National
Legal advocates turn attention to Supreme Court abortion cases
No major LGBTQ rights cases before court this term
With the new term for the U.S. Supreme Court underway, justices for the first time in years won’t have to consider a major case specifically impacting LGBTQ rights, which legal advocates say will lead to them to focus their attention on high-profile cases that challenge a woman’s right to access abortion.
At the top of the watch list for court, which now has 6-3 conservative majority as a result of appointments under former President Trump, is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which will determine the constitutionality of the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks and is widely considered a direct challenge to long-standing precedent established by Roe v. Wade guaranteeing a right to abortion. The Texas law banning any abortion after six weeks, which the Supreme Court allowed to take effect as litigation against it proceeds, is still pending in lower courts, but will likely reach the high court soon.
For many LGBTQ legal advocates, the abortion cases are important because they say the outcome could directly impact legal precedent underpinning major Supreme Court decisions in favor, including the 2003 decision of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state bans on sodomy, and the 2015 decision of Obergefell v. Hodges in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide.
Camilla Taylor, director of constitutional litigation for Lambda Legal, said the outcome abortion cases is crucial not only because LGBTQ people need access to abortion.
“Just as importantly, there are a lot of ways in which the landmark precedents that we obtained that vindicate the rights of LGBT people rely upon a foundation of substantive due process precedent that includes Roe v. Wade, and other cases dealing with reproductive health,” Taylor said. “So, if Roe versus Wade crumbles, then the foundation on which our own cases also crumbles.”
As such, a coalition of LGBTQ legal groups—including the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the National Center for Transgender Equality and Equality California—was among those who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in September arguing the Mississippi law is unconstitutional.
Key among the arguments is the denial of abortion access is a form of sex discrimination, just as the Supreme Court determined last year in Bostock v. Clayton County that anti-LGBTQ discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, this illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“By the same logic, laws that restrict abortion also facially discriminate based on sex,” the brief says, “Like being LGBTQ, pregnancy is a sex-based characteristic; it is ‘inextricably bound up with’ an individual’s sex. Accordingly, laws that force a pregnant woman to bear a child necessarily discriminate based on sex, as would a law that barred a reproductive medical procedure available only to men.”
It’s true that both Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court’s decision for LGBTQ were based on principals of due process and equal protection under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. But not all legal experts agree LGBTQ rights are on the line depending on the outcome of abortion litigation.
Dale Carpenter, a conservative law professor at the SMU (Southern Methodist University) Dedman School of Law who’s written in favor of LGBTQ rights, said the Supreme Court is “probably going to write a narrower opinion, if it even overrules Roe,” but won’t issue a radical decision “that reaches out and destroys all unenumerated rights.”
“Obergefell relies on the fundamental right to marry,” Carpenter said. “There’s no chance the Supreme Court is going to say there is no right to a fundamental right to marry. The doctrine upon which Obergefell rests is on much more solid footing than abortion rights. The basic doctrine underlying Obergefell has never seriously been challenged; abortion rights have been for 50 years.”
Other key differences between the right to abortion and same-sex marriage, Carpenter said, are an arguable state interest in protecting fetal life and reliance interests in the case of marriage rights given thousands of same-sex couples have wed in the wake of the Obergefell decision.
But what about Lawrence v. Texas, which were both that LGBTQ rights decision and Roe v. Wade decided at least in part on finding an unenumerated right to privacy in the constitution? Carpenter said a Supreme Court decision undoing a right to privacy would mean undoing nearly 60-year precedent that began with the 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which overturned a state ban on contraceptives.
“There’s not even a single brief in the case, that I know of, on the anti-abortion side that’s supporting that,” Carpenter said.
Carpenter concluded with a wry jab: “By the way, the LGBT rights advocates who are now saying that these LGBT rights decisions are in danger will be the same people say after Roe is a overruled that those decisions are not affected.”
Indeed, the Supreme Court under its current 6-3 conservative makeup had an opportunity to take up an Indiana birth certificate case, Box v. Henderson, that was a direct challenge to the Obergefell marriage decision, but declined to take up the case. No state is any where close to recriminalizing sexual relations for same-sex couples, which in 2021 would widely be seen as a human rights violation.
But legal advocates for the LGBTQ community aren’t limiting the relationship between abortion and LGBTQ rights to legal principles. Additionally, the identify solidarity with another minority group under siege, in this case women seeking access to abortion, and need among certain members of the LGBTQ community—lesbian and bisexual women, transgender men and non-binary people—to have the access to abortion.
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, echoed the sense LGBTQ legal advocates are focused on abortion cases, but cited “overlap between the reproductive rights, and justice movement and the LGBTQ movements.”
“What we see is the primary impact of this case on our community is a very direct one,” Minter said. “It’s extremely direct. The ability to obtain abortions is of great importance to women in our community, and also to transgender men and non-binary people as well.”
Minter cited data finding upwards of 80 percent of bisexual women will experience pregnancy over their lives and said LGBTQ women “are significantly more likely to have unintended pregnancies as a result of sexual violence, which is very distressing, but that is a reality for our community.”
Lesbian young adults and adolescents are at particular risk for unwanted pregnancy, Minter added, because there’s still “so much stigma and discrimination that they tried to sort of hide their sexual orientation, and prove that they’re straight when they’re not, so they actually have high rates of unprotected sex.”
Religious schools funding, gun control, Obamacare on docket
The abortion cases aren’t the only litigation on the radar for LGBTQ legal advocates. Also on the list are cases that will determine whether Maine religious schools have access to public funds, the legality of New York State gun regulations and disparate impact claims under Obamacare.
Taylor said the case of CVS Pharmacy v. Doe before the Supreme Court, which was brought by people living with HIV/AIDS, will determine whether disparate impact claims are cognizable in the context of disabilities under the Affordable Care Act.
“That’s really important for people living with HIV and other people with disabilities,” Taylor said. “It could do a lot of harm.”
The oral arguments in the Dobbs case are set to take place before the Supreme Court on Dec. 1.
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment
More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’
A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.
HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.
Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”
“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”
Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.
The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.
“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”
“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”
Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.
“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.
“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.
“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”
SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:
“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.
“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.
“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.
“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service, signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.
“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently to meet its recruiting goals.
“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest for more and more power. This appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is just a means to an end.”
My chance encounter with a pope and why goodness still matters
Underdog glorious: a personal remembrance of Jill Sobule
Dr. Fauci receives Harvey Milk Award, reflects on legacy of love and public health
I’m a lesbian and LGBTQ books would have changed my life
Comings & Goings
American cardinal chosen as next pope
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
WorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved
Trump admin cancels more than $800 million in LGBTQ health grants
-
The Vatican3 days agoAmerican cardinal chosen as next pope
-
a&e features3 days agoYour guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
-
U.S. Supreme Court5 days agoSupreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
-
District of Columbia4 days agoWorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved