The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld state laws that ban transgender athletes from school sports teams that correspond with their gender identity.

The justices in January heard oral arguments in two cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — that challenged laws in Idaho and West Virginia respectively.

The Los Angeles Blade will update this story.

In recent years, some of Asia’s most significant legal developments involving LGBTQ+ rights have unfolded not in parliamentary chambers but in courtrooms. From marriage equality lawsuits in Japan to litigation over same-sex spousal benefits in South Korea and constitutional challenges in countries including India and Nepal, courts across the region have increasingly been asked to decide questions that lawmakers have yet to resolve. The trend raises a broader question: Why has constitutional litigation become a recurring pathway for LGBTQ+ people seeking legal recognition in parts of Asia?

The pattern has unfolded over nearly two decades. 

In 2007, Nepal’s Supreme Court issued one of Asia’s earliest landmark rulings recognizing the rights of sexual and gender minorities, directing the government to end discriminatory laws and examine legal recognition for same-sex couples. A decade later, Taiwan’s Constitutional Court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the constitution, paving the way for the region’s first marriage equality law. In India, the Supreme Court recognized transgender people as a third gender in 2014 before striking down a colonial-era ban on consensual same-sex relations four years later.

The pattern continued across Asia. 

Japan’s courts repeatedly questioned the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. The rulings intensified pressure for legal reform. Parliament, however, has yet to act. 

South Korea’s judiciary expanded legal protections for same-sex couples. It recognized spousal health insurance benefits. A recent district court also awarded damages after a same-sex relationship ended. The ruling added momentum to the country’s marriage equality movement. 

China’s courts took a different path. 

Landmark constitutional rulings never emerged. Still, litigation prompted the Supreme People’s Court to acknowledge anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination. The developments reflected courts’ growing role in LGBTQ+ rights disputes.

The Philippines added another dimension. 

Marriage equality remains unresolved, yet the Supreme Court recently recognized property rights for some same-sex couples. The ruling stopped short of recognizing marriage. Still, it acknowledged legal protections for LGBTQ+ relationships. The decision reflected another way courts have shaped LGBTQ+ rights across Asia.

Constitutional courts occupy a distinct place in democratic systems. Legislatures enact laws. They also respond to political priorities and public opinion. Constitutional courts serve a different function. They decide whether laws or government actions comply with constitutional guarantees. They resolve legal disputes brought before them. Their role is not to measure a policy’s popularity. It is to determine whether it is constitutionally valid. That distinction has placed constitutional courts at the center of many of Asia’s most consequential LGBTQ+ rights disputes.

Nepal offers an early example. 

In 2007, LGBTQ+ activists turned to the Supreme Court through a public interest petition. They argued that discriminatory laws and government practices violated constitutional guarantees of equality. They also sought legal recognition for gender and sexual minorities. The government urged the court to dismiss the petition. It argued existing laws already protected all citizens. It also said the claims relied on assumptions rather than specific instances of discrimination. The court disagreed. It held that sexual orientation and gender identity are natural variations of human identity. It directed the government to eliminate discriminatory laws and policies. The ruling also ordered a study on legal recognition for same-sex couples, laying the foundation for future reforms.

“Since it is the absolute jurisdiction of the legislature to decide as to what type of law should be made and amended on a particular issue, and as this matter does not fall under the jurisdiction of this office, therefore, there does not seem any pertinent reason and valid ground to make this Office a respondent,” said Office of Prime Minister and Council of Ministers in its 2007 affidavit. “Let the writ petition be dismissed on the ground that the unconcerned office is being made as an opposite party in the case.”

In India, a prominent leader of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, Subramanian Swamy, described homosexuality as a “genetic disorder” in 2015. He also wrote on social media that it was a “genetic handicap,” reflecting the political discourse surrounding LGBTQ+ rights before the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in 2018.

The Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 ruling decriminalized consensual same-sex relations. The decision did not end the debate. Soon afterward, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right wing, Hindu nationalist volunteer and paramilitary organization, an ideological parent of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, said it did not consider same-sex relationships a crime. It added, however, that it did not support such relationships.

After the Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 ruling, Arun Kumar, a senior Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader, told the media that same-sex relationships and marriage were neither “natural” nor “desirable.”

During the 2023 marriage equality hearings, the Indian government repeatedly argued that the issue belonged before Parliament, not the judiciary. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Constitution Bench that the case involved a “very complex subject” with “profound social impact” and that “all the questions in this case must be left to the Parliament.” He argued that recognizing same-sex marriage through judicial interpretation would require rewriting the Special Marriage Act and could have unintended consequences across multiple laws. During the hearings, Mehta also questioned how existing marriage laws would operate for same-sex couples, asking, “Who will be the wife in a lesbian relationship?” 

The Los Angeles Blade covered these arguments as the hearings unfolded.

Three years have passed since the Supreme Court declined to recognize same-sex marriage, holding that creating such a legal framework was a matter for Parliament. Marriage equality, however, remains unrecognized in India. Parliament has not enacted legislation extending civil marriage to same-sex couples. The legal position has remained unchanged since the court’s 2023 ruling.

Similar tensions have surfaced elsewhere in Asia. 

In Japan, a growing number of courts have questioned the constitutionality of denying marriage to same-sex couples, even as Parliament has yet to amend the law. In South Korea, courts have steadily expanded legal protections for same-sex couples, while the government has argued that recognizing same-sex marriage is up to lawmakers. In the Philippines, marriage equality and civil partnership bills have repeatedly failed to secure congressional approval amid religious and political opposition. The legislative stalemate has prompted advocates to pursue constitutional litigation before the Supreme Court. 

Indonesia presents a different picture. 

