Connect with us

District of Columbia

Activists defend D.C. Jail’s treatment of trans inmates

Budd, Hughes say most choose to stay in men’s facility

Published

on

The jail does not and has not been mistreating transgender inmates coming in the jail,’ said trans advocate Earline Budd. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Longtime local transgender advocates Earline Budd and Jeri Hughes, who have served for more than a decade on the D.C. Department of Corrections’ Transgender Housing and Transgender Advisory committees, say they have witnessed first-hand what they believe to be the D.C. Jail’s role in leading the nation in its policies in support of transgender inmates.

The two said that around 2009 the D.C. Jail became one of the nation’s first correctional facilities to adopt a policy allowing transgender inmates to choose whether to be placed in the men’s or the women’s housing units.

In a claim that will likely come as a surprise to LGBTQ activists, Budd and Hughes said more than 95 percent of female transgender inmates at the D.C. Jail chose to be placed in the men’s section of the jail.

Budd and Hughes said they were motivated to speak out about DOC’s trans policies following a class action lawsuit filed last year against the city by the ACLU of D.C. and the D.C. Public Defender Service on behalf of a female transgender inmate at the D.C. Jail.

The lawsuit charged that officials at the Department of Corrections and the jail violated the gender identity provision of the city’s Human Rights Act and the constitutional rights of equal protection for trans inmate Sunday Hinton by placing her in the men’s housing unit at the jail against her wishes in May 2021.

Hinton and five other former female trans inmates at the jail submitted sworn affidavits as part of the lawsuit claiming that their requests to be housed in the women’s section of the jail were either denied or jail officials coerced them into agreeing to be placed in the men’s section. The affidavits say the alleged improper action by jail officials against the six trans women took place between 2019 and 2021.

Hinton has since been released from the jail after a burglary related charge brought against her was dropped.

The Office of the D.C. Attorney General, which represents the city in lawsuits, and Hinton reached a settlement agreement last month to end the lawsuit. The DOC agreed in the settlement, among other things, to put in place policies that ensure that trans inmates can choose the section of the jail in which they are to be housed.

The agreement keeps in place existing DOC policies calling for the Transgender Housing Committee to review all trans housing requests and to make a recommendation on the request, with jail security officials making the final decision on where to place the trans inmate.

Hughes told the Washington Blade that for the past decade or longer DOC and jail officials have followed the recommendations of the Transgender Housing Committee, whose members include representatives of the trans community.

She points out that the objective of the committee is to confirm that a trans female inmate requesting housing in the women’s section of the jail is truly a transgender person and not a male inmate claiming to be trans with the possible motive of sexually assaulting or otherwise endangering cisgender female inmates.

According to Budd and Hughes, at the request of LGBTQ rights advocates, the DOC adopted a policy in 2009 that allowed transgender inmates to choose whether to be placed in the men’s or women’s section of the jail. They said the policy, which created the DOC’s Transgender Housing Committee as well as a Transgender Advisory Committee, called for the housing committee to review the inmates’ housing requests to assess the safety of the trans inmates and all other inmates.

“You cannot just say I’m transgender and go in the women’s jail,” Hughes said. “You’ve got to have an evaluation. You have to be determined – OK, you’re legit. You live as a woman. You’re transgender,” Hughes told the Blade.

Hughes and Budd said the allegations raised in the Sunday Hinton lawsuit, if true, appear to be a breach in the DOC and the D.C. Jail’s longstanding policy of allowing trans inmates to choose whether to be placed in the men’s or women’s section of the jail. Budd said restrictions put in place at the jail in response to the COVID pandemic resulted in the suspension of all meetings of the Transgender Housing Committee.

But she said it was her understanding that an official at the jail who is a member of the Transgender Housing Committee has been meeting individually with trans inmates to determine their preference for a housing assignment. Budd said the official, who she identified as Tracy Outlaw, was also helping transgender inmates obtain things they needed, such as women’s undergarments like bras and hormone treatments.

