GLAD, NCLR on Appeals Court Order Granting Govt’s Motion to Dissolve Injunction in Trans Military Ban Case

The court of appeals granted the government’s request to issue the mandate, which means the injunction is dissolved, and that, at the moment, there is no legal barrier to the government’s intended plan to start enforcing the transgender military ban on April 12.

We are concerned by the serious harms that the imminent enforcement of the ban is already causing, both to the military and to transgender service members, many of whom are now scrambling to come out and initiate a gender transition before the April 12 deadline in order to be included in the so-called “grandfather” provision. The government’s plan is already wreaking havoc in the lives of dedicated transgender troops who must now face the grim choice of suppressing their identity or leaving military service, to the detriment of their fellow service members and national security.

Today’s ruling only drives home the urgency of continuing to fight this destructive policy, which we will continue to do in the district court.

Follow updates at notransmilitaryban.org

Reintroduction of the Equality Act

Home » National/Federal » Page 36

Statement of Janson Wu, Executive Director of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD)

Whether a person can get and keep a job, rent a home, or access fundamental services should not depend on who they are, who they love – or where they live. It surprises some people to know that millions of LGBTQ Americans still face daunting discrimination every day – in housing, employment, education, and in public accommodations. This is especially heightened for transgender individuals and LGBQ people of color, who are more likely to experience poverty and underemployment, as well as hate crimes and housing discrimination.

Despite great strides forward, the law is still unsettled in practical application from state to state, and no national law explicitly shields LGBTQ people from harm. That’s why we need the Equality Act, introduced today in Congress. It provides clear and consistent protection from discrimination for LGBTQ Americans.

Robust civil rights laws that seek to remedy historic and pervasive discrimination are what help us strive toward becoming a more perfect union. We are at our best when we move steadily toward greater inclusion.

We are grateful to lead sponsors Representative David Ciccilline (D-RI) and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), as well as to the legislators from both sides of the aisle who have joined as co-sponsors of the Equality Act. We urge Congress to recognize that this is the year to pass this important non-discrimination legislation.

GLAD, NCLR on DOD Plan to Implement Trump’s Transgender Military Ban

Home » National/Federal » Page 36

Move by Trump Administration Violates Court Orders While Injunction in One Lawsuit Against the Ban Remains in Place

Washington, D.C. – GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) released the following statements in response to the Department of Defense’s release today of guidelines for implementing the ban on transgender military service:

Jennifer Levi, GLAD’s Transgender Rights Project director said: “Not only does the Trump-Pence transgender military ban violate the Constitution, but now the administration is also defying a court order. With brazen disregard for the judicial process, the Pentagon is prematurely and illegally rolling out a plan to implement the ban when a court injunction remains in place prohibiting them from doing so.

“In addition to being unlawful, moving forward with this ban is also deeply immoral and deeply insulting to the many transgender troops who are bravely serving their country. If permitted to go into effect, this ban will deprive our military of highly trained and skilled service members, weaken military readiness, and harm national security. Military leaders, medical experts, and the vast majority of the American public agree that our troops deserve gratitude and support, not a slap in the face based on bias and irrational fears.”

“We will continue our fight in the courts until the ban is permanently blocked, said Shannon Minter, NCLR legal director. “We also strongly support the bipartisan efforts of Congressional leaders to pass urgently needed legislation to protect transgender troops. We urge everyone who cares about the integrity of our military and the wellbeing of our troops to contact your representatives and tell them to support this legislation.”

Today’s announcement from DOD disregards the injunction issued by a federal district court in Doe v. Trump, which remains in effect. On January 4, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion vacating the injunction, but specifically holding that its decision would not become final until plaintiffs have an opportunity to seek rehearing by the entire D.C. Circuit, and until any such petition for rehearing is resolved. Therefore, the district court’s nationwide injunction prohibiting enforcement of the ban remains in effect and any move by the government to enforce the ban before that time is in violation of a federal court order.

