National
Supreme Court makes two pro-LGBT rulings
Non-discrimination, disclosure issues decided
The U.S. Supreme Court made pro-LGBT rulings in two cases during the final week of its term, which ended Monday.
Justices ruled in favor of the constitutionality of a California law school’s non-discrimination policy as well as state disclosure laws that would make public the names of those who signed a petition to put an anti-gay referendum on the Washington State ballot.
In the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the court upheld Monday in a 5-4 decision the University of California, Hastings College of Law’s non-discrimination policy against a legal challenge from a Christian group that aimed to discriminate against LGBT people.
The school’s Hastings Christian Fellowship sought to overturn a non-discrimination policy to maintain its status as an official school group while prohibiting LGBT people from holding positions as officers. The group contended the school’s policy violated the chapter’s freedom of association and speech under the First Amendment.
But U.S. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — who wrote the majority opinion in the ruling — said the school’s policy is constitutional because it’s “a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student-organization forum.”
“In requiring [Christian Legal Society] — in common with all other student organizations — to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations,” she writes.
Joining Ginsburg in the majority opinion were Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Associate Justice John Paul Stevens marked his final day on the bench by filing a concurring opinion.
While upholding Hastings’ policy, the court also remanded to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals an assertion by the Christian Legal Society that Hastings has been selectively applying its non-discrimination policy.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito filed the dissent. In his opinion, Alito writes that the Supreme Court didn’t properly address the constitutionality of Hastings’ policy and is setting precedent that could stifle free speech.
“Brushing aside inconvenient precedent, the Court arms public educational institutions with a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups,” Alito writes.
Joining Alito in the dissenting opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In the majority opinion, Ginsburg notes as an official group, the Christian Legal Society chapter would be entitled to financial assistance from the school derived from mandatory student fees. She says current policy “ensures that no Hastings student is forced to fund a group that would reject her as a member.”
Additionally, Ginsburg emphasizes that although Hastings may exclude the Christian Legal Society chapter as an official group — or as a registered student organization — the organization still has some capacity to meet and communicate on campus.
“In this case, Hastings offered [Christian Legal Society] access to school facilities to conduct meetings and the use of chalkboards and generally available bulletin boards to advertise events,” Ginsburg writes. “Although [Christian Legal Society] could not take advantage of [certain] methods of communication … the advent of electronic media and social-networking sites reduces the importance of those channels.”
In a statement, Christopher Stoll, senior attorney for the National Center of Lesbian Rights, said the decision “affirmed the longstanding doctrine” that non-discrimination policies don’t “violate free speech when applied in a consistent and even-handed way.”
“The court rejected the dangerous argument that anti-gay groups must be given a special exemption from non-discrimination policies,” Stoll said.
NCLR was among the groups representing Outlaw, Hastings’ LGBT student group, which intervened to defend Hastings’ non-discrimination policy.
Paul Smith, who represented Outlaw, said all the respondents are “gratified” by the court’s decision said it reflects the views articulated in briefs to the court.
“The Hastings policy that all recognized and subsidized student groups have to be open to all comers is designed to … assure that educational opportunities are equally open to all, and … promote the open interchange of ideas among students,” he said.
The Hastings College of Law and the Christian Legal Society didn’t immediately respond to the Blade’s request for comment.
In a separate decision June 24, the court ruled against people seeking to keep secret the names of people who last year signed a petition to put an anti-gay referendum on the Washington State ballot.
The court determined 8-1 in Doe v. Reed that public disclosure of referendum petitions doesn’t — as a general rule — violate the First Amendment rights of signers.
But the decision left room for anti-gay activists to succeed at a lower court on the more focused question of whether making public the signatures for Referendum 71 specifically runs contrary to the U.S. Constitution. Roberts wrote the majority opinion in the decision. The sole dissenting voice in ruling came from Thomas.
The initiative in question, Referendum 71, came before Washington State residents in 2009 and threatened to abrogate the expansion of the state’s domestic partner registry. But 53 percent of the electorate voted in favor of upholding the law, keeping the registry in place.
Concurrent with the campaign against the law, people who put the anti-gay initiative on the ballot — led by Protect Marriage Washington — challenged Washington State’s Public Records Act, which requires public disclosure of the names of petition signers who put referenda on the ballot.