“What I can say is the jail does not and has not been mistreating transgender inmates coming in the jail, and that they get the utmost respect in terms of the population,” Budd said.

When asked to explain their claim that nearly all female trans inmates choose to be placed in the men’s section of the jail, Budd and Hughes said that the female trans inmates are treated with greater respect by fellow male inmates than by female inmates.

“In the male section of the jail, they have a certain status,” Hughes said. “They are desirable. In the female section, they are not desirable. So, there is no advantage for them to be there,” according to Hughes. “And nearly every [trans] girl that has ever asked to go to the female section is in there for about a week and asks to get back right away” to the male section, Hughes said.

Department of Corrections spokesperson Keena Blackmon provided the Blade with an update on the DOC’s transgender policies following the settlement of the lawsuit, but she did not respond to the Blade’s request for confirmation of Budd and Hughes’ assertion that nearly all transgender female inmates request to be housed in the men’s section of the D.C. Jail.

“While the DC Department of Corrections (DOC) does not comment on the specifics of litigation-related matters, DOC is committed to ensuring a safe, secure and inclusive environment for all our residents, including our transgender, intersex and gender non-conforming residents,” Blackmon said in an email. “DOC formed the Transgender Advisory Committee (TAC), which serves as a liaison for the DOC and the transgender community and also internally established the Transgender Housing Committee (THC),” she said.

“The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a host of operational changes to ensure the health and wellbeing of all DOC residents and staff and affected the ability of the THC to operate in its normal capacity,” Blackmon said. “As we have navigated the challenges of the pandemic, we have continued to adopt both our policies and practices to ensure we meet our above stated commitment while addressing the public health needs of all in our DOC facilities and will continue to do so,” she said.

Scott Michelman, legal director of the ACLU of D.C. who served as the lead attorney representing Sunday Hinton in her lawsuit against the DOC, said the actions by officials at the D.C. Jail toward Hinton and the five trans female inmates who joined her in the class action lawsuit raised serious doubts about any claims that the DOC had in place trans supportive policies – at least during the years of 2019 through early 2021.

Michelman points out that Tracy Outlaw, one of the DOC officials serving on the Transgender Housing Committee that Budd said has been supportive of trans inmates, is accused in one of the sworn affidavits submitted by a trans inmate who was part of the Hinton lawsuit of refusing to help the inmate be placed in the women’s section of the jail. Michelman said another DOC official “coerced” Hinton into signing a form waiving her rights to be placed in the women’s section of the jail.

“These actions, among others, undermine the claim that DOC was doing right by trans folks as of 2021,” Michelman said. “If DOC wants to protect trans women, it can start by complying with the settlement terms reached in Sunday Hinton’s case,” he said.

Budd said that while any DOC staff member should be held accountable for violating the DOC’s transgender policies, she strongly disputes claims that Tracy Outlaw coerced a trans inmate into being housed in the men’s section of the jail.

“What I am not going to do is go back and forth about this case,” Budd told the Blade. “The fact is that the ACLU and the attorneys are only seeking one side of this story,” which she said was that of the trans inmates who were part of the Hinton lawsuit.

“It is not fair that these allegations are coming up and we are not able to share our side of the story, which is totally different,” she said. “I have been and continue to be a transgender advocate and will support even those who have sought to demean me.”  

Critics of the DOC have pointed out that many of the problems faced by the D.C. Jail surfaced under the tenure of former DOC Director, Quincy Booth, who held the director’s position from 2016 to January of this year, when Mayor Muriel Bowser replaced him with former DOC Director Tom Faust. Faust served as director from 2011 to 2016 during the years that Budd and Hughes have said DOC put in place or strengthened its trans supportive policies.  

Bowser’s decision to replace Booth came shortly after the Federal Bureau of Prisons transferred 400 inmates at the D.C. Jail to a federal prison in Pennsylvania after announcing an inspection of the jail by U.S. Marshals found “evidence of systematic failures” and unacceptable living conditions at the jail.

Budd said that shortly after Faust began as acting DOC Director, he invited her to meet with him to discuss trans issues at the jail.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

Judge issues revised order in Capital Pride stalking case

Defendant Darren Pasha agreed to accept less restrictive directive

Published

on

Darren Pasha (Washington Blade photo by Lou Chibbaro, Jr.)

A D.C. Superior Court judge on April 30 reinstated an anti-stalking order requested by the Capital Pride Alliance against local gay activist Darren Pasha based on allegations that Pasha engaged in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk the organization’s staff, board members, and volunteers.

The reinstated order by Judge Robert D. Okun followed an April 17 court hearing in which he rescinded a similar order he initially approved in February on grounds that more evidence was needed to substantiate the need for the order.   

At the time he rescinded the earlier order he scheduled an evidentiary hearing for April 29 at which three Capital Pride staff members testified in support of the anti-stalking order. But Okun discontinued the hearing after Pasha, who was representing himself without an attorney, announced he was willing to accept a revised, less restrictive temporary restraining order.

The judge said Pasha’s decision to accept a restraining order made it no longer necessary to continue the evidentiary hearing. He then asked Capital Pride and Pasha to submit their suggested revisions for the order which they submitted a short time later.

The case began when Capital Pride Alliance, the D.C.-based LGBTQ group that organizes the city’s annual Pride events, filed a civil complaint on Oct. 27, 2025, against Pasha, accusing him of engaging in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk Capital Pride staff, board members, and volunteers. It includes a 167-page addendum of “supporting exhibits” that includes multiple statements by unidentified witnesses.

Pasha, who has represented himself without an attorney, has argued in multiple court filings and motions that the stalking allegations are untrue. In his initial court response to the complaint, he said it appears to be a form of retaliation against him for a dispute he has had with Capital Pride and its former board president, Ashley Smith, who has since resigned from the board.

Similar to his earlier anti-stalking order against Pasha, Okun’s reissued order on April 30 states, a “Temporary Anti-Stalking Order is GRANTED, effective immediately and remaining in effect until further order of the Court or final disposition of this matter.”

It adds, “The defendant shall not contact, attempt to contact, harass, threaten, or otherwise communicate with any protected person, directly or indirectly, including through third parties, social media, electronic communication, or any other means.”

Unlike the earlier order, which did not identify the “protected persons” by name, the latest order includes a list of 34 people, 13 of whom are Capital Pride staff members or volunteers, including CEO Ryan Bos and Chief Operating Officer June Crenshaw. The other 21 people listed are identified as Capital Pride board members, including board chair Anna Jinkerson.

Possibly because Pasha addressed this in his suggested version of the order, the judge’s revised order says Pasha is allowed to visit the D.C. LGBTQ+ Community Center, where the Capital Pride office is located, if he gives the community center a 24 hour advance notice that he will be visiting the center, which hosts many events unrelated to Capital Pride. The earlier order required him to stay at least 100 feet away from the Capital Pride office.

The new order also prohibits Pasha from attending 21 named events that Capital Pride Alliance either organizes itself or with partner organizations that were scheduled to take place from April 30 through June 21. The order says he is allowed to attend the two largest events, the June 20 Pride Parade and the June 21 Pride Festival and Concert, in which 500,000 or more people are expected to attend.

It says Pasha is also allowed to attend the June 15 Pride At The Pier event organized by the Washington Blade.

But for those three events the order says he is restricted from entering “ticketed and controlled access areas.”

At the April 29 court hearing, Okun also scheduled a mandatory remote mediation session for July 23, in which efforts would be made to resolve the civil complaint case brought by Capital Pride without going to trial. 