Earlier today, GLAD and NCLR filed a brief in the D.C. district court opposing the administration’s stated intention to moving forward with implementing the ban.

For more information on the legal timeline and status of the Trump-Pence transgender military ban, please visit notransmilitaryban.org.

Doe v. Trump: D.C. Circuit Issues Additional Opinions in Transgender Military Ban Case

Home » National/Federal » Page 36

Today the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued opinions from two judges in Doe v. Trump following the court’s January 4 unsigned order regarding the nationwide preliminary injunction that has been blocking Trump’s transgender military ban since October, 2017.

Statement from Jennifer Levi, Transgender Rights Project Director of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD):

The opinions released today from Judge Williams and Judge Wilkins reflect the sharp disagreement among the panel about the basic legal framework governing this case.

Judge Williams would give the government carte blanche to enforce any military policy it deems fit – even one that singles out a group of people for discriminatory treatment. We respectfully disagree.

Judge Wilkins’ opinion, on the other hand, acknowledges the hardship the proposed military policy creates for transgender service members, and says plaintiffs must be given the chance to submit evidence to show that the Mattis plan does not pass constitutional muster.

The bottom line here is that the court’s January 4 ruling that the district court gave insufficient weight to the new circumstances in the case, including the issuance of the March 2018 Mattis Plan, was narrow.

The plaintiffs have 21 days to file for rehearing by the full D.C. Circuit bench, and we are considering our options thoroughly. For now, the nationwide injunction prohibiting the ban from going into effect remains in place.

Supreme Court Allows Challenges to Trump’s Transgender Military Ban to Continue in Lower Courts

Home » National/Federal » Page 36

GLAD’s Jennifer Levi said: The Trump administration’s cruel obsession with ridding our military of dedicated and capable service members because they happen to be transgender defies reason and cannot survive legal review.

NCLR’s Shannon Minter said: Multiple federal courts have recognized that excluding qualified individuals simply because they are transgender is contrary to basic constitutional principles of equality and fairness.

Washington, D.C.—The Supreme Court today denied the Trump administration’s request that it hear legal challenges to Trump’s transgender military ban this term, allowing the cases to proceed in the lower courts. In a separate order, the Court allowed the ban to go into effect temporarily while the cases against it proceed.

Plaintiffs challenging the ban include transgender men and women serving in all branches of the military, including some who have completed multiple deployments overseas. Plaintiffs also include service academy and ROTC members, as well as individuals seeking to enlist. Equality California is an organizational plaintiff challenging the ban on behalf of its members. Attorneys from GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) represent plaintiffs in two cases challenging the ban, Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump.

“In declining to hear these cases, the Supreme Court saw through the administration’s contrived efforts to gin up a national crisis.” said GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi. “Unfortunately, the Court’s stay of the lower courts’ preliminary orders means that courageous transgender service members will face discharges while challenges to the ban go forward. The Trump administration’s cruel obsession with ridding our military of dedicated and capable service members because they happen to be transgender defies reason and cannot survive legal review.”

“Our country owes a debt of gratitude to the thousands of transgender people serving in our armed forces,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “Multiple federal courts have recognized that excluding qualified individuals simply because they are transgender is contrary to basic constitutional principles of equality and fairness. We are confident the courts will ultimately protect the integrity of our nation’s military and hold that transgender service members must be evaluated based on the same standards applied to all others, not barred from service based on a characteristic that has no relevance to their fitness to serve.”

President Trump first announced that he was banning military service by transgender people in July 2017, without consultation with military leadership. Before Trump ordered the ban, transgender people were permitted to serve under a policy that has now been in place for more than two and a half years.

“Thousands of brave transgender troops around the world are currently serving our nation with honor,” said Rick Zbur, Executive Director at Equality California, which brought Stockman v. Trump on behalf of its members. “Their patriotism and sacrifice should be celebrated, not cruelly dismissed by a president who clearly cares more about delivering on campaign promises than he does about our national security.”

