Politics
Feds won’t enforce law barring gay veterans from spousal benefits
Holder notifies Boehner of change in Sept. 4 letter


Attorney General Eric Holder has notified Congress the DOJ won’t bar gay veterans from spousal benefits under Title 38. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
The Obama administration has determined that it will no longer enforce a portion of U.S. code governing veterans benefits to deny gay veterans benefits for their same-sex spouses.
In a letter dated Sept. 4, U.S. Attorney Eric Holder notifies U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) of the change in the way the Justice Department will enforce Title 38 of the U.S. code.
“[I]n light of subsequent developments and my recommendation, the President has directed the Executive Branch to cease enforcement of Sections 101(3) and 101(31) of Title 38,” Holder writes. “Decisions by the Executive Branch not to enforce federal laws are appropriately rare. Nonetheless, for the reasons described below, the unique circumstances here warrant non-enforcement.”
The letter cites the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against the Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriage, and the recent district court decision against Title 38 as part of the rationale to cease enforcement of portions of the law.
Some of the spousal benefits allocated under Title 38 are disability benefits, survivor benefits and joint burial at a veteran’s cemetery. Gay veterans were previously barred from receiving these benefits because Title 38 defined spouse in opposite-sex terms independently of DOMA.
Holder says in the letter the administration has reasoned that it couldn’t bar gay veterans from spousal benefits under Title 38 because the Supreme Court ruling against DOMA prohibits Congress from enacting laws prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
“Although the Supreme Court did not address the constitutionality of the Title 38 provisions in Windsor, the reasoning of the opinion strongly supports the conclusion that those provisions are unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment,” Holder writes.
Holder continues in the letter that enforcing of Title 38 to bar gay veterans from benefits would also have an adverse effect on veterans seeking protections for their families.
“[C]ontinued enforcement would likely have a tangible adverse effect on the families of veterans and, in some circumstances, active-duty service members and reservists, with respect to survival, health care, home loan, and other benefits,” Holder writes.
Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, affirmed that President Obama accepted Holder’s recommendation and directed his administration to no longer enforce Title 38 in a way that would deny benefits to gay veterans.
“This is an important step forward for the families of veterans and their ability to access survival, health care, home loan, and other benefits,” Inouye said. “As the Attorney General’s letter to Congress states, the circumstances of the situation demonstrate that this is the appropriate course of action.”
As Holder observes in his letter, Inouye said the Obama administration has discontinued enforcement of Title 38 after the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group withdrew from lawsuits challenging DOMA, including those challenging the veterans’ statute.
“Even the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group has ceased to defend the constitutionality of those provisions of Title 38 in legal challenges,” Inouye said. “This announcement means gay and lesbian veterans who are legally married can better protect themselves and their children. The President believes that all couples who are legally married deserve respect and equal treatment under the law, and his Administration continues to work to implement the Supreme Court’s Windsor ruling swiftly and smoothly.”
Boehner’s office didn’t respond to a request to comment on the letter.
The district court ruling that Holder cites in the letter was the result of a lawsuit filed against Title 38 by the Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of Tracey Cooper-Harris, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who’s suffering from multiple sclerosis and seeking disability benefits for her spouse, Maggie.
Caren Short, staff attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said her organization is “thrilled” with the letter because it means Cooper-Harris and other gay veterans will begin to receive benefits.
“It’s great to know that the ruling in our case helped to convince the executive [branch] to no longer enforce Title 38 because it was discriminating against veterans and their spouses who have served and sacrificed just like every other veterans and every other veteran’s spouse,” Short said. “We’re extremely and are hopeful that benefits will start to flow as they should have been for our clients.”
A VA spokesperson said the department would work to act on the decision by the Obama administration “in a timely manner.”
“VA is working closely with the Department of Justice to update its policies in a timely manner to ensure that the delivery and quality of Veterans’ earned benefits remain at the highest standards,” the spokesperson said. “Our commitment to provide all Veterans and their families with their earned care and benefits will continue to be our focus as VA implements the President’s decision announced today.”
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said the decision from the administration was “great news.” She’s the sponsor of the Charlie Morgan Act, legislation that would have changed Title 38 to enable veterans benefits to flow to same-sex spouses.
“We are in the process of determining if additional legislation is still needed to provide full benefits for all of our veterans,” Shaheen said. “I believe every individual that serves in uniform is entitled to the benefits they’ve earned and I will keep working on this issue until we are certain that is the case.”