Rather than debating legal recognition, much of the political discourse has focused on restricting LGBTQ+ rights. In a landmark 2017 case, however, rights groups successfully opposed a petition that sought to criminalize all consensual same-sex relations nationwide. The Constitutional Court rejected the petition, ruling that creating new criminal offences was a matter for Parliament, not the judiciary.

Tens of thousands of people on Saturday took part in the annual Budapest Pride march in the Hungarian capital.

The march took place less than two months after new Prime Minister Péter Maygar took office.

Hungarian lawmakers in 2025 passed a bill that banned Pride events and allowed authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify participants. MPs later amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ+ events.

More than 100,000 people defied the ban and participated in last year’s Budapest Pride parade. The event became one of the largest protests against then-Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his government since he took office in 2010.

Magyar’s center-right Tisza party ousted Orbán’s Fidesz-KDNP coalition in elections that took place on April 12. The European Union’s top court, the EU Court of Justice, days after Orbán’s ouster struck down Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ+ propaganda law that MPs approved in 2021.

Hungarian police last month announced they would allow the Budapest Pride march to take place without restrictions.

Authorities subsequently dropped charges against Budapest Mayor Gergely Karácsony over his role in organizing the city’s 2025 Pride march. Officials in Pécs, a city near Hungary’s border with Croatia, have also dropped charges against Géza Buzás-Hábel, who organized a 2025 Pride event.

While many eyes are on the U.S. Supreme Court awaiting the verdicts in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, another court case involving transgender rights is unfolding less than a mile away at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — one that could have lasting implications for transgender military personnel.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” directing the Pentagon to prohibit transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from serving in the military.

The Trump-Vance administration and Defense Department argued that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history or signs of gender dysphoria. According to the Pentagon this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.” Regardless of their physical or intellectual capabilities, transgender applicants are now considered less qualified than their cisgender peers.

Almost immediately after the executive order was signed, LGBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the order. The plaintiffs argue the Trump administration acted with discriminatory animus and violated the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.

The case — originally filed as Talbott v. Trump and now restyled as Talbott v. USA — includes six active-duty service members and two individuals seeking to enlist. Since the initial filing, 12 additional plaintiffs have joined the lawsuit.

On June 1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit blocked the military ban for active-duty trans service members. The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that Trump’s executive order was illegal — created with the intent to exclude people from military service based on their gender identity.

The Los Angeles Blade spoke with Michael Haley, a staff attorney at GLAD Law who is part of the legal team challenging the ban and seeking to protect the constitutional rights of transgender service members. Haley previously served as an assistant attorney general in the New Hampshire Department of Justice and as a law clerk for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

Asked why the D.C. Circuit’s ruling blocking the ban — issued on the first day of Pride month — was so significant, Haley said the decision is about protecting the constitutional rights of trans people that have been under attack since the beginning of the Trump-Vance administration.

“I think it’s hard to understate the importance of that order, because what is really significant is that the ban is based entirely on the administration’s dislike of transgender people, and not based on any real concerns about lethality and unit cohesion,” Haley said. “The circuit court went through in pretty good detail, identifying all the ways in which it’s clear that the administration is doing this to harm transgender people, and not for any kind of real military benefit. It’s a really striking and important decision that shows all of our plaintiffs have been serving with distinction, earning medals and commendations, and the fact that they are transgender does not factor into the equation.”

On Tuesday, the plaintiffs will ask the court to certify the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of all trans service members affected by the military ban. Asked what class certification would accomplish, Haley said it would allow future rulings in Talbott to apply not only to the named plaintiffs but to all trans service members covered by the case.

“The class certification, if the court approves it — and we’re hopeful that it will — will mean that any final judgment that comes out of this case will apply not just to our named plaintiffs, but to all transgender service members serving. Simply certifying a class does not necessarily change things on the ground for folks now, but it will ensure that our final judgment, or future judgments within this proceeding, apply to everybody and not just the named plaintiffs.”

Haley said the current legal landscape has created significant uncertainty for trans troops, leaving many unsure of their futures — both those serving stateside and those stationed overseas.

“Unfortunately, there’s just really not a lot of transparency around how the government is implementing the ban,” he said. “We are hearing from service members, including our own plaintiffs, who are receiving notices that they are going to be put before separation boards, but we have no insight into their timing, their decisions for who they notify, when and why, or how they are viewing the D.C. Circuit’s order. We’re going to have to wait for a little bit more of the court process to happen before we can speak with any certainty.”

Asked whether the case could eventually reach the Supreme Court — as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested in a post on X — Haley said the central constitutional question is whether the policy is rooted in discriminatory animus.

“It will be extremely hard for any court to deny that a policy that identifies a group of people and calls them dishonest, lacking integrity, and lacking a warrior spirit — in spite of all the evidence — is motivated by animus. That’s an argument under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which says everybody is entitled to equal protection of the laws and forbids singling out a group of people and treating them disfavorably just because you don’t like them rather than because of some legitimate purpose … I think that’s going to be the central question.”

Haley also explained how the current policy differs from the trans military ban Trump announced in 2017.

“The first thing goes back to that same question of animus. The D.C. Circuit recognized that this time around, the policy on its face calls transgender people dishonorable and lacking integrity and things like that. We did not have as clear evidence as we do this time around that this is not actually about military readiness — it is about trying to harm transgender people.”

Haley echoed that view, arguing the administration’s “updated” policy is aimed at excluding trans people rather than improving military readiness.

“The fact that they are trying to push out people who are serving simply because they’re transgender goes to show that this is about harming that group rather than making sure the military can function,” Haley said.

He said the current policy is significantly broader, affecting active-duty trans service members rather than primarily those seeking to enlist.

“The other major difference is how this ban is treating folks who are serving. The last time around, those who were already serving were allowed to continue serving and the ban only applied to people seeking to join the military. This time around, the ban is going further and trying to push out people who are serving with distinction and performing to standards, which is just more evidence that this is not about any actual military benefit.”

Haley also outlined the two categories of evidence GLAD Law has presented to the court to challenge the administration’s claims that trans service members undermine military readiness.

“One [type of] evidence about these individual service members — they have served on nuclear submarines, flown Navy planes, reached ranks requiring Senate confirmation, served as field medics, and continue to excel in extremely demanding roles,” he said. “The other category is testimony from high-ranking military personnel who oversaw the inclusion policy and saw transgender people serving without any of the concerns the government now claims.”

“These are people who have to meet the standards just like anybody else, and if they meet the standards, they should be able to continue to serve. We had four years under the previous administration implementing that policy without any of the issues the government now claims, and that’s pretty strong evidence that it was working.”

Asked about the human toll of the policy — and the thousands of trans service members who have been forced out of the military or are uncertain about their futures — Haley said those personal stories have become a driving force behind the legal challenge.

“I have really heard stories of lives torn apart. These are people who, in some cases since they were children, dreamed of serving, achieved extremely high levels within the military, built their lives around it, built their families around it, and have now been sitting in limbo for more than a year not really knowing what’s coming next.”

He said the disruption extends far beyond losing a job, affecting long-term careers, financial security, and retirement plans.

“For those who have left, they have left a life where they had known no other type of career. In many cases they had served for long periods and were planning on availing themselves of the military benefits they had earned through long-term service, and because they were pushed out too soon, they are now having to reorder both their short-term and long-term lives.”

Haley also described service members stranded overseas, unable to return home or continue serving while they wait for the legal process to play out.

“We know of people who are effectively stranded on bases overseas, unable to come home but also unable to serve, and are just waiting for this to move forward so they can see their families again, whatever the outcome. It’s been really devastating, especially for a group of people who raised their hand to serve and protect.”

Asked what trans service members should take away from the upcoming class certification hearing, Haley encouraged them to stay informed through organizations such as SPARTA Pride, a nonprofit organization representing trans service members, veterans, their families, and allies.

“Until we get an order from a court saying, ‘This is what’s next,’ it’s hard for us to guess, and we certainly don’t want to send folks in the wrong direction. Folks should follow organizations like GLAD Law, NCLR, and SPARTA because they’re providing day-to-day updates as these developments happen.”

Second Lt. Nicolas “Nic” Talbott, U.S. Army, one of the plaintiffs in the case, spoke with the Blade last year about what it has been like to be a capable and willing service member stripped of his career because of the policy.

“It’s very empowering to be able to stand up, not only for myself, but for the other transgender service members out there who have done nothing but serve with honor and dignity and bravery,” Talbott told the Blade. “There are no documented cases that I’m aware of of a transgender person having a negative impact on unit cohesion simply by being transgender … Being transgender is just another one of those walks of life.”

Talbott added that a more diverse military is ultimately a stronger military because it brings together people with different backgrounds and perspectives to solve complex problems.

“I think the more diverse our military is, the stronger our military is … We need people from all different experiences and all different perspectives, because somebody is going to see that challenge or that problem in a way that I would never even think of … and that is what we need more of in the U.S. military.”

SPARTA Executive Director Kara Corcoran, an Army infantry officer with 18 years of service who is currently being separated under the trans military ban, said the upcoming class certification hearing could determine whether relief extends beyond the named plaintiffs.

“When the D.C. Circuit Court recently ruled to affirm Talbott v. USA’s preliminary injunction, SPARTA Pride was relieved to see their powerful conclusion: that this policy was not based on any evidence, but in unconstitutional animus toward transgender people,” Corcoran said in a statement to the Blade. “However, the post-CASA climate meant what was originally a universal injunction now only benefited the small number of active duty plaintiffs. This limited scope left behind the thousands of other transgender service members whose rights were also violated. Certifying the case as a class action would ensure that an ultimately positive outcome in litigation would apply to all patriots impacted by the discriminatory policy — not just the few dozen who signed on to be plaintiffs last year.”

Corcoran said the hearing carries implications far beyond the trans military community, arguing that the case could shape how courts respond when constitutional protections are challenged.

“The entire transgender military community and their families are waiting with profound anticipation and hope for the court’s decision, knowing it could determine the future of their military careers, their livelihoods, and their families. But the gravity of tomorrow’s hearing reaches far beyond those directly affected. It will serve as a test of whether our government will uphold its constitutional duty when another branch openly discriminates against a marginalized group of Americans who answered the call to serve with self-sacrifice, honor, and integrity. This is not simply about transgender service members — it is about the precedent the judicial system sets for every American when equal treatment under the law is challenged.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is scheduled to hold the class certification hearing on Tuesday at 2 p.m. ET.

A video posted on X by user Dimitry Yakoushkin of the incident went viral, showing Wiener being chased out of Dolores Park, while the group screamed at him. Multiple people in the protest group were wearing black ski masks that concealed their identities. 

Wiener is contending to take over Nancy Pelosi’s seat in Congress in the upcoming November general election.

The video started off with Yakoushkin, a local activist, highlighting how great Wiener’s LGBT+ policies and lawmaking work are. As Yakoushkin started to criticize Wiener about his housing policies, others started to gather around the politician. 

Yakoushkin and the group quickly transitioned to yelling at him about his stance on the genocide in Gaza. 

“You’ve been wonderful for trans people, and… you’ve been terrible on Gaza,” Yakoushkin is heard saying in the video. “You do not belong here (at Trans Pride) anymore, Scott.”

