The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Rowan County, Ky., clerk best known for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Following the Obergefell ruling, Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether and has since filed multiple appeals seeking to challenge same-sex marriage protections. The court once again rejected her efforts on Monday.

In this latest appeal, Davis sought to overturn a $100,000 monetary award she was ordered to pay to David Moore and David Ermold, a same-sex couple to whom she denied a marriage license. Her petition also urged the court to use the case as a vehicle to revisit the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

The petition, along with the couple’s brief in opposition, was submitted to the Supreme Court on Oct. 22 and considered during the justices’ private conference on Nov. 7. Davis needed at least four votes for the court to take up her case, but Monday’s order shows she fell short.

Cathy Renna, the director of communications for the National LGBTQ Task Force, a non-profit organization that works towards supporting the LGBQ community through grassroots organizing told the Washington Blade:
“Today’s decision is not surprising given the longshot status of Davis’s claim, but it’s a relief that the Supreme Court will not hear it, given the current make up of the court itself. We hope that this settles the matter and marriage equality remains the law of the land for same-sex couples.”

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released the following statement:

“Today, love won again. When public officials take an oath to serve their communities, that promise extends to everyone — including LGBTQ+ people. The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences.

Thanks to the hard work of HRC and so many, marriage equality remains the law of the land through Obergefell v. Hodges and the Respect for Marriage Act. Even so, we must remain vigilant.

It’s no secret that there are many in power right now working to undermine our freedoms — including marriage equality — and attack the dignity of our community any chance they get. Last week, voters rejected the politics of fear, division, and hate, and chose leaders who believe in fairness, freedom, and the future. In race after race, the American people rejected anti-transgender attacks and made history electing pro-equality candidates up and down the ballot.

And from California to Virginia to New Jersey to New York City, LGBTQ+ voters and Equality Voters made the winning difference. We will never relent and will not stop fighting until all of us are free.”

This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.

Uncloseted Media published this article on Nov. 8.

By ASHERAH BARTON | In July 2022, when I was 18, I was forced to come out as transgender.

I remember the car ride through Oregon, back from the DMV, where my state ID had my deadname and the wrong gender marker on it. My mom started interrogating me when I mentioned offhandedly that I didn’t want to have kids.

“Are you gay? Bi?” she pressed me.

I shook my head no.

“No? Well, then what the hell are you?”

My mom kept questioning me until I told her I was trans. I didn’t want to come out to her. I knew her beliefs as an ex-Catholic, and I had already heard her misgendering her trans coworker and had even found a transphobic book, “Irreversible Damage,” on the kitchen counter.

She dismissed me. She told me it was a phase. When I started using my chosen name publicly, she told me she would never call me by it. Even now, after two years on hormones and my dual top surgery and hysterectomy in September, I’m still saved in her phone as my deadname and she doesn’t use my pronouns.

Since then, life has been hard. I moved out of my mom’s house to a suburb of Portland. I needed space to exist without constant tension.

On top of the familial estrangement, maintaining work has been tough. For a while, I had a seasonal job at a local grocery store, something stable enough to cover rent and bills but not a long-term contract. I worked hard, often taking extra shifts and covering for others, hoping to be kept on. But on Christmas Eve of last year, I got the call that my contract wouldn’t be renewed. It wasn’t about performance, they said, the store just “didn’t have room in the budget” to keep the seasonal hires. It felt like the ground had fallen out from under me.

I needed help, so I applied for SNAP in February and started receiving it the following month.

I am part of the 42 million Americans and the nearly 2.1 million LGBTQ adults in the U.S. who rely on SNAP, the federal safety net that helps low-income Americans like me afford the food they need to stay healthy and independent. I’m also one of the 10 percent of younger recipients with a physical or neurological disability, and one of the nearly 3 million 18‑24 year olds who need it to afford food.

When I was on it, SNAP helped me breathe a bit easier.

But all of that changed on Oct. 30, when I got the notification on my phone: “SNAP benefits are paused starting Nov. 1 because the federal government is closed.”

With the holidays approaching and the weather getting colder, this feels like the worst time to lose my stability. Since the Oct. 30 notification, whether I am going to receive these benefits is still so unclear. Earlier this week, Trump said half of the benefits would be issued. Then, early on Friday, it was reported that we would get them after a federal judge ordered the administration to issue full payments immediately.

While I did get my benefits on Nov 7, I saw headlines later that evening saying that the Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal by the Trump administration to temporarily block the court order for full SNAP funding during the shutdown. So, does this mean I’ll lose the benefits next month?

The past few weeks have been so stressful, uncertain and confusing. It feels like the government is playing chess with my ability to afford food.

Before I got my benefits, I had $77 from picking up bottles from gas stations and recycling containers that weren’t too sticky to clean. I have a tally on the notes app on my phone of how many I collect, but it was not enough for the food I need.

