similarly withdraw from other lawsuits related to DOMA.
But on the same day House Republicans made the filing to withdraw from the McLaughlin case, the Justice Department made its own filing disputing the plaintiffs’ ability to challenge Title 38 in the lawsuit.
First, the Justice Department contests that any of the plaintiffs have been harmed by the statute because it says none of them have applied for and been denied veterans benefits.
“These plaintiffs do not allege that they have applied for or been denied any veterans’ benefits (such as additional disability compensation based on a veteran’s service-connected disability, burial benefits, or dependency and indemnity compensation) that they would be eligible to receive but for their same-sex marriage,” the Justice Department states.
Second, the Obama administration maintains that the court in which the lawsuit was filed doesn’t have jurisdiction to decide veterans’ claims because the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act provides the exclusive review scheme for such challenges.
“Under this scheme, a veteran may seek administrative review of the denial of veterans’ benefits before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and subsequent judicial review by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, with the right to appeal that court’s decision as to legal issues to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and ultimately to the Supreme Court,” the Justice Department said.
The Justice Department makes this filing — signed by gay Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery — even though the U.S. Attorney General announced in February 2012 that it won’t defend Title 38 in court as it pertains to married same-sex couples.
Although the Justice Department objects to the Title 38 challenge in the case on procedural grounds, the filing makes clear the administration still believes Title 38 is unconstitutional “against challenges under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.”
Christopher Man, a gay attorney handling the case with Chadbourne & Parke LLP, said he disagrees with the arguments presented by the Obama administration, but will work with the Justice Department going forward.
“We appreciate that DOJ has agreed with us that each of the statutory provisions we challenged is unconstitutional, and are working with DOJ lawyers to find a solution that will provide our plaintiffs with all the benefits they would have received if their application for benefits had not been unconstitutionally denied,” Man said.
U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns had asked both House Republicans and the Justice Department to file by Thursday on the impact of the Windsor case on the McLaughlin case.
Politics
After Biden signs TikTok ban its CEO vows federal court battle
“Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere,” CEO said
President Joe Biden signed an appropriations bill into law on Wednesday that provides multi-billion dollar funding and military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan after months of delay and Congressional infighting.
A separate bill Biden signed within the aid package contained a bipartisan provision that will ban the popular social media app TikTok from the United States if its Chinese parent company ByteDance does not sell off the American subsidiary.
Reacting, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew said Wednesday that the Culver City, Calif.-based company would go to court to try to remain online in the U.S.
In a video posted on the company’s social media accounts, Chew denounced the potential ban: “Make no mistake, this is a ban, a ban of TikTok and a ban on you and your voice,” Chew said. “Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere. We are confident and we will keep fighting for your rights in the courts. The facts and the constitution are on our side, and we expect to prevail,” he added.
Our response to the TikTok Ban Bill in the US: https://t.co/LpoE67sxHo
— TikTokComms (@TikTokComms) April 24, 2024
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre adamantly denied during a press briefing on Wednesday that the bill constitutes a ban, reiterating the administration’s hope that TikTok will be purchased by a third-party buyer and referencing media reports about the many firms that are interested.
Chew has repeatedly testified in both the House and Senate regarding ByteDance’s ability to mine personal data of its 170 million plus American subscribers, maintaining that user data is secure and not shared with either ByteDance nor agencies of the Chinese government. The testimony failed to assuage lawmakers’ doubts.
In an email, the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who doesn’t support a blanket ban of the app, told the Washington Blade:
“As the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I have long worked to safeguard Americans’ freedoms and security both at home and abroad. The Chinese Communist Party’s ability to exploit private user data and to manipulate public opinion through TikTok present serious national security concerns. For that reason, I believe that divestiture presents the best option to preserve access to the platform, while ameliorating these risks. I do not support a ban on TikTok while there are other less restrictive means available, and this legislation will give the administration the leverage and authority to require divestiture.”
A spokesperson for U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) told the Blade: “Senator Padilla believes we can support speech and creativity while also protecting data privacy and security. TikTok’s relationship to the Chinese Communist Party poses significant data privacy concerns. He will continue working with the Biden-Harris administration and his colleagues in Congress to safeguard Americans’ data privacy and foster continued innovation.”
The law, which gives ByteDance 270 days to divest TikTok’s U.S. assets, expires with a January 19, 2025 deadline for a sale. The date is one day before Biden’s term is set to expire, although he could extend the deadline by three months if he determines ByteDance is making progress or the transaction faces uncertainty in a federal court.
Former President Donald Trump’s executive order in 2020, which sought to ban TikTok and Chinese-owned WeChat, a unit of Beijing-based Tencent, in the U.S., was blocked by federal courts.
TikTok has previously fought efforts to ban its widely popular app by the state of Montana last year, in a case that saw a federal judge in Helena block that state ban, citing free-speech grounds.
The South China Morning Post reported this week that the four-year battle over TikTok is a significant front in a war over the internet and technology between Washington and Beijing. Last week, Apple said China had ordered it to remove Meta Platforms’s WhatsApp and Threads from its App Store in China over Chinese national security concerns.
A spokesperson for the ACLU told the Blade in a statement that “banning or requiring divestiture of TikTok would set an alarming global precedent for excessive government control over social media platforms.”