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Both sides propose revised orders in Capital Pride stalking case

Defendant Darren Pasha agreed to accept less restrictive directive

Published

on

Darren Pasha (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

An evidentiary hearing in D.C. Superior Court on April 29 in which the Capital Pride Alliance presented three of four planned witnesses to testify in support of its civil complaint that D.C. gay activist Darren Pasha engaged in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk its staff, board members, and volunteers ended abruptly at the direction of the judge.

Judge Robert D. Okun announced from the bench that the hearing, which was intended provide Capital Pride an opportunity to present evidence in support of its request to reinstate an anti-stalking order against Pasha that the judge temporarily rescinded on April 17, was no longer needed because Pasha stated at the hearing that he is willing to accept a revised, less restrictive temporary restraining order.

Pasha made that statement after two Capital Pride witnesses — June Crenshaw and Vincenzo Volpe — each testified in support of the stalking allegations against Pasha for over an hour under questioning from Capital Pride attorney Nick Harrison and under cross-examination from Pasha, who is representing himself without an attorney.

After Capital Pride’s third witness, Tifany Royster, testified for just a few minutes, and after the judge called a recess for lunch and to attend to an unrelated case, Pasha announced that after obtaining legal advice he determined that he was unsuited to continue cross-examining the witnesses. He said he would be willing to accept a significantly less restrictive temporary restraining order.

Okun then ruled that the evidentiary hearing was no longer needed and directed Capital Pride and Pasha to submit to him their version of a revised stay away order. He said he would use their proposed revisions to help him develop his own order, which he would issue after deliberating over the matter.

He also scheduled a mandatory remote mediation session for July 23, in which efforts would be made to resolve the case without going to trial. He then adjourned the hearing at 3:50 p.m.

The online Superior Court docket for the case stated after the hearing ended that the judge would issue “a new modified Temporary Protective Order,” but it did not say when it would be issued.   

Shortly before the April 29 hearing began at 11 a.m., Harrison filed a “Draft Temporary Anti-Stalking Order” that included a list of 34 “Protected Persons” that Harrison said during the hearing were affiliated with Capital Pride Alliance as staff and board members, volunteers, and others associated with the group.

The proposed order stated, “The defendant shall not contact, attempt to contact, harass, threaten, or otherwise communicate with any protected person, directly or indirectly, including through third parties, social media, electronic communications, or any other means.”

The proposal represented a significant change from Capital Pride’s initial civil complaint against Pasha filed in February that Pasha claimed called for him to stay away at least 200 yards from all Capital pride staff, board members, and volunteers without naming them. Okun granted that stay away request in February but reduced the stay away distance to 100 feet.

Capital Pride attorney Harrison disputes Pasha’s interpretation of the order, saying the 100-foot stay-away was for events, not for individual Capital Pride staff, volunteers, or board members. He said the order prohibited Pasha from engaging in any way with the Capital Pride staffers, volunteers or board members.

But the proposed order Capital Pride at first submitted at the April 29 hearing  also called for Pasha to stay away from and to not attend as many as 25 Capital Pride events scheduled to take place this year from April 30 through June 21 and for him to say away from the Capital Pride office located at 1827 Wiltberger St., N.W., which is the building in which it shares with the DC LGBTQ Community Center.

At the April 29 hearing, at Pasha’s request, Okun called on Capital Pride to consider allowing Pasha to attend at least the two largest events — the Capital Pride Parade and Festival — which draw over 500,000 participants.

Harrison said in a follow-up message to the judge following the hearing that Capital Pride would allow Pasha to attend those two events and one other as long as he stays away from “ticketed and controlled access areas.”

At an April 17 status hearing Okun rescinded the earlier stay away order at Pasha’s request, among other things, on grounds that it was too vague and didn’t provide Pasha with sufficient specific information on who to stay away from. It was at that hearing that Okun scheduled the April 29 evidentiary hearing, saying it would give Capital Pride a chance to provide sufficient evidence to justify an anti-stalking order and Pasha an opportunity to challenge the evidence.  