The decision marks the first time that the Obama administration has announced it’ll cease enforcement of a law other than DOMA as a result of the Windsor decision. All previous changes made on behalf of same-sex couples following the ruling — such as the extension of tax benefits, offering active duty troops same-sex spousal benefits and allowing bi-national couples to apply for marriage-based I-130 green cards — were the result of regulatory change after the ruling.
In a letter to Congress last year, Holder previously indicated that the Obama administration believes laws barring gay veterans from spousal benefits are unconstitutional and the administration wouldn’t defend them against legal challenges in court. Still, at the time, the administration kept enforcing the laws. That’s changed after the court rulings.
Michael Cole-Schwartz, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said the decision to no longer enforce Title 38 to bar gay veterans from benefits was the right course of action from the Obama administration.
“As the Court said in Windsor, our Constitution does not permit the federal government to single out some married couples for unfair treatment, and today’s announcement from the Justice Department rests solidly on that principle,” Cole-Schwartz said. “For the brave men and women of our armed forces and their spouses to be denied benefits as veterans would be an insult to their service.”
One question that remains in the aftermath of this letter is whether the Obama administration will also interpret the ruling against DOMA to provide spousal benefits to legally married gay veterans applying for benefits in a state that doesn’t recognize their union. A portion of Title 38 unaddressed in the letter looks to the state of residence, not the state of celebration, in determining whether a same-sex marriage is valid.
Brian Fallon, a Justice Department spokesperson, said the issue remains “under review” within the Obama administration.
“The Justice Department will continue to work with the VA on figuring out how to go forward on that issue,” Fallon said. “But in the meantime, today’s decision means that if you’re a same-sex married couple in a state that recognizes your marriage, the VA will no longer deprive you of veterans’ benefits.”
Cole-Schwartz called for further guidance from the Obama administration on whether spousal benefits will flow to veterans who have legal same-sex marriages, but live in states that don’t recognize their union.
“The Obama administration is doing right by our veterans and faithfully executing the Supreme Court’s opinion and we look forward to guidance as to how the VA will treat veterans and their spouses living in states that do not recognize their marriages,” Cole-Schwartz said.
Congress
Ritchie Torres says he is unlikely to run for NY governor
One poll showed gay Democratic congressman nearly tied with Kathy Hochul

Gay Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York is unlikely to challenge New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in the state’s next gubernatorial race, he said during an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“I’m unlikely to run for governor,” he said. ““I feel like the assault that we’ve seen on the social safety net in the Bronx is so unprecedented. It’s so overwhelming that I’m going to keep my focus on Washington, D.C.”
Torres and Hochul were nearly tied in a poll this spring of likely Democratic voters in New York City, fueling speculation that the congressman might run. A Siena College poll, however, found Hochul leading with a wider margin.
Back in D.C., the congressman and his colleagues are unified in their opposition to President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which heads back to the House after passing the Senate by one vote this week.
To pay for tax cuts that disproportionately advantage the ultra-wealthy and large corporations, the president and Congressional Republicans have proposed massive cuts to Medicaid and other social programs.
A provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation, reportedly after pressure from transgender U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and lesbian U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).
Torres on “Morning Joe” said, “The so-called Big Beautiful Bill represents a betrayal of the working people of America and nowhere more so than in the Bronx,” adding, “It’s going to destabilize every health care provider, every hospital.”
Congress
House Democrats oppose Bessent’s removal of SOGI from discrimination complaint forms
Congressional Equality Caucus sharply criticized move

A letter issued last week by a group of House Democrats objects to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s removal of sexual orientation and gender identity as bases for sex discrimination complaints in several Equal Employment Opportunity forms.
Bessent, who is gay, is the highest ranking openly LGBTQ official in American history and the second out Cabinet member next to Pete Buttigieg, who served as transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.
The signatories to the letter include a few out members of Congress, Congressional Equality Caucus chair and co-chairs Mark Takano (Calif.), Ritchie Torres (N.Y.), and Becca Balint (Vt.), along with U.S. Reps. Nikema Williams (Ga.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Joyce Beatty (Ohio), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas).
The letter explains the “critical role” played by the EEO given the strictures and limits on how federal employees can find recourse for unlawful workplace discrimination — namely, without the ability to file complaints directly with the Employment Opportunity Commission or otherwise engage with the agency unless the complainant “appeal[s] an agency’s decision following the agency’s investigation or request[s] a hearing before an administrative judge.”