“The Trump Administration’s glaring efforts to deny protections to patriotic Americans seeking to serve our great nation in uniform are just plain wrong,” said Attorney General Becerra. “We will continue to fight to protect the rights of all Americans despite this President’s disregard for equality and the rule of law. This is 2019, not 1920.”

NCLR and GLAD have been at the center of the legal fight challenging the Trump transgender military ban since filing Doe v. Trump, the first of four cases filed against the ban, on August 9, 2017.

For more information, go to NCLR and GLAD’s website outlining the history and status of the Trump-Pence transgender military ban https://notransmilitaryban.org/.

###

Through strategic litigation, public policy advocacy, and education, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders works in New England and nationally to create a just society free of discrimination based on gender identity and expression, HIV status, and sexual orientation. www.GLAD.org

The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) was the first national LGBTQ legal organization founded by women and brings a fierce, longstanding commitment to racial and economic justice and our community’s most vulnerable. Since 1977, NCLR has been at the forefront of advancing the civil and human rights of LGBTQ people and their families through impact litigation, public policy, and public education. Decades ago, NCLR launched the first LGBTQ Immigration Project, Transgender Rights Project, Youth Project, Elder Law Project, and began working to end conversion therapy through what is now the Born Perfect campaign. www.nclrights.org

Equality California is the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ civil rights organization. We bring the voices of LGBTQ people and allies to institutions of power in California and across the United States, striving to create a world that is healthy, just, and fully equal for all LGBTQ people. We advance civil rights and social justice by inspiring, advocating and mobilizing through an inclusive movement that works tirelessly on behalf of those we serve. www.EQCA.org

Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Remains Blocked Despite New Decision Dissolving One of Four Nationwide Preliminary Injunctions

Home » National/Federal » Page 36

Decision is “a devastating slap in the face to transgender service members who have proved their fitness to serve and their dedication to this country”; plaintiffs vow to continue to fight

Washington, DC—The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today ruled against transgender service members, lifting the district court’s order preventing the Trump administration from enforcing its ban on military service by transgender people in Doe v. Trump.

Despite today’s decision, three nationwide preliminary injunctions halting the ban remain in effect blocking the ban while the cases proceed in the federal district courts. In addition, as the D.C. Circuit noted “today’s decision is not a final determination on the merits,” and the case will continue in the district court.

“Today’s ruling is a devastating slap in the face to transgender service members who have proved their fitness to serve and their dedication to this country,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “We will keep fighting this cruel and irrational policy, which serves no purpose other than to weaken the military and punish transgender service members for their patriotism and service.”

“Today’s decision is based on the absurd idea that forcing transgender people to suppress who they are in order to serve is not a ban,” said GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi. “It ignores the reality of transgender people’s lives, with devastating consequences, and rests on a complete failure to understand who transgender people are. It is also destabilizing to the military to so dramatically reverse a policy that has been in place for over 2 years that senior military officials acknowledge has operated with no problems.”

Doe, the first legal challenge filed in opposition to Trump’s transgender military ban, was filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and is one of their two lawsuits challenging the ban.

For more information, go to NCLR and GLAD’s website outlining the history and status of the Trump-Pence transgender military ban at https://notransmilitaryban.org/.

NCLR and GLAD have been at the center of the legal fight challenging the Trump-Pence transgender military ban since filing Doe v. Trump, the first of four cases filed against the ban, on August 9, 2017.

###

The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) was the first national LGBTQ legal organization founded by women and brings a fierce, longstanding commitment to racial and economic justice and our community’s most vulnerable. Since 1977, we have been at the forefront of advancing the civil and human rights of LGBTQ people and their families through impact litigation, public policy, and public education. Decades ago, NCLR launched the first LGBTQ Immigration Project, Transgender Rights Project, Youth Project, Elder Law Project, and began working to end conversion therapy through what is now our Born Perfect campaign. www.nclrights.org

Trump Asks SCOTUS to Intervene Now and Allow Implementation of His Trans Military Ban

Home » National/Federal » Page 36

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Intervene Now and Implement the Transgender Military Ban—Even Though Four Federal Courts Have Blocked It
Attempting to leap frog the ordinary appeals process, the Trump Administration quietly files petitions for cert before judgment over holiday weekend

Washington, D.C.—The Trump Administration filed petitions for cert before judgment today in three cases challenging Trump’s transgender military ban: Doe v. Trump, Stockman v. Trump, and Karnoski v. Trump. The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), who represent plaintiffs in both Doe and Stockman and were the first to challenge the ban, characterized the filing as an unusual attempt by the administration to bypass the standard appeals process.