The U.S. District Court of the Western District of Washington issued a preliminary injunction blocking the publication of signatures, and the issue made its way to the Supreme Court.
Plaintiffs argued the law could put people who signed the petition in danger after their names became public. In defense of the statute, Washington State argued disclosure contributes to electoral integrity of the ballot process and allows the public to double-check in case a mistake is made.
Roberts affirms in the majority opinion the arguments that public disclosure promotes electoral integrity and concludes the disclosure law enables the public to find potential mistakes or instances of forgery.
“Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures,” he writes. “Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot.”
Roberts also rejects the assertion from plaintiffs that the court should overturn the disclosure law on the basis that disclosure of the names of people who signed the Referendum 71 petition would place these signers in danger.
The chief justice says the question before the court isn’t whether “disclosure violates the First Amendment with respect to those who signed the R-71 petition,” but whether this disclosure “in general violates the First Amendment rights of those who sign referendum petitions.”
“The problem for plaintiffs is that their argument rests almost entirely on the specific harm they say would attend disclosure of the information on the R-71 petition, or on similarly controversial ones,” Roberts writes.
Roberts says the court must reject this broad challenge to all disclosure laws, but says this ruling doesn’t necessarily “foreclose a litigant’s success” in a narrower challenge before the district court. The chief justice recalls how the court previously determined withholding names may be appropriate in some instances with “reasonable probability” that individuals would be harassed.
In a statement, Anne Levinson, chair of Washington Families Standing Together, which fought to maintain the state’s domestic partnership law, praised the high court’s decision.
She said the Supreme Court made clear that public disclosure laws ensure “measures are not put on the ballot by fraudulent means or mistake.”
“Nowhere is the integrity and transparency of elections more important than where the ballot box is being used in an attempt to take away fundamental rights,” she said. “Nowhere is it more important for the public to know that attempts to affect the lives of their fellow citizens by promoting ballot measures are free from fraud and error.”
But Larry Stickney, president of the Washington Values Alliance, said he’s “optimistic” anti-gay activists will be able to keep the petition names secret following action from the district court.
“Likely we’re going to be back in district court and we’ll be able to bring out some of the harassment and intimidation efforts that were made against Protect Marriage Washington,” he said. “We’re happy that that effort will carry on.”
Levinson dismissed the idea that people working on the campaign to overturn the domestic partner registry faced harassment and said there’s “absolutely no evidence of harassment” of signers.
“What the petitioners cite to by way of threats or other harassment, they talk about their campaign manager or other leadership in their campaign,” she said. “Those are the folks like me who were debating on TV or radio or leading a campaign effort, so that’s irrelevant to making any case about petition signers.”
Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, said he didn’t think plaintiffs had a shot keeping the names of petitions signers under wraps in light of the “reasonable probability” standard the Supreme Court established.
“I think they are very unlikely to have any success because the standard that the Supreme Court imposed here is — in a particular case — you can only prevent disclosure if you can show a reasonable probability that disclosure will subject to threats, harassment or reprisal,” he said. “So not the possibility — not that it could happen — but a reasonable probability that it will happen.”
Florida
Gay Fla. Democrat Elijah Manley sees opportunity in Trump’s second term
State’s 20th Congressional District’s includes Broward, Palm Beach Counties
Just over two and a half miles from President Donald Trump’s primary residence lies one of Florida’s most reliably Democratic congressional districts. There, a 27-year-old progressive is mounting a campaign centered on resisting what he calls the Trump-Vance administration’s attacks on civil rights, immigrants, and LGBTQ Americans.
Elijah Manley, an openly gay Democrat, sat down with the Washington Blade to discuss why he is running for Florida’s 20th Congressional District, why he believes this moment calls for a new generation of leadership, and what he hopes to accomplish if elected to Congress.
Born and raised in Fort Lauderdale’s historic Sistrunk neighborhood — the city’s oldest African American community — Manley was raised by a single mother who struggled to make ends meet. His family experienced housing insecurity and, at one point, homelessness, experiences he says continue to shape both his politics and his policy priorities.
For Manley, those experiences are precisely what he believes Congress is missing.