“Your attempt to remove ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as bases for sex discrimination complaints in numerous Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) forms will create unnecessary hurdles to employees filing EEO complaints and undermine enforcement of federal employee’s nondiscrimination protections,” the members wrote in their letter.
They further explain the legal basis behind LGBTQ inclusive nondiscrimination protections for federal employees in the EEOC’s decisions in Macy v. Holder (2012) and Baldwin v. Foxx (2015) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).
“It appears that these changes may be an attempt by the department to dissuade employees from reporting gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without forms clearly enumerating gender identity and sexual orientation as forms of sex discrimination, the average employee who experiences these forms of discrimination may see these forms and not realize that the discrimination they experienced was unlawful and something that they can report and seek recourse for.”
“A more alarming view would be that the department no longer plans to fulfill its legal obligations to investigate complaints of gender identity and sexual orientation and ensure its
employees are working in an environment free from these forms of discrimination,” they added.
Congress
Senate parliamentarian orders removal of gender-affirming care ban from GOP reconciliation bill
GOP Senate Leader John Thune (S.D.) hoped to pass the bill by end-of-week

Restrictions on the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care will be stripped from the Republican-led Senate reconciliation bill, following a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian on Tuesday that struck down a number of health related provisions.
The legislation banned coverage for transgender medical care through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, language that was also included in the House version of the bill passed on May 22 with a vote of 215-214.
The parliamentarian’s decision also rejected Republican proposals for a Medicaid provider tax framework, which allows states to charge health care providers and use the funds to support their programs, along with broader cuts to Medicaid.
Amid calls to override Tuesday’s ruling from Republicans like U.S. Rep. Greg Steube (Fla.), GOP Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.) told reporters “That would not be a good outcome for getting a bill done.”
He also acknowledged that the timing and schedule might have to be adjusted. Senate Republicans had hoped to pass the reconciliation bill by the end of this week, though this was not a legal or procedural deadline.
Dubbed the “one big, beautiful bill” by President Donald Trump, the legislation would extend tax breaks from 2017 that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans and corporations. To cover the cost, which is estimated to exceed $4 trillion over 10 years, the bill would make drastic cuts to social welfare programs, particularly Medicaid.
Democrats are not in a position to negotiate across the aisle with Republicans holding majorities in both chambers of Congress, but for months they have been calling attention to the effort by their GOP colleagues to strip Americans of their health insurance to pay for the tax breaks.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 10.9 million people would lose their coverage, either through Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Some Republicans like U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) are pushing back against the deep cuts to Medicaid, arguing they would be devastating for many of their constituents and also to hospitals, nursing homes, and community health care providers in rural areas.
In a statement emailed to the Washington Blade on Tuesday, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) said, “Anti-trans extremists are attempting to use the full power of the government to hurt kids, and recent Supreme Court decisions in Skrmetti and Medina are enabling their quest.”
While today’s ruling by the Senate parliamentarian is a temporary win, I will keep pushing back on these shameful attempts to harm trans kids and their families for trying to live authentically,” said the senator, who also serves as ranking member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), who is gay and chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, also shared a statement with the Washington Blade addressing the parliamentarian’s ruling:
“This ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian is a win for the transgender people who rely on Medicaid and CHIP to access the healthcare they need to live fuller, happier, and healthier lives—but the fight is not over yet,” the congressman said.
“Republican Senators must abide by her ruling and remove the ban from the final version of Trump’s Big Ugly Bill,” he said. “Yet, even with this provision removed, this bill is terrible for the American people, including trans Americans. Every Equality Caucus member voted against it in the House and we’re ready to do so again if the Senate sends it back to the House.”
The Human Rights Campaign issued a press release with a statement from the organization’s vice president for government affairs, David Stacy:
“The fact remains that this bill belongs in the trash. It continues to include devastating cuts to health care programs — including Medicaid — that would disproportionately harm the LGBTQ+ community, all so the already rich can receive huge tax cuts,” Stacy said.
“While it comes as a relief that the Senate parliamentarian concluded that one provision in the nightmarish reconciliation bill that would have denied essential, best practice health care to transgender adults does not belong, we aren’t done fighting,” he said. “With attacks on our community coming from many directions, including the Supreme Court, we will work to defeat this bill with everything we’ve got.”