There are four lawsuits in total challenging the transgender military ban, and all four federal courts to hear these cases have issued preliminary injunctions halting the ban from moving forward while the case is being heard in court. In issuing the preliminary injunctions, the courts each determined that the plaintiffs challenging the ban—who include current servicemembers, ROTC and military academy students and enlistees—would ultimately prevail. If the Supreme Court were to grant the administration’s request, it would consider this term whether to lift the injunction while the cases proceed in the lower courts. Excluding transgender people who meet military standards undermines readiness and would dramatically upend the lives and families of thousands of trans servicemembers and enlistees, and disrupt the military as a whole.

“There is no urgency here and no reason for the Court to weigh in at this juncture,” said Jennifer Levi, GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director. “The injunctions preserve the status quo of the open service policy that was thoroughly vetted by the military itself and has been in place now for more than two years. This is simply one more attempt by a reckless Trump administration to push through a discriminatory policy. The policy flies in the face of military research and dozens of top military experts.”

“The great majority of people in this country recognize that transgender people who can meet the same standards as others should have an equal opportunity to serve,” said Shannon Minter, NCLR Legal Director. Allowing President Trump’s ban to be implemented would upend thousands of lives and weaken our Armed Forces.”

“As Americans come together and give thanks for the sacrifices made by our brave servicemembers and their families, the Trump-Pence Administration is focused on undermining our military by tripling down on this discriminatory ban,” said Rick Zbur, Executive Director of Equality California which brought the Stockman case on behalf its members. “There are thousands of transgender service members bravely serving the nation with distinction. The Administration ought to be thanking them for their service—not trying to score political points by purging them from our military.”

Oral argument in Doe v. Trump is currently scheduled to be held on December 10 in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

For more information, go to NCLR and GLAD’s website outlining the history and status of the Trump-Pence transgender military ban https://notransmilitaryban.org/.

BACKGROUND

June 30, 2016: The United States Department of Defense (DOD) adopted a policy permitting transgender people to serve in the military based on a nearly two year DOD review determining that there was no valid reason to exclude qualified personnel from military service simply because they are transgender.

July 26, 2017: President Trump tweeted that “the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.”

August 9, 2017: NCLR and GLAD filed Doe v. Trump, the first lawsuit filed to stop the ban, challenging its constitutionality and requesting that the court issue a nationwide preliminary injunction to stop it from taking effect while the case is being heard in court.

August 25, 2017: President Trump issued a memorandum ordering Secretary of Defense James Mattis to submit “a plan for implementing” the ban by February 21, 2018. Secretary Mattis delivered this (the “Mattis Plan” and panel report) to President Trump on February 22, 2018.

October 30, 2017: The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Doe v. Trump plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on their claim that President Trump’s ban violates equal protection, that plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed without a preliminary injunction to stop the ban, and that the public interest and balance of hardships weighed in favor of granting injunctive relief and temporarily halting the ban while the case is heard by the court.

March 23, 2018: President Trump accepts the “Mattis Plan” and issues a memorandum in which he “revoked” his August 25 Memorandum.

April 20, 2018: Defendants file a motion to dissolve the October 30 nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining the transgender military ban issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint; and a Motion for Summary Judgment.

May 11, 2018: Plaintiffs file their cross-motion for summary judgment, as well as motions in opposition to Defendant’s motions to dissolve the injunction and dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint.