LGBTQ TikToker users are alarmed, fearing that a ban will represent the disruption of networks of support and activism. However, queer social media influencers who operate on multiple platforms expressed some doubts as to long term impact.
Los Angeles Blade contributor Chris Stanley told the Blade:
“It might affect us slightly, because TikTok is so easy to go viral on. Which obviously means more brand deals, etc. However they also suppress and shadow ban LGBTQ creators frequently. But we will definitely be focusing our energy more on other platforms with this uncertainty going forward. Lucky for us, we aren’t one trick ponies and have multiple other platforms built.”
Brooklyn, N.Y.,-based gay social media creator and influencer Artem Bezrukavenko told the Blade:
“For smart creators it won’t because they have multiple platforms. For people who put all their livelihood yes. Like people who do livestreams,” he said adding: “Personally I’m happy it gets banned or American company will own it so they will be less homophobic to us.”
TikTok’s LGBTQ following has generally positive experiences although there have been widely reported instances of users, notably transgender users, seemingly targeted by the platform’s algorithms and having their accounts banned or repeatedly suspended.
Of greater concern is the staggering rise in anti-LGBTQ violence and threats on the platform prompting LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD, in its annual Social Media Safety Index, to give TikTok a failing score on LGBTQ safety.
Additional reporting by Christopher Kane
Politics
Smithsonian staff concerned about future of LGBTQ programming amid GOP scrutiny
Secretary Lonnie Bunch says ‘LGBTQ+ content is welcome’
Staff at the Smithsonian Institution are concerned about the future of LGBTQ programming as several events featuring a drag performer were cancelled or postponed following scrutiny by House Republicans, according to emails reviewed by the Washington Post.
In December, Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III appeared before a hearing led by GOP members of the Committee on House Administration, who flagged concerns about the Smithsonian’s involvement in “the Left’s indoctrination of our children.”
Under questioning from U.S. Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.), Bunch said he was “surprised” to learn the Smithsonian had hosted six drag events over the past three years, telling the lawmakers “It’s not appropriate to expose children” to these performances.
Collaborations with drag artist Pattie Gonia in December, January, and March were subsequently postponed or cancelled, the Post reported on Saturday, adding that a Smithsonian spokesperson blamed “budgetary constraints and other resource issues” and the museums are still developing programming for Pride month in June.
“I, along with all senior leaders, take seriously the concerns expressed by staff and will continue to do so,” Bunch said in a statement to the paper. “As we have reiterated, LGBTQ+ content is welcome at the Smithsonian.”
The secretary sent an email on Friday expressing plans to meet with leaders of the Smithsonian Pride Alliance, one of the two groups that detailed their concerns to him following December’s hearing.
Bunch told the Pride Alliance in January that with his response to Bice’s question, his intention was to “immediately stress that the Smithsonian does not expose children to inappropriate content.”
“A hearing setting does not give you ample time to expand,” he said, adding that with more time he would have spoken “more broadly about the merits and goals of our programming and content development and how we equip parents to make choices about what content their children experience.”
Politics
Survey finds support for Biden among LGBTQ adults persists despite misgivings
Data for Progress previewed the results exclusively with the Blade
A new survey by Data for Progress found LGBTQ adults overwhelmingly favor President Joe Biden and Democrats over his 2024 rival former President Donald Trump and Republicans, but responses to other questions may signal potential headwinds for Biden’s reelection campaign.
The organization shared the findings of its poll, which included 873 respondents from across the country including an oversample of transgender adults, exclusively with the Washington Blade on Thursday.
Despite the clear margin of support for the president, with only 22 percent of respondents reporting that they have a very favorable or somewhat favorable opinion of Trump, answers were more mixed when it came to assessments of Biden’s performance over the past four years and his party’s record of protecting queer and trans Americans.
Forty-five percent of respondents said the Biden-Harris administration has performed better than they expected, while 47 percent said the administration’s record has been worse than they anticipated. A greater margin of trans adults in the survey — 52 vs. 37 percent — said their expectations were not met.
Seventy precent of all LGBTQ respondents and 81 percent of those who identify as trans said the Democratic Party should be doing more for queer and trans folks, while just 24 percent of all survey participants and 17 percent of trans participants agreed the party is already doing enough.
With respect to the issues respondents care about the most when deciding between the candidates on their ballots, LGBTQ issues were second only to the economy, eclipsing other considerations like abortion and threats to democracy.
These answers may reflect heightened fear and anxiety among LGBTQ adults as a consequence of the dramatic uptick over the past few years in rhetorical, legislative, and violent bias-motivated attacks against the community, especially targeting queer and trans folks.
The survey found that while LGBTQ adults are highly motivated to vote in November, there are signs of ennui. For example, enthusiasm was substantially lower among those aged 18 to 24 and 25 to 39 compared with adults 40 and older. And a plurality of younger LGBTQ respondents said they believe that neither of the country’s two major political parties care about them.
Comings & Goings
Miss Kitty tackles classical mythology in ‘Metamorphoses’
Pride journey: Las Vegas
Unique financial planning challenges for trans community
Heather Lawver’s journey to growth, inclusion with Ceemo.ai at StartOut’s Growth Lab
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Pride season has begun
New World Bank US executive director: LGBTQ rights are human rights
