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.”
State Department
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
April 20 memo outlined anti-transgender rule
Democracy Forward on Tuesday filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records on the State Department’s new bathroom policy.
A memo titled “Updates Regarding Biological Sex and Intimate Spaces, Including Restrooms” that the State Department issued on April 20 notes employees can no longer use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.
“The administration affirms that there are two sexes — male and female — and that federal facilities should operate on this objective and longstanding basis to ensure consistency, privacy, and safety in shared spaces,” State Department spokesperson Tommy Piggot told the Daily Signal, a conservative news website that first reported on the memo. “In line with President Trump’s executive order this provides clear, uniform guidance to the department by grounding policy in biological sex as determined at birth.”
President Donald Trump shortly after he took office in January 2025 issued an executive order that directed the federal government to only recognize two genders: male and female. The sweeping directive also ordered federal government agencies to “effectuate this policy by taking appropriate action to ensure that intimate spaces designated for women, girls, or females (or for men, boys, or males) are designated by sex and not identity.”
Democracy Forward’s FOIA request that the Washington Blade exclusively obtained on Tuesday is specifically seeking a copy of the memo that details the State Department’s new bathroom policy. Democracy Forward has also requested “all” memo-specific communications between the State Department’s Bureau of Global Public Affairs and the Daily Signal from April 1-21.
Federal Government
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
Measures would restrict federal funding for LGBTQ-affirming schools
Republicans have been gaining ground in reshaping education policy to be less inclusive toward LGBTQ students at the state level, and now they are turning their focus to Capitol Hill.
Some GOP lawmakers are pushing for a nationwide “Don’t Say Gay” bill, doubling down on their commitment to being the party of “traditional family values” by excluding anyone who does not identify with their sex at birth.
The largest anti-LGBTQ education legislation to reach the House chamber is House Bill 2616 — the Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their Kids Act, or the PROTECT Kids Act. The PROTECT Kids Act, proposed by U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), and co-sponsored by U.S. Reps. Burgess Owens (R-Utah), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Robert Onder (R-Mo.), and Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.), would require any public elementary and middle schools that receive federal funding to require parental consent to change a child’s gender expression in school.
The bill, which was discussed during Tuesday’s House Rules Committee hearing, would specifically require any schools that get federal money from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 — which was created to minimize financial discrepancies in education for low-income students — to get parental approval before identifying any child’s gender identity as anything other than what was provided to the school initially. This includes getting approval before allowing children to use their preferred locker room or bathroom.
It reads that any school receiving this funding “shall obtain parental consent before changing a covered student’s (1) gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form; or (2) sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.”
LGBTQ rights advocates have criticized both national and state efforts to require parental permission to use a child’s preferred gender identity, as it raises issues of at-home safety — especially if the home is not LGBTQ-affirming — and could lead to the outing of transgender or gender-curious students.
A follow-up bill, HB 2617, proposed by Owens, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, prevents the use of federal funding to “advance concepts related to gender ideology,” using the definition from President Donald Trump’s 2025 Executive Order 14168, making that an enshrined definition in law of sex rather than just by executive order. There is also a bill making its way through the senate with the same text— Senate Bill 2251.
Advocates have also criticized this follow-up legislation, as it would restrict school staff — including teachers and counselors — from acknowledging trans students’ identities or providing any support. They have said that this kind of isolation can worsen mental health outcomes for LGBTQ youth and allows for education to be politicized rather than being based in reality.
David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of government affairs, called this legislation out for using LGBTQ children as political pawns in an ideology fight — one that could greatly harm the safety of these children if passed.
“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy said in a statement. “Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people. H.R. 2616 does not protect children. It targets them. This bill is cruel, and we’re prepared to fight it.”
This is similar to Florida House Bills 1557 and 1069, referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and “Don’t Say They” bill, respectively, restricting classroom discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity, prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with one’s gender identity, expanding book banning procedures, and censoring health curriculum.
The American Civil Liberties Union is tracking 233 bills related to restricting student and educator rights in the U.S.
Botswana’s government has repealed a provision of its colonial-era penal code that criminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations.
The country’s High Court in 2019 struck down the provision. The Batswana government in 2022 said it would abide by the ruling after country’s Court of Appeals upheld it.
The government on March 26 announced the repeal of the penal code’s “unnatural offenses” section that specifically referenced any person who “has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature” and “permits any other person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature.”
Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana, a Batswana advocacy group known by the acronym LEGABIBO, challenged the criminalization law with the support of the Southern Africa Litigation Center. LEGABIBO in a statement it posted to its Facebook on April 25 welcomed the repeal.
“For many, these provisions were not just words on paper — they were lived realities,” said LEGABIBO. “They affected access to healthcare, safety, employment, and the freedom to love and exist openly.”
“LEGABIBO believes that the deletion of these sections is a necessary and long-overdue step toward restoring dignity and aligning our legal framework with constitutional values of equality and human rights,” it added. “It is a clear message that LGBTIQ+ persons are not criminals, and that their lives and relationships deserve protection, not punishment.”
LEGABIBO further stressed that “while this does not erase the harm of the past, it creates space for healing, inclusion, and continued progress toward full equality.”
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
Botswana repeals colonial-era sodomy law
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
Madonna makes rare club appearance in West Hollywood
Adoption under suspicion
Why we need to recognize and celebrate Lesbian Day of Visibility
Calendar: April 24-30
DC Center marks one year at new location
