News
Minnesota Supreme Court won’t prosecute HIV-positive gay man
Respondent prosecuted after infecting partner through consensual unprotected sex
The Minnesota Supreme Court a ruled a gay HIV-positive man didn’t violate the law by infecting his partner through consensual sex.
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that an HIV-positive gay man didn’t violate a state law prohibiting the transfer of communicable diseases by engaging in consensual unprotected sex with his partner.
In a 16-page decision, the court determined in the case of State of Minnesota v. Rick that Daniel James Rick didn’t commit a felony under Minnesota’s “knowing transfer of a communicable disease” statute by having unprotected sex with a partner after declaring his HIV status.
The court affirmed that the law applies to donation or exchange for value of blood, sperm, organs or tissue, but given Rick’s conduct, there is “insufficient evidence to support respondent’s conviction.”
Christopher Clark, senior staff attorney for Lambda Legal, commended the Minnesota high court for reaching the decision. His organization filed a friend-of-the-court brief along with the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU Minnesota on behalf of Rick.
“We’re relieved that the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in favor of liberty and justice, rejecting the government’s misapplication of its communicable disease law to the facts of this case,” Clark said. “The State should not dictate with whom and how people choose to engage in intimate sexual relations.”
In May 2009, Rick had a sexual relationship with another man of unknown HIV status, identified as D.B. in the court decision, after meeting through a “social website.” They mutually agreed to not use condoms while having sex, although Rick said he disclosed that he was HIV-positive. According to the court decision, Rick either ejaculated inside D.B.’s rectum or outside of and onto D.B.’s body. In October 2009, D.B. tested positive for HIV. The next month, D.B. and Rick had their final sexual encounter in which they engaged in consensual anal intercourse and ejaculated inside each other.
But after the relationship ended, D.B. sought prosecution of Rick under Minnesota’s “knowing transfer of a communicable disease” statute. The state of Minnesota charged Rick with attempted first-degree assault with great bodily harm, which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. In addition to charging Rick under the provison of that law governing sexual penetration, Minnesota also pursued a conviction under the subdivision governing the medical transfer of blood, sperm, organs, or tissue, which does not contain the verbal disclosure exception.
A jury found Rick not guilty with regard to for sexual penetration, rejecting evidence that Rick didn’t disclose his HIV status. Still, the jury found him guilty under the law designed in the context of medical donations. The jury imposed upon him a sentence of 49 months in prison, but stayed execution of the sentence for five years.
In September, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. And after the granting review of the case in December, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed that ruling in a decision it made public on Wednesday.
The Supreme Court reached this decision first by examining whether the notion of “transfer” under the communicable-disease statute with regard to medical donations includes the transfer of semen during unprotected sex. The justices determined that the way the law is worded is ambiguous. Then, looking toward the legislative history leading to passage of the bill, the court determined that lawmakers didn’t intend to mean consensual sex when referring to the transfer of semen.
“We acknowledge that the communicable-disease statute presents difficult interpretation issues and that the Legislature may have, in fact, intended something different,” the decision states. “If that is the case, however, it is the Legislature’s prerogative to reexamine the communicable-disease statute and amend it accordingly.”
Gay rights and HIV/AIDS advocates praised the decision as a just way to end the state’s prosecution of an individual for engaging in consensual sex.
Chase Strangio, staff attorney with the ACLU AIDS Project, said it’s “deeply concerning” that a state would persecutive an HIV-positive person for engaging in consensual sex where parties disclosed their HIV status.
“Today’s decision marks an important step in protecting HIV-positive Minnesotans from misapplication of the criminal law,” Strangio said.
Sean Strub, a longtime AIDS activist and founder of POZ Magazine, said the court decision is positive, but he still has concerns.
“The ruling in Minnesota is a good step, but there’s still something creepy about having to celebrate, in 2013, a court ruling that says two consenting adults have the right to have sex with each other,” Strub said.
Strub noted public health statutes have been used in history to discriminate against immigrants, Jews, Chinese, African Americans and migrants in addition to LGBT people. He called on Minnesota to change its law to enable greater clarity.