As an autistic person living in a residency with rotating caregivers, I’m grateful that some of them help with bulk trips to Costco. But they can’t cover everything. My independence, my physical and mental health and my ability to live safely in my own body all suddenly felt more fragile than ever before.

Every month without those benefits means $187 less for me to spend on groceries. It means giving up my favorite protein bars and starting to buy in bulk to save money.

I thought about reaching out to my parents for help, but I suspected they will use their financial assistance to reopen the conversation about my trans identity, which they could use as a form of debt if I decide to sever ties with them.

For me, SNAP benefits are more than being able to afford food. They allow me to buy meals that keep me healthy and don’t trigger my eating disorder. I’ve struggled with Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder from a very young age, which makes it hard to eat anything unfamiliar or unsafe.

Without receiving SNAP, I wouldn’t be able to buy the foods that help me live. Just $187 a month may not sound like much, but for LGBTQ young adults like myself — many of whom are estranged from family members and/or living with disabilities — it is a key element to our survival.

For the millions of people on benefits, the uncertainty the Trump administration has brought us is the last thing we need. For the hungry children, for the parents struggling to put food on the table, and for those like me who are searching tirelessly for a job and working hard, we need clear and consistent support. Not a chaotic and confusing back and forth.

I’m not lazy, I’m not doing this for my own benefit, nor to cheat the system. Being an autistic, transgender, and low-income young adult means navigating a triple whammy.

As many as 85 percent of college-educated autistic adults are unemployed or underemployed. At the same time, transgender workers experience unemployment at twice the national rate and are frequently passed over for promotions or fired through no fault of their own.

This week, I was terrified of what the uncertainty meant. Is the eating disorder that I’ve lived with since early childhood going to get worse again now that I have to go to food banks to get meals that I may not be comfortable eating? Will I have benefits over the holidays? What will Trump do next?

For those reading this who don’t have to think about where their next meal will come from and when, I would like you to know that these funding cuts are not merely abstract numbers. For myself, for other young LGBTQ adults, and for disabled people of any age, they are empty fridges. They are anxious thoughts before every meal. They are fears of what will come next. November is now here, and I feel more scared. I am worried not just for myself, but for the millions of LGBTQ and disabled people like me who rely on this lifeline to eat and survive in a world that often feels unsafe.

Uncloseted Media reached out to Asherah’s mom for comment but she did not respond.

Sam Donndelinger assisted with the writing and reporting in this story.

Capital Pride Alliance, the D.C.-based LGBTQ group that organizes the city’s annual Pride events, filed a Civil Complaint on Oct. 27 against local LGBTQ activist and former volunteer Darren Pasha, accusing him of engaging in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk Capital Pride’s staff, board members, and volunteers.

The complaint, which was filed in D.C. Superior Court, was accompanied by a separate motion seeking a court restraining order, preliminary injunction and anti-stalking order prohibiting Pasha from “any further contact, harassment, intimidation, or interference with the Plaintiff, its staff, board members, volunteers, and affiliates.”

According to online court records, on Oct. 28, a judge issued an “initial order” setting the date for a scheduling conference for the case on Feb. 6, 2026. As of the end of the business day on Friday, Nov. 7, the judge did not issue a ruling on Capital Pride’s request for an injunction and restraining order

The court records show that on Nov. 5 Pasha filed an answer to the complaint in which he denies all allegations that he targeted Capital Pride officials or volunteers for stalking or that he engaged in any other improper behavior.

“It is evident that the document is replete with false, misleading, and unsubstantiated assertions,” Pasha says in his response, adding that “no credible or admissible evidence has been provided” to meet the statutory requirements for an anti-stalking order.

The Capital Pride complaint includes an 18-page legal brief outlining its allegations against Pasha and an additional 167-page addendum of “supporting exhibits” that includes multiple statements by witnesses whose names are blacked out in the court filing documents.

“Over the past year, Defendant Darren Dolshad Pasha (“DSP”} has engaged in a sustained and escalating course of conduct directed at CPA, including repeated and unwanted contact, harassment, intimidation, threats, manipulation, and coercive behavior targeting CPA staff, board members, volunteers, and affiliates,” the Capital Pride complaint states.

It continues, “This conduct included physical intimidation, unwanted physical contact, deception to gain unauthorized access to events, retaliatory threats, abusive digital communication, proxy-based harassment, and knowing defiance of organizational bans and protective orders.”

The sweeping anti-stalking order requested in Capital Pride’s court motion would prohibit Pasha from interacting in person or online or electronically with “all current and future staff, board members, and volunteers of Capital Pride Alliance, Inc.”

The proposed order adds, the “defendant shall stay at least 200 yards away from the principal offices of Capital Pride Alliance” and “shall stay at least 200 yards away from all Capital Pride Alliance events, event venues, associated activities, and affiliated gatherings.”