“I want to support someone who’s so positive on trans rights, but you’re a piece of sh*t on Gaza,” he says later in the video. “How could you do that?”

Other protestors shouted obscenities that were hard to distinguish from, but some that jumped out included cries of “f*ck you” and “You’re a piece of sh*t.”

When it was clear this would not be a one-and-done criticism, Wiener is seen on video pivoting to exit Dolores Park, with the group following behind until Wiener was out of the park.

The video garnered over 12 million views as of Monday, June 29. 

Scott Wiener showed up to the trans march and for the first time we kicked his ass out. It's sad because while he's written some good legislation for queers, hes ultimately a genocidal-supporting center right shill. Trigger warning: broken man walking away defeated. Vote Connie! pic.twitter.com/TXIB7omxde

— Dimitry Yakoushkin (@decadimitry) June 27, 2026

In early January of this year, Wiener declined to call Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide during a congressional debate forum, as many other politicians have. 

A week later, on Jan. 11, Wiener reversed that decision.

“For years, I’ve condemned (Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin) Netanyahu and his extremist government and the devastation they’ve inflicted on Gaza,” Wiener posted on X. “It’s why I’ve been clear I won’t support U.S. funding for the destruction of Palestinian communities. I’ve stopped short of calling it genocide, but I can’t anymore.”

This was after two years of Israeli bombing that led to thousands of Palestinian deaths in the Gaza Strip, following the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas.

After Friday’s incident, Wiener posted a statement, calling it “physical intimidation and harassment” by “people who had previously targeted” him with “aggressive behavior in the past.”

“Last night I attended the Trans March, as I’ve done each year for the past 22 years since the first march in 2004,” the statement said. “I attend each year in solidarity with our trans siblings, who are facing existential threats from right-wing extremists, including the President.”

“I have no objection whatsoever to anyone disagreeing with me, opposing me, or protesting me.

All of that is core to democracy,” the statement continued. “I also have no issue when people talk to me on the street and ask questions or express opposition. That’s democracy, even when the people engaging in this conduct misrepresent my views. But when opposition and disagreement transition to harassment, including cornering me, touching me, or trying to physically bully me out of a public event, that crosses a line.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Senator Scott Wiener (@scott_wiener)

Wiener’s congressional opponent, Supervisor Connie Chan, appeared to march without any incident.

Many critics of Wiener took to social media to point out that Wiener posted this statement and used it as a fundraising opportunity, while not posting about the heavy police presence and arrests during San Francisco’s Pride weekend. 

Independent journalist Jersey Noah made an Instagram post to Wiener saying, “What do you have to say about (San Francisco Police Department) assaulting and arresting trans people on the public streets of San Francisco for two consecutive nights? Because you haven’t said a… word.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Senator Scott Wiener (@scott_wiener)

This is not the first time a politician has been ousted from San Francisco’s Trans Pride festivities, according to San Francisco-based outlet Mission Local.

Past politicians forced to leave over the last decade include Mayor Daniel Lurie, then-Mayor Ed Lee, City Attorney David Chiu, and then-State Senator Mark Leno, according to Mission Local.

Yakoushkin said the protest was spontaneous, saying, “It was not planned, I was walking home, and I saw him from a distance and I got my camera out to start filming,” according to Mission Local.

The California Senate Democratic Caucus and California LGBTQ+ Caucus made a joint statement of support for Wiener, denouncing the verbal harassment toward Wiener as “unacceptable.”

“Senator Wiener has spent the last 16 years in service to San Francisco,” their statement said. “In that time, he has been a fearless champion for the LGBTQ+ community even when it was not politically popular, leading on landmark legislation advancing the rights and protections for Transgender, Gender Expansive, and Intersex people. He is a steadfast advocate for his communities.

“In California, we believe everyone deserves dignity and respect, regardless of political differences,” the statement continued.

Pride Month may be over, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t still plenty of opportunities to Rise Up with Equality California throughout the remainder of 2026. While a few Pride celebrations are still ahead — we’re looking at you, San Diego and Palm Springs — our work is far from finished. With the 2026 midterm elections on the horizon, there’s a lot to do to protect our progress and advance equality.

For all things Pride 2026, visit our EQCA x Pride page.

To read more stories, join our mailing list, and sign up for the weekly Equality Brief, visit eqca.org/equalitybrief.

• ELECTION UPDATE: Pro-Equality Candidates Win Big in the California Primary
  Equality California’s endorsed pro-equality slate of candidates largely succeeded in their primary races and will proceed to the November midterm elections. Among the most important victories were out LGBTQ+ candidates Scott Wiener (CA-11) and Marni von Wilpert (CA-48), the former looking to succeed Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, the latter to flip a long-held seat from red to blue with the retirement of Rep. Darrell Issa. Sec. Xavier Becerra, EQCA’s endorsed candidate for governor, also emerged as the top vote-getter in that contest and will proceed to November where he will face anti-LGBTQ+ MAGA Republican Steve Hilton. At the state level, out LGBTQ+ candidates Annalisa Perea (AD-31), Clarissa Cervantes (AD-58), and John Erickson (SD-24) will also move forward to the midterms, where their wins would grow the numbers of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus. Visit EQCA.org/elections for more information on all our candidates!
  