“People with HIV today seem to be an acceptable focus for fears and biases that only barely mask the racism and homophobia that drive them,” Strub said. “I hope this court decision will inspire the Minnesota legislature to modernize their statute to reflect contemporary science and a respect for the rights of all people, including people with HIV.”
New York
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group filed federal lawsuit
The Pride flag will once again fly over the Stonewall National Monument in New York following a court order requiring the National Park Service to raise it over the site.
The decision follows a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which challenged the removal as unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and argued that the government unlawfully targeted the LGBTQ community.
In February, the NPS removed the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument, the first national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history in the U.S. The move followed a Jan. 21 memorandum issued by President Donald Trump-appointed NPS Director Jessica Bowron restricting which flags may be flown at national parks. The directive limited displays to official government flags, with narrow exceptions for those deemed to serve an “official purpose.”
Plaintiffs successfully argued that the Pride flag meets that standard, given Stonewall’s status as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. They also contended that the policy violated the APA by bypassing required public input and improperly applying agency rules.
The lawsuit named Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowron, and Amy Sebring, superintendent of Manhattan sites for the NPS, as defendants. Plaintiffs included the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Village Preservation, Equality New York, and several individuals.
The court found that the memorandum — while allowing limited exceptions for historical context purposes — was applied unlawfully in this case. As part of the settlement, the NPS is required to rehang the Pride flag on the monument’s official flagpole within seven days, where it will remain permanently.
“The sudden, arbitrary, and capricious removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument was yet another act by this administration to erase the LGBTQ+ community,” said Karen Loewy, co-counsel for plaintiffs and Lambda Legal’s Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice. “Today, the government has pledged to restore this important symbol back to where it belongs.”
“This is a complete victory for our clients and for the LGBTQ+ community,” said Alexander Kristofcak, lead counsel for plaintiffs and a lawyer with Washington Litigation Group. “The government has acknowledged what we argued from day one: the Pride flag belongs at Stonewall. The flag will be restored and it will fly officially and permanently. And we will remain vigilant to ensure that the government sticks to the deal.”
“Gilbert Baker created the Rainbow Pride flag as a symbol of hope and liberation,” said Charles Beal, president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. “Today, that symbol is restored to the place where it belongs, standing watch over the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.”
“The government tried to erase an important symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, and the community said no,” said Amanda Babine, executive director of Equality New York. “Today’s accomplishment proves that when we stand together and fight back, we win.”
“The removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall was an attempt to erase LGBTQ+ history and undermine the rule of law,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of Village Preservation. “This settlement restores both.”
With Loewy on the complaint are Douglas F. Curtis, Camilla B. Taylor, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Kenneth D. Upton Jr., Jennifer C. Pizer, and Nephetari Smith from Lambda Legal. With Kristofcak on the complaint are Mary L. Dohrmann, Sydney Foster, Kyle Freeny, James I. Pearce, and Nathaniel Zelinsky from Washington Litigation Group.
Sri Lanka
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
Prominent religious leaders criticized campaign
The Sri Lankan government has withdrawn its support for an initiative that encourages LGBTQ tourists to visit the country.
The Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority last September partnered with Equal Ground, an LGBTQ rights group, on the initiative.
The Daily Mirror, a Sri Lankan newspaper, reported Sri Lanka Development Authority Chair Buddhika Hewawasam in a letter to Equal Ground Executive Director Rosanna Flamer-Caldera said his agency recognizes “the potential of this project to diversify our tourism markets and position Sri Lanka as a safe, inclusive, and welcoming destination for all travelers.”
Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith, the archbishop of Colombo, along other prominent Christian and Buddhist leaders criticized the initiative. Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe on Feb. 10 indicated the Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority had rescinded its support for the campaign.
Flamer-Caldera on April 10 acknowledged the criticism over the initiative but added “the fact that the letter has been rescinded doesn’t make any difference.”
“We’re still doing work with the tourism industry who have basically opened up to us and are willing participants in the project,” said Flamer-Caldera. “They realize the potential of the boost to our tourism industry as well as boosting our economy.”
