抵抗簡報：本週為正義而戰

When the Supreme Court Fails Us

部落客 里卡多·馬丁內斯 (他/他)，執行董事

A roadblock versus a dead end. That is how I look at setbacks in this work. A roadblock is a temporary enclosure, and a dead end provides little to no opportunity for further forward movement.  Both are painful. We love this work, and we care deeply about our clients, so any time our movement is granted a less than favorable result it hurts profoundly.  

On May 6, the Supreme Court of the United States, in our partners’ case US v. Shilling, granted the Trump administration’s request to allow it to implement the transgender military ban. 

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is heartbreaking. We know the devastating and irreparable harm this will cause our 32 clients, and the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who are serving honorably and putting their lives on the line for our country  

Moreover, this sends a far reaching and dangerous signal to the American people about the permissible standard of how we treat transgender people. Transgender people deserve so much better. 

While this decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration, it’s not the end of the case. We are recognizing the roadblock and detouring to the next strategic move. The law is a fine art; we have ways to continue advocating for change even when doors appear to be closing. In moments like this, we acknowledge and experience the grief, and then set it aside to focus on the next right thing to do on behalf of our clients and our movement, and to uphold our democracy. In the short time I have been here, our staff has taught me that the practice of law requires creativity, innovation, and persuasion.  

Within 24 hours of the Supreme Court decision, our team filed a late-night letter brief informing the DC Circuit Court of Appeals – the court weighing the preliminary injunction in our case Talbott v. US – that the Supreme Court’s explanation-less order failed to consider animus. Therefore, the ruling does not control in 塔爾博特, and the preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the ban should remain in effect.    

With our filing, we included the shameful public statements about transgender people made by the Secretary of Defense that debase both himself and all Americans through his rhetoric. We don’t know yet how the DC Court of Appeals will rule, but our challenge will continue in the courts no matter what. By continuing to fight, we embody our values and mission by embracing urgency and perseverance – building the collective will necessary to endure and effect meaningful change for LGBTQ+ people. 

Since the decision, our staff has had conversations with our plaintiffs and, while this is crushing news for them, they are clear that this is not the end of the road. They will continue fighting. Even while facing imminent upheaval and loss, these courageous clients are displaying consummate leadership, preparing to impart and transfer critical information to others in their unit. Always thinking about the mission first shows so much character, underscores their commitment to country, and exemplifies their high standard of professionalism. 

An unexpected rerouting can point us towards a path of least obstruction – towards a better tomorrow where the valor of service members is not questioned simply because of their gender. We remain committed to our strategy: stopping what we can, slowing what we can’t stop entirely, and working toward a future where everyone’s contributions are recognized and difference is valued for the vibrance it contributes to our communities and our country.  

When others fail to show up for us – whether it be the Supreme Court, elected officials, or even our own neighbors – it is all the more vital that we continue to show up for ourselves and for our community. And that’s something we’ll never stop doing.  

需要了解什麼，需要做什麼： 

• Read more from Legal Director Josh Rovenger on our response to the Supreme Court ruling.  
• 手錶 Talbott v USA 原告 Nicolas Talbott and Clay McCallister on last night’s Daily Show.
• Learn how the administration’s cruel agenda against transgender people is impacting everyone (Boston Globe).
• Read the latest on the new Trump administration HHS report promotes dangerous and discredited conversion therapy for transgender youth  (Rolling Stone).
• Find us at Pride! We’ll be at several Pride events in the coming months – come say hi or march with us at Boston Pride for the People.

閱讀更多《抵抗簡報》.

抵抗簡報：本週為正義而戰

Contempt of Court

部落客 里卡多·馬丁內斯 (他/他)，執行董事

Because I work with some of the best legal minds out there, many friends, community members – even strangers – often turn to me for answers. After learning what I do for a living, they turn to me to give them hope and reassure them that our legal system will make certain justice and order prevail. Sometimes, they ask the impossible.

Now, we are nearly 100 days into Trump’s second presidency, and I’m noticing many more people expressing the fear that we are inching closer – or have already crossed – into constitutional crisis. I am also witnessing them process their grief in real-time as they reconcile feelings related to the current state of affairs – the weight of what someone recently described as the “eroding norms of our former democracy” displayed on their face.

One of the questions I am asked most often is related to our checks and balances: What happens if the President defies the courts? In other words, what if two branches of government are at a standstill because the executive is deliberately unwilling to respect the role of the judicial?

The Constitution has checks and balances to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. Article Three establishes the judicial branch and the courts. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have reaffirmed the courts’ power to interpret the law and declare actions as unlawful or unconstitutional. Yet the process of ensuring compliance with a court’s decision remains more nebulous.

Historically, the executive branch’s deference to the courts has helped uphold their role as arbiters of justice and judicial review. When things are working how they should, the executive and legislative branches of government comply with a court’s decision – even if they disagree. It’s why President Biden couldn’t implement his student loan plan or why, despite his personal opinion, President Eisenhower honored his duty to desegregate schools after Brown v. Board of Education and subsequent federal court orders. While they may have vehemently disagreed with the court’s decisions, they respected its authority. Upholding the judiciary’s legitimacy has been a longstanding norm – it’s a presidential tradition.

But today, that tradition is unraveling, placing us in a precarious moment. The current President has publicly questioned the credibility of judges and framed their decisions only as legitimate when they support his plans and fall along partisan lines. Most concerning are recent cases in which the Administration appears to be ignoring court orders. So, what are the courts to do in cases like these?

Judges have the power to hold parties in contempt of court. Contempt is an act of defiance or disrespect towards a court ruling. When someone is found in contempt, a judge can enforce stricter orders, like court oversight, monetary fines, and even jail. They can also sanction attorneys who mislead the court or assist in defying court orders. Recently, the District Court for the District of Columbia found probable cause to hold Administration officials in criminal contempt for violating its order to turn around a plane flying immigrants to an El Salvador prison.

If the courts exhaust those options, they can call on U.S. Marshals to help enforce court orders. However, the Marshals operate under the direction of the U.S. Attorney General, who may be unwilling to participate in enforcing a court order not favorable to the Administration.

While all of this is undoubtedly alarming, there is a sliver of hope. The Administration’s recent defiance is not outright – not yet. Their responses often come in the form of cleverly manipulated interpretations of court orders, designed to twist the truth and allow for optical control. While their view of the orders may reek of bad faith, it still suggests that they see some line the American people won’t allow them to cross – that they can’t just assert the blatantly unconstitutional power to ignore the courts.

So, what other guardrails exist to prevent us from succumbing to fascism?

Congress, the third branch of government, has the power to pass laws and monitor and investigate the executive branch’s activities. But, out of fear or unquestioning loyalty to the President, and with the convenient excuse of a narrow margin in both the House and Senate, some members of Congress are refusing their responsibility to the Constitution and their constituents and giving up their power to scrutinize the Administration’s actions.

The short answer is we don’t know exactly how this will play out. But that doesn’t mean we can’t get creative and innovative about the ways we push back.

At a time when we have limited institutional power, GLAD Law has embraced a strategy that exposes the cracks in a broken system, delays harmful policies from going into effect, counters efforts to further divide us, and uses all aspects of law to uphold liberty, equality, and democracy.

Ultimately, the government’s power comes from the people. And we have already seen this Administration back down and accept limits when public outcry demands it. The people may ultimately be the ones who adjudicate justice with their voices and actions. We just need to continue showing up – protesting peacefully, with our wallets, through the power of our votes, and protecting our neighbors. Already, people are thinking creatively. The hands-off nationwide protests, the upcoming Law Day of Action, and the economic boycotts earlier this year are just a few reminders that, despite the hostile landscape, we are not powerless.

需要了解什麼，需要做什麼： 

• 詳細了解 the National Law Day of Action on May 1
• Take Action: Tell your Senators to vote no on the SAVE Act, a bill that would make it harder to register to vote
• Read about how the courts are pushing back against Trump’s lawlessness, with a history lesson from the 4th Circuit ruling on the Abrego Garcia case
•  Refresh your memory on how the three branches of the U.S. government should work with School House Rock
• Register for our First 100 Days Briefing on May 7

閱讀更多《抵抗簡報》.

抵抗簡報：本週為正義而戰

Setting the stage for SCOTUS

部落客 里卡多·馬丁內斯 (他/他)，執行董事

The battle for fundamental rights and protections has been waging for decades, and the United States Supreme Court has remained influential on the battlefield.

