logo
Overview of Federal Actions on LGBTQIA+ Rights  Practical Law The Journal

Overview of Federal Actions on LGBTQIA+ Rights Practical Law The Journal

Reuters06-06-2025

The current Trump administration has enacted policies that significantly lower federal protections for LGBTQIA+ individuals, particularly transgender people. The administration has relied heavily on executive orders and agency directives to affect the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals as they relate to military service, health care, education, and civil rights enforcement (see, for example, Executive Order 14183, titled 'Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,' and Executive Order 14173, titled 'Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity').
For most of US history, LGBTQIA+ individuals faced negative treatment in various settings. For example, during World War II, the federal government dishonorably discharged gay individuals from the military. Additionally, from the late 1940s through the 1960s, a time known as the Lavender Scare, the US government either fired or forced gay individuals to resign from government service. (See Nat'l Park Serv.: LGB Military History and Libr. of Cong.: LGBTQIA+ Studies: A Resource Guide.)
The modern LGBTQIA+ rights movement is commonly believed to have begun in 1969, when a police raid on the Stonewall Inn in New York City instigated a spontaneous uprising by LGBTQIA+ patrons. The following year, in 1970, the first Pride marches took place in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. (Libr. of Cong.: The History of Pride.) Over the course of the movement that continues today, the federal government has taken steps to either expand or contract the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals. Several times, restrictions imposed by one administration on these rights have been reversed by later administrations, reflecting changing political and social priorities.
Major federal milestones in recent history include:
Lawrence v. Texas. In 2003, the US Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws nationwide and decriminalized same-sex sexual conduct. In so holding, the Court overturned its 1986 holding in Bowers v. Hardwick (478 U.S. 186 (1986)). It held that an adult's consensual sexual intimacy at home is a vital interest in liberty and privacy that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (539 U.S. 558 (2003).)
The repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' In 2010, the Obama administration repealed 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' allowing gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals to serve openly in the US military. The policy had previously been enacted in 1993 and required service members to hide their sexual orientation or face discharge. (US Dep't of Def.: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Resources.)
United States v. Windsor. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (passed by Congress in 1996) that banned federal recognition of same-sex marriages. The Court found that the law violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. (570 U.S. 744 (2013).)
Obergefell v. Hodges. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right nationwide. It held that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee same-sex couples the right to marry. (576 U.S. 644 (2015).)
Bostock v. Clayton County. In 2020, the Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The decision extended federal workplace protections for these employees and made it illegal for employers to fire or discriminate against someone for being gay or transgender. (590 U.S. 1731 (2020); for more information, see Sex Discrimination Under Title VII and the EPA and Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Under Title VII on Practical Law.)
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that under the First Amendment, the state could not compel a website designer to create work that violated her values. The decision highlighted the tension between free expression and anti-discrimination laws. (600 U.S. 570 (2023).)
The Trump administration has rolled back various LGBTQIA+ protections that were enacted by the preceding Biden administration. Additionally, state and local governments continue to pass legislation impacting LGBTQIA+ rights (for more information, see Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression Discrimination State and Local Laws Chart: Overview on Practical Law). Counsel should stay informed on evolving policies and court rulings under the current administration to effectively advise on LGBTQIA+ rights in areas such as employment, health care, education, and public accommodations. (For resources for counsel to assist employers in addressing sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace, see Workplace Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Elon Musk calls Trump's big bill ‘utterly insane and destructive' as senate debates
Elon Musk calls Trump's big bill ‘utterly insane and destructive' as senate debates

The Guardian

time26 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Elon Musk calls Trump's big bill ‘utterly insane and destructive' as senate debates

The billionaire tech entrepreneur Elon Musk on Saturday criticized the latest version of Donald Trump's sprawling tax and spending bill, calling it 'utterly insane and destructive. 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!' Musk wrote on Saturday as the Senate was scheduled to call a vote to open debate on the nearly 1,000-page bill. 'Utterly insane and destructive,' Musk added. 'It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.' Passing the package, Musk said, would be 'political suicide for the Republican Party.' Musk's comment reopens a recent fiery conflict between the former head of the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) and the administration he recently left. They also represent yet another headache for Republican Senate leaders who have spent the weekend working overtime to get the legislation through their chamber so it can pass by Trump's Fourth of July deadline. Earlier this month, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO also came out against the House version of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill', denouncing that proposal as a 'disgusting abomination'. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it, he wrote at the time. Musk's forceful denouncement of Trump's spending plans triggered a deep and public rift between the billionaire and the president, though Musk in recent weeks has been working to mend relations. On Saturday, Musk posted a series of disparaging comments about the senate version of the bill, which argued the legislation would undermine US investments in renewable energy. Musk boosted several comments from Jesse Jenkins, a macro-scale energy systems engineer who teaches at Princeton. After Jenkins wrote, 'The energy provisions in the Republicans' One Big Horrible Bill are truly so bad! Who wants this? The country's automakers don't want it. Electric utilities don't want it. Data center developers don't want it. Manufacturers in energy intensive industries don't want it.' Musk replied: 'Good question. Who?' Musk's continued criticism of Trump's budget proposals comes as the bill faces a rocky path in the senate. Republicans are hoping to use their majorities to overcome Democratic opposition, but several Republican senators are concerned over provisions that would reduce spending on Medicaid and food stamps to help cover the cost of extending Trump's tax breaks. Meanwhile, fiscal conservatives are worried about the nation's debt are pushing for steeper cuts.

Wall Street rocked by heavyweight slugfest as investment titan lays down massive bet against $100bn company
Wall Street rocked by heavyweight slugfest as investment titan lays down massive bet against $100bn company

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Wall Street rocked by heavyweight slugfest as investment titan lays down massive bet against $100bn company

Two billionaire Wall Street titans have gone to war over the rise of Bitcoin in the financial markets. The ongoing clash between cryptocurrency investor Michael Saylor and renowned financial skeptic James Chanos has sent shockwaves through the stock market. Saylor, the executive chairman of MicroStrategy, has built what he refers to as a 'treasury' of the cryptocurrency by amassing a huge stockpile of more than 500,000 Bitcoins over the past five years, reports the Washington Post. The investor has made billions out of the move as his company bought the currency through issuing stock and bonds, and he has seen his fortune skyrocket since President Trump was elected. Trump was once a crypto skeptic, but he has since become a keen supporter of the financial tool, even launching his own cryptocurrency, $TRUMP coin, in January. In May, Trump Media & Technology Group echoed Saylor's tactics by announcing it would raise $2.5 billion to build its own 'Bitcoin treasury.' Stocks in Saylor's company have risen an astronomic 1,500 percent since 2020, and his 'treasury' of Bitcoin is currently valued at almost double that of Bitcoin itself. The massive surge in price could have an impact on wallets across the country, as MicroStrategy is expected to join the S&P 500 - and many 401ks - at some point this year. But Chanos, a legendary Wall Street player known for betting against other companies, has gambled against Saylor's investments in a feud that could crater the stock market. Chanos announced at the Sohn Investment Conference in May that he was 'selling MicroStrategy stock and buying Bitcoin,' alleging in a subsequent CNBC interview that Saylor's 'treasury' is 'ridiculously' overvalued so he was shorting his firm. Chanos described his play of buying Bitcoin and shorting Saylor's company as the equivalent of buying something for $1 and selling it for $2.50. Jim Osman, founder of financial analysis firm Edge, told the Washington Post that the battle between the two titans has gripped traders on Wall Street, and is seen by many as a litmus test for the strength of the cryptocurrency industry at large. 'It's a poker game with very high stakes,' he said. 'One man has put everything on Bitcoin, predicting that it's the future of money. And the other man is saying it's all smoke and mirrors and that he is blinding you with science.' Osman said the clash comes down to one fundamental question: 'Do you want to bet on a dream, or do you want to bet against it?' Saylor's stockpile of over 500,000 Bitcoin is valued at around $59 billion. Chanos has long been a skeptic of cryptocurrency, and in 2018 he described it as a 'libertarian fantasy' to Cointelegraph. He has doubted the stability of Bitcoin because it is not backed by any major currency, and has labelled it 'the dark side of finance' due to its links to illegal activities. Take Compound ₿ — Michael Saylor (@saylor) June 26, 2025 Jim Chanos lays out his MSTR short strategy. 'I'm doing what Saylor is advocating. I'm selling MSTR securities to buy Bitcoin.' — Bitcoin News (@BitcoinNewsCom) June 14, 2025 Chanos has built his reputation, and net worth of around $2 billion, on shorting companies, and most famously bet against Enron before the company's accounting scandal in 2001. When Chanos laid down his gamble against Saylor in May, he said MicroStrategy's approach to cryptocurrency could lead other, less stable firms to follow suit, and ultimately lose money if he is correct. He said his trade is 'a good barometer of not only just the arbitrage itself, but I think of retail speculation', per Cointelegraph. Earlier this month, the feud between the two billionaires escalated as Saylor criticized Chanos on Bloomberg TV, warning that 'if our stock rallies up, he's going to get liquidated and wiped out.' The next day, Bloomberg showed Saylor's warning to Chanos, to which he responded: 'I always love it when management says: 'He just doesn't understand our business.' 'Michael Saylor is a wonderful salesman, but that's what he is: He's a salesman. … I call it financial gibberish.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store