• Equality California Priorities Included in Initial 2026-27 Legislative Budget Agreement:
  California Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas and Senate President pro Tempore Monique Límon announced they had reached an agreement on the state’s 2026-27 budget. Equality California and a coalition of LGBTQ+, healthcare, and civil rights groups had submitted a $26 million budget request to create an in-state network for transition-related care and strengthen existing provider networks in the event that the federal government moves to not offer Medicare or Medicaid coverage for said care. The budget was subsequently approved by the full legislature and now heads to Governor Gavin Newsom for his signature. Equality California, our coalition partners, and legislative allies are optimistic that the governor will recognize the importance of a pro-equality budget and sign it into law, particularly as the federal government continues to target California and undermine protections for LGBTQ+ people.
  
• Equality California’s Lauren Cazares Honored at Pride Month Legislative Celebration:
  Cazares, who serves as EQCA’s Associate Director of Political Affairs and is the current Vice Mayor of the City of La Mesa, was recognized alongside a dozen other individuals as part of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus’ Pride Month Celebration. The Caucus recognizes a select group of community members, local leaders, and public figures each June for their efforts in helping to advance representation, as well as for being an inspiration to the LGBTQ+ community and its allies. Previous honorees include Equality California Executive Director Tony Hoang and recent San Diego Equality Awards emcee, entertainer Paris Antoinette Quion.
  
• Anti-Trans Sports Ballot Initiative Withdrawn in Nevada:
  Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo announced he was withdrawing a proposed ballot initiative that would ban transgender girls from playing sports. Following the Nevada Supreme Court clearing the way for the ballot initiative to proceed, Lombardo and his far-right allies cited a lack of support and necessary signatures to qualify for the November 2026 ballot. However, Lombardo has said that should he be reelected, he would seek to address the issue during the state’s 2027 Legislative Session.
  
• Kansas Judge Blocks Law Criminalizing Transgender Youth Healthcare:
  Douglas County District Judge Carl Folsom issued an injunction temporarily blocking a law criminalizing the provision of transition-related care for youth from going into effect. While this does not strike down the law outright, it does prevent enforcement while legal challenges remain pending. The Kansas legislature overrode Governor Laura Kelly’s veto of the legislation in 2025, which blocks access to puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and transition-related surgeries for minors, and has been decried as one of the most expansive bans on transgender health care in the country.
  
• Appeals Court: HIV+ People Who Meet Qualifications Can Serve in the Armed Forces:
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an order lifting a stay banning the enlistment of HIV+ people in the military, pending further legal action. The Court’s order clarified that the stay was lifted upon its agreement to rehear the case of Wilkins v Hegseth in an en banc hearing, before the full panel of Justices. The court vacated a February panel decision upholding the military’s HIV enlistment restrictions; arguments in the case are tentatively scheduled for September.
  
• D.C. Federal Appeals Court Rules Transgender Military Ban Illegal
  The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a 2-1 ruling on finding that the Pentagon — under Secretary Pete Hegseth’s leadership and in response to a Trump executive order — illegally barred transgender troops from military service. While the ban has been in effect following a Supreme Court ruling allowing it to proceed pending litigation, the panel’s new ruling keeps the military from kicking out current servicemembers named in the lawsuit; new recruits, however, will still not be allowed to join.
  
• Trump Department of Veterans Affairs Moves to Eliminate Programs for LGBTQ+ Vets:
  A June 12 directive signed by Veterans Health Administration Under Secretary for Health John J. Bartrum orders health facilities nationwide to eliminate “gender identity-based initiatives” and strip LGBTQ+ designations from health provider networks. This comes as part of a greater move by the Trump administration to remove references to gender identity and sexual orientation in federal programs. Already, staff at VA providers have expressed concerns that programming and services uniquely designed for LGBTQ+ veterans — who face higher rates of depression, suicidal ideation, food insecurity, and housing instability — could be terminated.
  
• Federal Court Blocks Anti-Trans Idaho Bathroom Law:
  U.S. District Judge Amanda K. Brailsford issued a 30-page decision Tuesday granting a preliminary injunction against Idaho’s HB 752, the most extreme anti-transgender bathroom ban in the country. Judge Brailsford’s ruling concluded that the questions and mechanisms around the law’s enforcement are so unclear that they likely violate the Constitution’s due process guarantee. In addition to blocking enforcement of the law, Judge Brailsford extended the class of people that the injunction applies to beyond the plaintiffs, which will temporarily protect all transgender people statewide while litigation proceeds.
  
• Ariana Grande Launches Foundation, Including Focuses on LGBTQ+, Trans Rights:
  On the heels of kicking off her Eternal Sunshine Tour in Oakland, pop icon and actress Ariana Grande has announced the launch of the Brighter Days Ahead Foundation, composed of four different funds that will support, among other causes, LGBTQ+ and transgender civil rights, reproductive justice, and mental health advocacy. “Our mission is to support, protect, and provide resources for our vulnerable friends in need,” Grande stated. “We will be supporting handfuls of incredible organizations that provide the safe space and care that is desperately needed by so many right now.”

STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

11 of 12 Equality California-sponsored and supported bills are still alive this legislative session, and continue to make their way through policy committees. We are thankful to the Legislative LGBTQ Caucus and our other partners in Sacramento for helping move our bills along and secure critical votes.

To view our entire 2026 state legislative package, visit eqca.org/legislation

UPCOMING EVENTS

Want to join Equality California at an upcoming Pride festival, or march alongside us in a parade? Visit our Mobilize page to see all the remaining Pride events we’re a part of!

We’ve also got one Pride Party left this summer! Rise Up and join us at an event near you. Tickets are on sale now!

|San Diego: Tuesday, July 14 @ InsideOUT, 6:00-9:00 PM

Iran and Egypt on Friday faced off during the World Cup’s “Pride Match” in Seattle.

Iran is among the handful of countries in which consensual same-sex sexual relations remain punishable by death. Discrimination and persecution based on sexual orientation and gender identity is commonplace in Egypt.

Friday’s match coincided with Pride weekend in Seattle. The Egyptian Football Association and the Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran both objected to playing in the “Pride Match.”

Egypt and Iran tied 1-1.

FIFA, for its part, allowed Pride flags inside the stadium during the match.

“The FIFA World Cup 2026 is an inclusive event that welcomes people from all backgrounds,” a FIFA spokesperson told the Los Angeles Blade in a statement. “Fans of all sexual orientations and gender identities are welcome at matches and events. General statements of human rights, including rainbow flags and other flags representing sexual orientation and gender identity, are permitted under the FIFA World Cup 2026™ Stadium Code of Conduct and may be displayed inside stadiums provided they are used in a manner consistent with the code.”

Human Rights Watch welcomed FIFA’s decision to allow Pride flags inside the stadium. Outright International, a global LGBTQ+ and intersex rights group, distributed Pride flags in Seattle on Friday, which was Pride Match Day.

“Visibility matters,” said Outright International Executive Director Maria Sjödin. “Pride is now being celebrated in more than 100 countries, including this weekend in Seattle. For many LGBTIQ people, seeing a Pride flag in public is a reminder that they are not alone, and that their rights and dignity are recognized.”

FIFA President Gianni Infantino earlier this year told Die Weltwoche, a Swiss magazine, that “there will be no ‘Pride Match’ at the (FIFA) World Cup.”

“There will be a FIFA World Cup match in Seattle, and on the same day, events organized by external organizations will be taking place in the city,” said Infantino. “But that has nothing to do with the match itself.”

Peter Tatchell, a long-time LGBTQ+ activist from the U.K. who is director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation, was among those who traveled to Seattle for Friday’s match. Tatchell accused FIFA of not vetting World Cup teams — specifically Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Ghana, Senegal, Qatar, Tunisia, Morocco, Iraq, Uzbekistan, and Algeria — over whether they would allow gay players.

“FIFA is protecting LGBT+ visibility in the stands while failing to protect LGBT+ players on the pitch,” said Tatchell.

Amidst the nonstop stream of vitriol that American politics has become, it’s easy for LA residents to forget about the importance of local elections. 

These are the elections that won’t receive national attention but will decide if you’ll be able to make rent in the next few months. Or if you’ll be able to rely on public transit, or find work within the city, or dozens of other essential ways that electing someone who truly understands your needs would impact someone in Los Angeles today. Local elections are key to making cities like ours livable for all, and especially in communities like West Hollywood, it’s important that the queer people who truly know their neighbors are the ones running to represent them. 

 It’s a task that not everyone is up to. But for candidate Helen Krieger, the decision to launch her campaign for West Hollywood City Council was one of the easiest this WeHo local has ever made. 

“I learned that once things fall apart, it’s so much harder to put them back together,” said Krieger, when she spoke with the Blade about her campaign. “It can be so hard to get people’s buy-in because they don’t trust you anymore as city officials…or as leaders.” It’s an unfortunate truth that Helen learned firsthand; she moved to West Hollywood ten years ago after living in New Orleans, where she banded together with other residents in the midst of the Hurricane Katrina crisis. Helen described the terror of this natural disaster and how deeply the city officials failed residents in its aftermath. After months of mishandled projects that left hundreds of people homeless, it was her work with local advocates that eventually created affordable housing for these displaced residents. 

This work saved countless locals and taught Helen a valuable lesson: “I learned [how] to bring everyone in, and [the value of] listening to everyone.”

Krieger’s eventual move to West Hollywood was inspired not only by her career — she’s a professional television writer — but also by the search for a community where she could be comfortable in her bisexual identity. Throughout the interview, she fondly remembered how accepted she’s always felt by other WeHo residents…but also how quickly she learned about the many ways this area fails to support locals. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Helen Krieger (@helen4weho)

Whether it’s rundown streets or horrific rent practices, while she has a deep love for West Hollywood, Helen has identified many of the ways that this city can be improved. It’s what drove her to join numerous local organizations like the West Hollywood Bike Coalition and the West Hollywood Dems Club, with her membership with these groups helping her better understand the needs of other WeHo residents. Along with these, Helen would eventually enter the tenuous arena that she would eventually campaign to have her own seat within: the West Hollywood City Council. 

“Whenever I’m at city council [meeting], I’m often not going up to speak,” Krieger explained. “But I keep track of every speaker and what they’re saying, what are the comments that are being made — because not everyone can make it there! It’s a weeknight, it starts at 6 pm…if you have a job to go to in the morning, if you have young kids that you have to put to bed, you just can’t make it to that. So I also try to make space for people to give comments who aren’t there, and try to have conversations with them.”

Helen has made it common practice to not only provide rundowns of city council meetings for those who aren’t in attendance but also deliver comments on their behalf, calling out how just because these meetings have an inopportune schedule doesn’t mean local residents deserve to go unheard. This led to her connecting with even more West Hollywood residents and learning about the many issues they wanted addressed by their local government. This, when compounded with her own ideas for improvement, made it clear to Helen that she needed to join the City Council herself and make sure these problems were being solved. 

“I am really pro-housing,” began Krieger, when detailing her campaign’s priorities. “I am really pro-complete streets — streets that should be built for all kinds of people, whether you’re walking, using a wheelchair, or driving a car, [the streets] need to be able to get you there. I think we need to build more houses and build more [affordable] housing units…[I’m pro] not doing stuff that we don’t need to, like making people and bike lanes unsafe. And let’s do stuff that will [actually help].”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Helen Krieger (@helen4weho)

These are just a few of the priorities that Helen spoke passionately about in her interview, with the City Council hopeful also describing her plans to bring Hollywood jobs back into the city, implement eco-friendly practices around the city, and develop new ways for the City Council to remain transparent with locals about how their taxes are being used. She stressed that these priorities are based not just on her own observations but are informed by what she’s learned from the other residents around her. She spoke passionately about talks with other community leaders, homeless individuals, and hundreds of others, with each conversation shaping the plans she hopes to implement if elected.