August 6, 2018: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denies Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction.

August 27, 2018: Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals of Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s denial of their motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the transgender military ban.

September 21, 2018: The Defendants-Appellants filed their opening brief in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

October 22, 2018: Plaintiffs-Appellees filed their opposition to Defendants’ appeal, asking the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to leave in place the preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the transgender military ban.

October 29, 2018: A wide array of former military leaders, veterans’ and civil rights organizations, women’s groups, military scholars and historians, and states went on record opposing President Trump’s ongoing efforts to exclude transgender people from military service, in thirteen friend-of-the-court briefs filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

###

The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) was the first national LGBTQ legal organization founded by women and brings a fierce, longstanding commitment to racial and economic justice and our community’s most vulnerable. Since 1977, we have been at the forefront of advancing the civil and human rights of LGBTQ people and their families through impact litigation, public policy, and public education. Decades ago, NCLR launched the first LGBTQ Immigration Project, Transgender Rights Project, Youth Project, Elder Law Project, and began working to end conversion therapy through what is now our Born Perfect campaign. www.nclrights.org

Blog

Home » National/Federal » Page 36

GLAD AIDS Law Project Director Ben Klein reflects on what it was like to receive the phone call that meant he would be arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case with life-changing implications for people living with HIV and AIDS

It was the Wednesday before Thanksgiving in November 1997, a quiet day at work. Gary Buseck, in his third week as GLAD’s new Executive Director, had decided to close the office at 3:00p.m.. Gary, other GLAD staff, and I were sitting in the conference room when the receptionist walked in and dropped this on me: “Ben, the clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court is on the phone for you.”

Now a 24-year GLAD veteran, I considered myself still new then at the three-year mark and a call like this is never an ordinary occurrence.

The Supreme Court grants cert and accepts and hears only about 80 cases each year. Only one other GLAD case – involving the right of an Irish-American LGBT group to march in Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade – had gone all the way up to the Supreme Court. I thought my chances of arguing a case before the Court were about the same as my rounding the bases at Fenway Park.

I picked up the phone right there in the conference room, too nervous to take the time to get back to my office. I knew what I was going to hear. And I understood the consequences. I’ll admit I was shaking a bit. The clerk said, “Mr. Klein, I want to inform you that the Court has granted cert in the case Bragdon v. Abbott.” At that pre-Twitter, pre-cell phone moment, only counsel and the reporters at the Court knew.

In Bragdon, we represented Sidney Abbott, a Maine woman who had been refused treatment by Bangor, Maine dentist Dr. Randon Bragdon because she was living with HIV. We argued that the fairly new Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA, passed in 1990) protected Sidney and all other people with HIV from discrimination and that dentists and doctors could not refuse to provide health care based on their fear of contracting HIV. GLAD pursued this case because we knew that the ADA could provide powerful protections for people living with HIV and AIDS, people who at the time faced harsh discrimination in nearly every realm of life.

We won the case in the federal trial court in Bangor, Maine. And we won again at the U.S. Court of Appeals. Most people thought that would be the end of the road – a solid precedent.

At that point, the Supreme Court had considered zero ADA cases and zero cases dealing with HIV or AIDS. Most observers thought there was no way the Court would hear this case. When I told my father that I was working on a case that might go to the Supreme Court, he expressed a strong sense of fatherly skepticism. But he wasn’t far off from what most people thought.

Now, it had happened. I called my co-counsel. I called my client. And then, because news wasn’t rocketing around the world via the internet, I knew I should call reporters. In those days of bare-bones staffing and tight cash, the lawyers at GLAD did all their own press work. We did a decent job, but we figured it out on the fly without the communications expertise we and other LGBTQ organizations now have on board. In my first few months at GLAD in 1994 I sued Delta Airlines for removing a passenger with AIDS from a flight. I called a press conference. I didn’t have any real idea what to do, so I just acted like the people I had seen on TV. It went just fine.