Supreme Court cases centered around LGBTQ+ rights are rare and typically focus on individual rights, due process, and equal protection. Over the past 40 years, the Supreme Court’s decisions on LGBTQ+ cases have shifted from upholding sweeping laws that criminalized “homosexual conduct” to maintaining that federal law protects LGBTQ+ employees from discrimination.

Each year, the Supreme Court receives thousands of requests to hear cases but usually takes fewer than 100. The justices vote on which ones to hear. If at least four justices agree, the case moves forward – this is known as the “rule of four.” But it’s a tradition, not a rule. The Constitution sets only limited guidelines for what kinds of cases the Court must hear, but it often takes cases that are of national significance or involve disagreements in lower federal courts.

This term, the Court is hearing many cases that will impact Americans’ daily lives and the future of our democracy. Three of the cases are particularly consequential for LGBTQ+ Americans’ ability to live freely and access life-saving care.

• 美國訴斯克爾梅蒂案: The Court is reviewing an appeals court ruling that let Tennessee and Kentucky enforce bans on transgender health care while lawsuits against the bans continue. The key question is whether blocking transgender adolescents from accessing health care violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

• 馬哈茂德訴泰勒案: The Court will consider a lower court decision that said there wasn’t enough evidence that parents’ inability to opt their children out of seeing LGBTQ-themed storybooks burdened their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.

• 肯尼迪訴布雷德伍德管理公司.: The Court will review a ruling that struck down a key part of the Affordable Care Act. The lower court said that insurance companies don’t have to cover preventative health care services like PrEP – a drug that reduces the risk of HIV transmission by close to 100% – without out-of-pocket costs.

The opinions in these cases will have a lasting impact on the lives of LGBTQ+ people. They will shape public policy, establish good or bad precedents, impact whether we can access the health care we need, and determine if books featuring LGBTQ+ characters and stories could be banned in some schools based on the claim of religious freedom.

If the issues central to the cases give you déjà vu, it’s likely because these topics have been fought for decades. For nearly 50 years, we have fought to raise awareness, fight stigma, and remove barriers to health care. We demanded action by the federal government to address the AIDS epidemic and remove homosexuality from the international classification of diseases. And we continue the fight to maintain access to health care for transgender and gender nonconforming people and defeat and repeal “no promo homo” laws and “Don’t Say Gay or Trans” bills that remove or omit our stories from books and curriculum.

But it’s hard not to feel like this is an inflection point that will shape the fight for years to come. After years of recycling tactics from the Anita Bryant days in the 1970s, anti-LGBTQ+ lawmakers have zeroed in and coalesced around a social-political strategy that exploits knowledge gaps that people have about transgender Americans. Their goal is to challenge generally accepted values and norms of decency, liberty, and equality. By exploiting the knowledge gap about LGBTQ+ issues and filling it with disinformation, they are manufacturing outrage to then use as an excuse to attack us. The public discourse – reaching a fever pitch – has undoubtedly influenced the selection of these cases. And the decisions are in the hands of a Supreme Court with a conservative majority.

These cases – and many others now pending throughout the court system – test not only the limits of the law but also our collective commitment to equity and justice. This is an opportunity for the Supreme Court Justices to delegitimize efforts to eradicate LGBTQ+ people from public life and to signal that these attacks conflict with the Constitution.

Cases like these remind us of what’s at stake for our community. But they also emphasize that we are a community that refuses to be erased, silenced, or sidelined. We feel confident in the merits of these cases and how they should be decided, but no matter the outcomes, no court, public official, or politician can invalidate our identities. We will continue to fight for each other and for a future where we can all thrive, together.

需要了解什麼，需要做什麼： 

• 讀 our amicus brief in the Supreme Court case related to LGBTQ+ books in classrooms, 馬哈茂德訴泰勒案.
• Get the latest on the preventative care Supreme Court case, Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.
• Learn more about the impacts of 布雷德伍德 在 this Boston Globe article
• Check out the most recent episode of Last Week Tonight With John Oliver, featuring our client, Iris Turmelle, and other transgender youth who play sports
• Register for our May 7 Community Briefing on the impact of the Trump administration’s first 100 days and what’s next in our fight for LGBTQ+ justice.
• Sign up to get the latest updates and opportunities to take action for LGBTQ+ justice.

閱讀更多《抵抗簡報》.