“There are some ways that people can slip through the cracks in the city, and so I want to just do what I can to [stop that,]” said Helen, when discussing why it’s time for her to join the West Hollywood City Council. “I want to make sure these gaps are being filled and that we weren’t getting too complacent in how we do things…I want to hear [people’s] concerns, and learn how we can address them moving forward.” 

We’re still a few months away from the election, so it’s unclear if Helen Krieger will be able to win her seat and make these plans a reality. But no matter what happens with her campaign, one thing is for sure: if we had more politicians who were as focused on community building and truly listening to their residents as she is, then LA today would be a much better place for us all.

For more information, head to Helen4Weho.org.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Angela de Silva (@angeladesilva)

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Friday recounted being separated from his children following an anonymous false police report.

The openly gay former mayor of South Bend, Ind., and current 2028 presidential contender was accused of posing a danger to his children and was not allowed to be with his four-year-old twins until after interviews were conducted.

Buttigieg went public with this account on his Substack, sharing how a woman anonymously — and falsely — accused him of posing a danger to his children.

“The caller said that he had spoken to a woman who claimed to have met me at a conference several years ago in Alabama, where she said I told her that I had committed unspeakable violent crimes, and the caller believed my children were still at risk,” Buttigieg wrote in a post he titled “A Terrible Thing Happened to My Family.” “I am a reasonable man. I try to keep as calm and low-key as possible. But I cannot describe the mix of rage and sadness that I feel at the idea that someone brought our children into this.”

Michigan State Police spoke to the BBC following Buttigieg sharing his story.

“The Michigan State Police and Child Protective Services responded and determined the report was false.”

The statement also went on to explain that these types of false reports were “dangerous” and divert “workers from responding to legitimate emergencies and protecting vulnerable children and families.”

In that post recounting the ordeal, Buttigieg continued, saying that it was “among the darkest hours of my life,” and pointed out that his children should not be subjected to this type of harassment as a circumstance of his own place in the national political spotlight.

“They are four years old. Four. They do not know or care what a Democrat or a Republican is.”

He finished his post:

“We cannot let American politics keep going in this direction. And we must not all go on as if it’s acceptable for this kind of thing to be part of the cost of entering public service.”

“Most importantly, Chasten and I will continue to pour ourselves into the joyful and demanding work of raising and educating our two children. Being their parents is the best thing in our lives. They are just children, kids who deserve the best upbringing that their parents can provide, who mean more to us than anything, whom we love beyond words and will do anything to protect, and whose right to a safe and happy childhood deserves absolute and unconditional respect.”

In response to the story Buttigieg shared on his Substack, Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, released the following statement:

“I know how I would feel if someone tried to come between me and my kids. This is truly bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. It takes an awful, hateful person to question someone’s fitness as a parent just because of who they are, who they love, or in Sec. Buttigieg’s case, perhaps even who he speaks out against politically. We’re thinking of Pete, Chasten, and their whole family in this moment — and we aren’t resting until all LGBTQ+ families have the kind of safety and justice every one of us deserves.”

Buttigieg was transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.

The Los Angeles Blade reached out to Michigan State Police to ask if any disciplinary actions would be imposed on the woman who made the false report, but did not hear back by the time of publication.

Friday marks 11 years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Constitution protects same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. Despite that major win for LGBTQ+ people nationwide, the case may be on shakier ground than originally thought.

Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that determined the Constitution extends its protection of rights to same-sex couples and that states must recognize marriage licenses for same-sex couples from other states, was decided using a combination of cases from several states.

The central arguments in the case rested on the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, as well as collateral spousal and parental rights.

Cases in play

The first case came from Michigan with DeBoer v. Snyder, where a lesbian couple, who were not legally allowed to marry in the Mitten State, attempted to adopt their third child but could not both obtain legal parental rights. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse initially received a favorable ruling in district court, with the judge finding that the Michigan Marriage Amendment — which barred same-sex marriage in the Midwestern state — violated the Equal Protection Clause. The same day, the case was appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, eventually making its way, along with the other five cases, to the highest court in the land.

Ohio had multiple cases that ultimately contributed to the judicial acknowledgment of same-sex marriage rights in the U.S.

The Supreme Court case most commonly associated with the fight for same-sex marriage — Obergefell — originated in Ohio. Beginning as Obergefell v. Kasich in the state, James Obergefell knew his longtime boyfriend, John Arthur, was suffering from ALS. Knowing Arthur’s life would end shortly — and understanding the couple could not legally marry in Ohio — they boarded a medically equipped plane, accompanied by a nurse and Arthur’s aunt, Paulette, and flew to BWI Airport in Maryland. There, they were legally married. Over the next several months, Arthur’s health continued to decline until he eventually passed away in October.

The legal battle began after Arthur died, as Ohio law refused to acknowledge that Obergefell was his husband and would not list him as Arthur’s surviving spouse on his death certificate. Obergefell challenged the decision, arguing it was unconstitutional and pursuing legal action. The local Ohio registrar agreed that refusing to recognize their out-of-state marriage license — which Ohio had recognized for different-sex couples in the past — discriminated against the couple. Despite that, the state attorney general continued to defend Ohio’s same-sex marriage ban.

The judge ultimately ruled that “a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized,” marking another step toward marriage equality. Ohio appealed the ruling, and the case ultimately contributed to the establishment of same-sex marriage protections under the federal Constitution.