Sections 365 and 365A of Sri Lanka’s colonial-era penal code criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual relations.
The U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women in 2022 ruled the criminalization law violated Flamer-Caldera’s rights. The Sri Lankan Supreme Court in 2023 said a bill that would decriminalize homosexuality is constitutional.
Transgender people in Sri Lanka since 2016 have been able to request a Gender Recognition Certificate that allows them to legally change their name and gender on ID cards. Flamer-Caldera noted to the Blade that LGBTQ rights opponents have challenged the Gender Recognition Certificate in the Supreme Court.
Federal Government
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Proposed spending package would target ‘leftist’ political ideologies
The White House submitted its 2027 budget request to Congress last month, outlining a push for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “proactively” target what it describes as “extremism” related to gender — raising concerns about the potential for law enforcement to target LGBTQ people.
The Trump-Vance administration’s 2027 budget request, submitted to Congress on April 4, proposes a dramatic increase in national security and law enforcement spending, while reducing foreign aid and restructuring multiple domestic security programs. In total, the administration is requesting $2.16 trillion in discretionary budget authority (including mandatory resources), a 15.3 percent increase over the 2026 proposal.
Central to the proposal is the creation of a new “NSPM-7 Joint Mission Center,” a direct follow-up to the September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). The directive instructs the Justice Department, the FBI, and other national security agencies to combat what the administration defines as “political violence in America,” effectively reshaping the Joint Terrorism Task Force network to focus on “leftist” political ideologies, according to reporting by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein.
The American Civil Liberties Union has characterized NSPM-7 as a way for President Donald Trump to intimidate his political enemies.
In a press release following the memorandum, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said, “President Trump has launched yet another effort to investigate and intimidate his critics,” and had described the move as an “intimidation tactic against those standing up for human rights and civil liberties.”
The proposed mission center would include personnel from 10 federal agencies tasked with targeting “domestic terrorists” associated with a wide range of ideologies. Among them is what the administration labels “extremism” related to gender, alongside categories such as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” and “support for the overthrow of the U.S. government.” The document also cites “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views” on family, religion, and morality — language LGBTQ advocates have increasingly warned could be used to frame queer and transgender rights movements as ideological threats.
The mission center is one component of a proposed $166 million increase in the FBI’s counterterrorism budget.
In total, the FBI would receive $12.5 billion for salaries and expenses under the proposal, a $1.9 billion increase. Planned investments include unmanned aerial systems operations and counter-drone capabilities, counterterrorism efforts, and security preparations for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The budget also cites 67,000 FBI arrests since Jan. 20, 2026, which it describes as a 197 percent increase from the prior year.
When Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, it also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), which defines domestic terrorism as activities involving acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy through violence. That statutory definition has not changed.
However, federal agencies have historically categorized domestic terrorism threats into groups such as racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism, anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism, and other threats, including those tied to bias based on religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
The language in the budget suggests a shift in how those categories are interpreted and applied — particularly by explicitly linking “extremism” to gender and to perceived opposition to “traditional” views — without any corresponding change to federal law. Only Congress has the power to change the definition of domestic terrorism by passing legislation.
The budget document states:
“DT lone offenders will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges because of their capacity for independent radicalization to violence, ability to mobilize discretely, and access to firearms. Additionally, in recent years, heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased. Commonly, this violent conduct relates to views associated with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the U.S. government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
This language echoes earlier actions by the Trump-Vance administration targeting trans people.
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
The order establishes a strict binary definition of sex and withdraws federal recognition of trans people.
“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” the order states. “‘Sex’ shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. ‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’”
Appropriations committees in both chambers are expected to begin hearings in the coming weeks.
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
In an act of artistic defiance, Baltimore Center Stage stays focused on DEI
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Susan Lucci on love, loss, and ‘All My Children’
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
New book celebrates 1970s dance music icons
ROSENSTEIN: Vote McDuffie for mayor of D.C.
A Sondheim masterpiece ‘Merrily’ rolls onto Netflix