In his own response to the initial civil complaint filed in February and in subsequent court filings, Pasha has strongly denied he engaged in stalking and has alleged that the complaint was a form of retaliation against him over a dispute he has had with Capital Pride and its former board president, Ashley Smith.

Like its initial complaint filed in February, Capital Pride filed a multipage document at the start of the April 29 hearing with written testimony from staff members and volunteers who allege that Pasha did engage in stalking, harassment, and intimidating behavior toward them and others.

Like Capital Pride, Pasha following the April 29 hearing, filed his own proposed version of the stay away order with significantly less restrictions than the Capital Pride proposal. Among other things, it calls for him to restrict his contact with Capital Pride CEO Ryan Bos and Crenshaw but says it “does not by its terms restrict the defendant’s communications with any other person, entity, governmental body, or media outlet.”

“Darren Pasha sent multiple messages to us and to the court after the proceedings asking for further modifications — which we are not accepting or responding to,” Harrison told the Blade in response to a request for further comment on Judge’s request for each side to submit proposed revisions of the stay away order.

“We appreciate the court’s time and careful attention to the evidence presented today,” Harrison told the Washington Blade in a written statement after the hearing. “This process was about bringing forward the experiences of individuals who reported a pattern of conduct that caused fear, serious alarm, and emotional distress,” he said.

“Capital Pride Alliance remains committed to ensuring that our events and community spaces are safe, welcoming, and free from harassment and we will continue to take appropriate steps to support and protect our community,” his statement says.

“I am happy with what we have accomplished so far,” Pasha told the Blade after the hearing.  “I’m just waiting to see what will happen next. But I want to reiterate this goes back to when someone treats you wrong you speak up,” he said. “Even if I lose this case, I am glad that I spoke up and raised concerns.”

He added, “I will just be confident that in the next couple of months the truth will come out. But for now, I am happy with the progress that we have made regarding this.”

This story will be updated when the judge issues his revised stay away order.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

U.S. Attorney’s Office fails to reinstate hate crime charge in anti-gay assault

Published

on

(Photo by chalabala/Bigstock)

The Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C., which prosecutes criminal cases in the District, has decided not to reinstate a hate crime designation filed by D.C. police against a man arrested in February for allegedly assaulting a gay man while using “homophobic slurs.”

After prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office initially dropped the hate crime designation filed by police shortly after the alleged attacker was arrested on Feb. 7, a spokesperson for the office told the Washington Blade the case was still under investigation, and additional charges could be filed.

“We continue to investigate this matter and make no mistake: should the evidence call for further charges, we will not hesitate to charge them,” a statement released by the office in February said. 

But D.C. Superior Court records show the case against defendant Dean Edmundson, 26, of Germantown, Md., who is now charged with Simple Assault without a hate crime designation, is scheduled to go to trial on Aug. 18.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office this week did not immediately respond to a message from the Blade asking why it chose not to reinstate the hate crime designation.

An affidavit in support of the arrest filed in court by D.C. police appears to support the charge of a hate crime designation. It says the incident occurred around 7:45 p.m. on Feb. 7 at the intersection of 14th and Q Streets, N.W., which is near two D.C. gay bars.

“The victim stated that they refused to High-Five Defendant Edmundson, which, upon that happening, Defendant Edmundson started walking behind both the victim and witness, calling the victim bald, ugly, and gay,” the arrest affidavit states.

“The victim stated that upon being called that, Defendant Edmundson pushed the victim with both hands, shoving them, causing the victim to feel the force of the push,” the affidavit says, adding, “The victim stated that they felt offended and that they were also gay.”     

Under D.C.’s Bias Related Crimes Act of 1989, penalties for crimes motivated by prejudice and hate against individuals based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity disability, and homelessness can be enhanced by a judge upon conviction by one and a half times greater than the penalty of the underlying crime. 

Continue Reading

Popular