Ben Klein speaking at press

Luckily, a GLAD board member who worked in marketing had dug up in advance some direct phone numbers for Supreme Court reporters. So I dialed Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times reporter who the next year won a Pulitzer Prize for her Court coverage. Along with so many lawyers, I revered her for her insight into the Court and incomparable ability to explain legal concepts to the general public with precision. She picked up her own phone, was extremely friendly, and answered affirmatively when I said, “Hi. My name is Ben Klein and I have a case that the Supreme Court just took today. Would you like a quote from me?” You can still read her story here, and see for yourself what you think of the quote I gave her that day.

And then I called my father and told him I was indeed working on a case that was going to the Supreme Court and he could read all about it in the New York Times tomorrow.

Today, as I continue to work on new matters at GLAD that have the potential to change the law, I often think to myself: any case can settle, and any case can end up in the Supreme Court. You just don’t know.

I will always remember that phone call. It changed my life and, more importantly, it changed the legal landscape for people living with HIV. I took the long weekend off to rest up. After that, there wasn’t any rest for a long time.

Spoiler: We won – a critical victory for fighting HIV-related discrimination in jobs, housing and health care. But that’s another GLAD story.

Listen to Ben Klein talk about this pivotal case on our podcast: A Culture-Shifting Moment: Bragdon v. Abbott and HIV Discrimination

Trump’s Plan to Limit Asylum Applications Is Illegal, Un-American, and Puts Lives at Risk

Home » National/Federal » Page 36

Statement of Janson Wu, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders Executive Director:

President Trump’s announcement that he will restrict asylum applications from individuals crossing the U.S.-Mexico border is unacceptable and flies in the face of settled international and national laws.

Asylum is a life-saving system that is designed precisely to protect the extremely vulnerable. This heartless policy stands in direct opposition to our core American ideals of liberty and human rights. Cutting off the right to seek asylum puts at severe risk individuals, including LGBTQ individuals, who face substantial threats in their home countries.

By turning away those forced to flee places where they are fundamentally unsafe because of who they are, or their political beliefs, this administration is putting their lives at risk.

MA Voters Affirm Protections for Transgender People, Approving Ballot Question 3

Home » National/Federal » Page 36

Statements of Janson Wu and Jennifer Levi

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders

Yesterday Massachusetts voters resoundingly voted “yes” on Ballot Question 3, affirming the rights of transgender and gender non-conforming people.

“This vote shows the heart and strength of Massachusetts voters and of the Commonwealth’s transgender community,” said Janson Wu, Executive Director of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). “This was an incredibly smart and well-run campaign, fueled by thousands of volunteers and supporters. Transgender people, along with countless family members, neighbors and allies, put everything on the line, sharing personal stories, having real conversations with voters, and working countless hours, month after month. We’re incredibly proud today.”

Jennifer Levi, GLAD’s Transgender Rights Project Director, said “The truth is that having to campaign for our rights and prove our humanity was hard work and took a physical and emotional toll on many members of our community. The success of the campaign rested on people speaking about the reality of their lives and the lives of those who they love, support, and depend upon. Yesterday’s momentous vote shows what is possible when we work together and show up for one another.”

This vote marks the first time in our nation’s history that transgender rights have been upheld on a statewide ballot and was closely watched across the country. “Much work lies ahead of us,” said Levi, “but this historic victory gives hope to transgender people and all fair minded people everywhere, and buoys us as we keep moving forward together.”

GLAD, a member of the executive committee of the Yes on 3 campaign, has led efforts to pass transgender nondiscrimination protections throughout New England, including the Massachusetts law upheld by this vote, and has litigated ground-breaking transgender rights cases including two current challenges to the Trump administration’s ban on transgender members of the military, Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump.

The Freedom for All Massachusetts/Yes On 3 campaign executive committee was comprised of local and national organizations, including ACLU Massachusetts, BAGLY (Boston Alliance of Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Youth), Fenway Health, Freedom for All Americans, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Greater Boston PFLAG, Human Rights Campaign, Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, and MassEquality.