“I think now the country is in need of somebody like me, with my story, my lived experience, the struggles I’ve been through in my life. We’re going through a really dark time in the country with the Trump administration coming for our civil rights and an economy that is not working for everybody. In a time where we have MAGA fascism, we need progressive leadership, and we need people who are really going to do the work of fighting back and resisting and obstructing Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans’ agenda in Congress.”
Manley said his campaign is also about ensuring people from marginalized communities — those without wealth, political connections, or institutional backing — have a voice in Congress.
“I think my story sets me aside from everyone else. I’m the only one in this race who has a story to tell voters that lines up with their lived experiences and their struggles. Growing up in poverty and experiencing homelessness was instrumental in developing my worldview and how I fight for people, and I think that’s something that’s absent on Capitol Hill.”
He argues that lived experience offers a perspective often missing on Capitol Hill.
“There are too many lawyers and people coming from professional and political backgrounds. Then you have somebody like me who is rooted in the story of this district. That’s what sets me apart from everyone else in this race.”
According to his campaign website, Manley’s interest in public service dates back to childhood. He cites the election of President Barack Obama as a defining moment that inspired him to pursue politics.
“He was inspired by Barack Obama’s historic election, igniting his passion for public service. He began writing to elected officials, speaking at school board and city council meetings, and advocating for issues affecting his community,” the website states. It goes on to describe his involvement in criminal justice and law magnet programs, Navy JROTC, and hundreds of hours of volunteer service while in high school.
As an openly gay candidate running during Trump’s second administration, Manley said Congress must take a far more aggressive approach to protecting LGBTQ Americans, particularly as Republican-led states continue passing restrictions targeting transgender people.
“I think we need to bring the hammer down on some of these states. I’m not one of these states’ rights people — Congress has the power to preempt laws that states pass through the Supremacy Clause. There’s never been a more important time in our history when we’re seeing fascism, we’re seeing an administration out of control, and we need Congress to act.”
His campaign has also drawn criticism from both Republicans and establishment Democrats for his positions on Gaza, immigration, and his call to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Manley said abolishing ICE does not mean eliminating immigration enforcement altogether.
“I’m not saying there should be no immigration laws. We want laws around immigration, but we want dignity. We don’t need a hypermilitarized, paramilitary group chasing people through the streets, terrorizing communities, churches, schools, and families.”
His personal experiences also inform his healthcare agenda.
“When we talk about healthcare, my experience growing up on Medicaid is seeing the failure of the government to expand Medicaid here in Florida, and now we’re seeing cuts from the Trump administration. I’m not just looking at statistics or numbers on paper — this is based on lived experience. I know how the people in this district are going to be hurt by these policies because I’ve lived it.”
California Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, who has generated early buzz as a potential 2028 presidential contender for his “progressive capitalist” approach to governing, has endorsed Manley’s campaign, giving the first-time congressional candidate one of his highest-profile endorsements.
Manley faces six other Democrats in the primary, including U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and former U.S. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, along with four Republican candidates in the general election field. Cherfilus-McCormick resigned from Congress ahead of a potential expulsion and is running again while facing federal criminal charges.
Despite running as the youngest candidate in the field, Manley said he hopes voters leave the race remembering one thing above all else.
“I want people to remember bold and authentic leadership. I want them to know I’m running because I’ve been through what people are going through right now — and it’s not that I’ve been through it, I’m actually still going through it. We need bold people who are going to fight for everybody and stand up for what’s right, and that’s what I hope voters see when they go to the polls.”
Florida
Former Fla. gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum arrested on drug charges
Democrat narrowly lost to DeSantis in 2018, later came out as bisexual
Andrew Gillum, the former Democratic nominee for governor of Florida and former mayor of Tallahassee, was arrested on drug possession charges in Alabama last week.
Police in Daphne, Ala., said they pulled Gillum over for erratic driving and found marijuana and methamphetamine in his vehicle. He was charged with possession of marijuana and unlawful possession of a controlled substance, according to the Daphne Police Department. Jail records show he was arrested on July 2 and released on July 3, the Associated Press reports.
Gillum, the first Black nominee of a major political party for governor in Florida, lost the 2018 election to current Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in a highly contentious race.