The second Ohio case, Henry v. Wymyslo, much like DeBoer v. Snyder, involved parental rights for adopted children. The case included four couples — three lesbian couples who lived in Ohio and adopted children while residing there, and one gay couple from New York with an adopted son born in Ohio. The four couples filed a lawsuit against Ohio, seeking to require the state to list both parents on their children’s birth certificates.

Eventually, the judge — the same one who presided over Obergefell v. Kasich — ruled that the state must list both parents on their children’s birth certificates. Like many cases that make their way to the Supreme Court, it went through multiple appeals before ultimately reaching the nation’s highest court.

Kentucky also had two cases that contributed to the legal battle for same-sex marriage.

The first, Bourke v. Beshear, revolved around Gregory Bourke and Michael DeLeon, a same-sex couple married in Canada in 2004, and Randell Johnson and Paul Campion, who were married in California in 2008. Like DeBoer v. Snyder and Henry v. Wymyslo in their respective states, the plaintiffs challenged Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage and its refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions so that both parents could be acknowledged on their children’s birth certificates.

The judge ultimately ruled, much like in Obergefell v. Kasich, that states constitutionally must recognize legally performed out-of-state marriages.

Love v. Beshear is the second case from the Bluegrass State.

Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James were denied a marriage license by Kentucky county clerks. The couple’s legal team filed to join Bourke v. Beshear, another case actively challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, and the motion was approved, with the case restyled as Love v. Beshear. The judge ultimately ruled that Kentucky’s bans on same-sex marriage explicitly “violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and they are void and unenforceable.”

The final case, Tanco v. Haslam, involved four same-sex couples who filed suit in Tennessee. Each couple had married outside Tennessee before moving to the state, with nearly all relocating for employment. One worked for the military, whose marriage was already recognized by the Department of Defense; one worked for the state; and two were professors. Seeking to have their out-of-state marriages recognized in Tennessee, the four couples filed Tanco v. Haslam in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The court eventually granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to recognize the marriages of the three plaintiff couples but denied the request to overturn Tennessee’s same-sex marriage ban.

To SCOTUS

All of these cases contributed to the legal challenge against same-sex marriage bans across the country and ultimately led to a 5-4 ruling that allowed same-sex couples to have their marriages recognized in all 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, and D.C.

The justices voted as follows: Anthony Kennedy, who authored the majority opinion, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan supported Obergefell while Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito all dissented.

The court held that the 14th Amendment — specifically its Due Process Clause — guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, regardless of the gender of those getting married.

The court also ruled that another provision of the 14th Amendment — the Equal Protection Clause — extends the right to marry enjoyed by different-sex couples to same-sex couples, finding that denying same-sex couples that right violates their right to equal protection under the law.

Some of the Supreme Court justices who dissented argued that this was a state issue, not a federal one, because the Constitution makes no mention of same-sex couples. They said it was beyond the purview of the court to decide whether states must recognize or license such unions. The dissenters argued that the majority was engaging in judicial policymaking, which they contended is not permitted under U.S. law.

Another argument made by the dissenting conservative justices was that the majority opinion infringed on religious freedom by engaging in this “judicial policymaking” rather than allowing state legislatures to determine the laws governing marriage.

Since the ruling

According to data from the Williams Institute, 823,000 same-sex couples are now legally married — more than twice the number in 2015 — as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The ruling also increased the number of same-sex families raising children, largely because it removed legal barriers and paperwork restrictions that had prevented same-sex couples from being listed as parents. The data shows there are nearly 299,000 children under the age of 18 being raised by married same-sex couples as a result of Obergefell.

The states that saw the largest increases — and the most favorable changes to marriage rates — were in the South. The percentage of cohabiting same-sex couples who were married between 2014 and 2023 increased from 38 percent to 59 percent.

Many of the married same-sex couples surveyed said marriage improved their sense of safety and security (83 percent), life satisfaction (75 percent), and relationship stability (67 percent).

“Marriage equality has significantly benefited the lives and well-being of same-sex couples, their families, and the communities where they live,” said Christy Mallory, interim executive director and legal director at the Williams Institute.

Future of Obergefell

While same-sex marriage remains the law of the land, there have been multiple attempts by conservative and religious figures in America to reverse it.

In 2025, Kim Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, Ky., who made headlines 10 years earlier after refusing to issue marriage licenses following the striking down of same-sex marriage bans, approached the Supreme Court with the goal of getting Obergefell overturned.

She argued that the ruling put her religious beliefs at odds with her job and asked the court to strike it down. The consensus was nearly unanimous, holding that when a person serves as an agent of the state, they cannot place their personal religious beliefs above state policy because they are acting on behalf of the government.

Thomas, one of the Supreme Court’s most conservative justices, has also attempted to plant the seeds for overturning Obergefell.

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which ultimately restricted abortion access in the country, he wrote a concurring opinion suggesting that Obergefell, along with several other precedents, should be “reconsider[ed].”

Later, without directly addressing Obergefell, Thomas told an audience at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law that he didn’t “think that … any of these cases that have been decided are the gospel.”

While President Donald Trump has not implemented any executive restrictions on same-sex marriage during his presidency, his administration has made it clear that it opposes continued efforts to expand protections for same-sex couples, particularly when doing so conflicts with claims of “religious freedom.” The administration has attempted to remove sexual orientation and gender identity from federal health care and housing nondiscrimination protections and has significantly restricted the rights of transgender Americans.

Currently, same-sex marriage remains federally protected by the Respect for Marriage Act, and the Supreme Court has thus far declined to overturn Obergefell.