The reason for these restrictions, according to the complaint, is that Pasha’s actions toward Capital Pride staff, board members, and volunteers allegedly reached the level of causing them to fear for their safety, become “alarmed, disturbed, or frightened,” or suffer emotional distress as defined in D.C.’s anti-stalking law.

Among the Capital Pride officials who are identified by name and who have included statements in the complaint in support of its allegations against Pasha are Ashley Smith, the former Capital Pride Alliance board president, and June Crenshaw, the Capital Pride Alliance deputy director.

“I am making this declaration based on my personal knowledge to support CPA’s petition for a Civil Anti-Stalking Order (ASO) against Daren Pasha,” Smith says in his court statement. “My concerns about the respondent are based on my personal interactions with him as well as reports I have received from other members of the CPA community,” Smith states.

The Capital Pride complaint against Pasha and its supporting documents were filed by D.C. attorney Nick Harrison of the local law firm Harrison-Stein PC.

In his 16-page response to the complaint that he says he wrote himself without the aid of an attorney, Pasha says the Capital Pride complaint against him appears to be a form of retaliation against him for a dispute he has had with the organization and its then president, Ashley Smith, over the past year.

His response states that the announcement last month by Capital Pride that Smith resigned from his position as board president on Oct. 18 after it became aware of a “claim” regarding Smith and it had opened an investigation into the claim supports his assertion that Smith’s resignation is linked to his year-long claim that Smith tarnished his reputation.

Among his allegations against Smith in his response to the Capital Pride complaint, Pasha accuses Smith of using his position as a member of the board of the Human Rights Campaign, the D.C.-based national LGBTQ advocacy organization, to persuade HRC to terminate his position as an HRC volunteer and to ban him from attending any future HRC events. He attributes HRC’s action against him to “defamatory” claims about him by Smith related to his ongoing dispute with Smith.

The Capital Pride complaint cites HRC officials as saying Pasha was ousted from his role as a volunteer after he allegedly engaged in abusive and inappropriate behavior  toward HRC staff members and other volunteers.

 Capital Pride has so far declined to disclose the reason for Smith’s resignation pending an internal investigation. 

In its statement announcing Smith’s resignation, a copy of which it sent to the Washington Blade, Capital Pride Alliance says, “Recently, CPA was made aware of a claim made regarding him. The organization has retained an independent firm to initiate an investigation and has taken the necessary steps to make available partner service providers for the parties involved.”

The statement adds, “To protect the integrity of the process and the privacy of all involved, CPA will not be sharing further information at this time.”

Smith did not respond to a request by the Blade for comment, and Capital Pride has declined to disclose whether Smith’s resignation is linked in any way to Pasha’s allegations. 

The Capital Pride complaint seeks to “characterize me as posing a threat sufficient to justify the issuance of a Civil Anti-Stalking Order (CAO), yet no credible or admissible evidence has been provided to satisfy the statutory elements required under D.C. Code 22-3133,” Pasha states in his response.

“CPA’s assertions fail to establish any such conduct on my part and instead appear calculated to discredit and retaliate against me for raising legitimate concerns regarding the conduct of its former Board President,” he states in his response.

In its complaint against Pasha and its legal memorandum supporting its request for an anti-stalking order, Capital Pride provides a list of D.C. Superior Court records that show Pasha has been hit with several anti-stalking orders in cases unrelated to Capital Pride in the past and has violated those orders, resulting in his arrest in at least two of those cases.

“A fundamental justification for granting the [Anti-Stalking Order] lies in the Respondent’s extensive and recent criminal history demonstrating a proven propensity for defying judicial protective measures,” the complaint states. “This history suggests that organizational bans alone are insufficient to deter his behavior, elevating the current situation to one requiring mandatory judicial enforcement,” it says.

“It is alleged that in or about June 2025, Defendant was convicted on multiple counts of violating existing Anti-Stalking Orders in matters unrelated to Capital Pride Alliance (“CPA”),with consecutive sentences imposed, purportedly establishing a pattern of contempt for judicial restraint,” Pasha states in his court response to the Capital Pride complaint.

“These allegations are irrelevant to the matter currently before the Court,” his response continues. “The events cited are entirely unrelated to CPA and the allegations underlying the petition for a Civil Anti-Stalking Order. Moreover, each of these prior matters has been fully adjudicated, resolved, and dismissed, and therefore cannot serve as a basis to justify the issuance of a permanent Civil Anti-Stalking Order in this unrelated proceeding.”

He adds in his response, “Any reliance on such prior matters is misleading, prejudicial, and legally insufficient.”

The Capital Pride complaint disputes Pasha’s claim that all the prior cases against him were resolved or “dismissed.” The complaint points to at least two cases in which Pasha accepted a plea bargain offer by prosecutors and pleaded guilty to violating an anti-stalking order earlier this year. 

In his response Pasha says he is seeking to withdraw his acceptance of the plea agreement and those two cases are unresolved and should not be cited in the Capital Pride complaint.