Once considered a rising star in national politics, Gillum served in Tallahassee’s local government, first as a city commissioner and then as mayor of Florida’s capital from 2014- 2018.
The Daphne Police Department said officers stopped Gillum’s vehicle around 10:45 p.m. and initiated a probable cause search after one officer noticed a glass pipe on the center console.
During the search, officers found several rolled marijuana cigarettes and three packages containing a substance that tested positive for methamphetamine, police said.
The day after his arrest he was charged with possession of dangerous drugs, use or possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana.
In 2020, Gillum was involved in a similar incident when he was found in a Miami Beach, Fla., hotel room with a man identified as an escort who had apparently overdosed on drugs. Police also found three bags of suspected crystal methamphetamine in the room. The man survived, and no one was ever charged with a crime.
Later that year, Gillum came out as bisexual during an appearance on “The Tamron Hall Show,” where he discussed his struggles with drug and alcohol addiction and his decision to seek treatment following the 2020 incident.
In the same interview he shed light onto this, saying his substance use was a byproduct of the emotional struggles he experienced after losing the 2018 gubernatorial race to DeSantis.
This is not the first time Gillum has faced legal scrutiny.
During his 2014 mayoral campaign, he faced allegations of misconduct after hiring private equity investor Adam Corey as his campaign treasurer, raising questions about a potential conflict of interest. However, the FBI ultimately concluded there was no conflict of interest.
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia murder suspect remains at large
Two killed, one injured in attacks motivated by victims’ sexual orientation
Police seek the public’s support in finding a suspect wanted in connection with three Philadelphia shootings, including two murders, who may have targeted his victims because they were gay. All three shootings took place near Hunting Park Recreation Center between May 29 and June 26.
The suspect is 21-year-old Jahylin Melchur, who has not been located by police and is not in police custody as of July 7. Police seek the public’s support in tracking down the suspect, whose image was captured on surveillance cameras. Previous reporting underlined that Melchur should be considered armed and dangerous.
Each of the victims was found partially clothed between 10 and 11 p.m.
On May 29, a 55-year-old in Juniata Park was found two miles from the rec center. The victim, who survived the encounter with critical injuries, said a man approached him and announced his intention to rob him, before shooting him in the elbow and torso.
Martin Higgins, 45, was pronounced dead on the bleachers of the rec center’s baseball field on June 20, suffering from a gunshot wound to the abdomen. Sharef Holman, 29, was found near the basketball courts on June 26, suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. He was transported to Temple University Hospital but died shortly thereafter.
Deputy Police Commissioner Frank Vanore declined to answer the Philadelphia Inquirer’s question regarding whether the victims may have met Melchur on a dating app, citing the ongoing investigation. Sources told the Philadelphia Inquirer that investigators are exploring this possibility
Although robbery may be at least part of the motive in the first shooting, other movies are unclear.
NBC10 reported that law enforcement sources told the station all three victims were targeted because they were gay, but the Philadelphia Police Department did not confirm this.
The Philadelphia Police Department replied to PGN’s questions with an email stating, “This remains a very active investigation, and investigators are looking at all aspects of the case, including underlying motivations for committing these crimes.
“At this point, we can confirm that Melchur is wanted for two homicides by shooting and one non-fatal shooting, all of which occurred in the Hunting Park area.
“The investigation has not established that the victims were specifically targeted because of their sexual orientation.”
The Philadelphia Police Department is urging anyone with information to contact the Homicide Unit at 215-686-3334 or submit an anonymous tip by calling the PPD Tip Line at 215-686-TIPS (8477).
(This story is republished with permission of the Philadelphia Gay News.)
Campaign launched to elect more LGBTQ candidates to ANC seats
Gay librarian to discuss new novel at Green Lantern
Calendar: July 10-16
Gay Fla. Democrat Elijah Manley sees opportunity in Trump’s second term
Ron Singer, owner of popular Mount Vernon gay bar Leon’s, dies
In Trump’s divided America, Michael Weinstein’s AHF responds
Turkish authorities refuse to allow gay cruise to dock in country
PHOTOS: Crush Dance Bar
As Washington shifts right, Democratic Socialists gain ground
