that the legislative effort in Congress to repeal the discriminatory and unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is now a bipartisan affair.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) became the first Republican cosponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act (/), legislation pending in both the House and Senate that would repeal DOMA in its entirety, as well as provide all married couples certainty that regardless of where they travel or move in the country, they will not be treated as strangers under federal law.
According to the Advocate, in announcing her support for the legislation, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen said:
I voted against the constitutional amendment defining marriage [in 2006] so I'm pleased to cosponsor the repeal of DOMA and work with my colleagues on marriage equality
With Rep. Ros-Lehtinen's co-sponsorship, support for the Respect for Marriage Act in the House now stands at 125 the highest it has ever been. Companion legislation in the Senate currently has the support of 30 senators, including every Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. .
I hope you will continue to It's time to put DOMA an ugly relic of a bigoted and discriminatory past where it belongs, in the dumpster.
Learn more about LGBT rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More 勛圖眻畦 the Issues on This Page
Related Content
-
Press ReleaseJul 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Women's Rights
Supreme Court Will Hear Challenges to Bans on Athletic Participation by Transgender Students
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court today granted certiorari in two federal court cases involving transgender youth challenging bans on their participation in local school and college sports. Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status. Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers doto learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends, said Joshua Block, Senior Counsel for the 勛圖眻畦s LGBTQ & HIV Project. Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play. Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers, said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it. Earlier this year, efforts to enact a national ban failed in the U.S. Congress. Since 2020, 27 states have banned transgender youth from playing school sports. Many of these bans allow for invasive forms of sex testing that put all female student athletes at risk and open the door for any school official or adult to question and harass young women. In Florida, a 15-year-old junior varsity volleyball player was the subject of a police investigation after an anonymous accusation, prompting local officials to draft a 500-page report investigating her medical history, body weight, and anatomy. In Utah, a teenage basketball player was accused of being transgender by a member of the state board of education, leading to threats of violence against her and her family, and a teenager in Maine faced a similar attack from a state senator. In May, President Donald Trump bullied a 16-year-old transgender girl for participating in a high school track meet. Many women athletes have spoken out against bullying and discrimination against transgender student athletes. This includes Billie Jean King, Megan Rapinoe, Dawn Staley, Sue Bird, and Brianna Turner, as well as leading organizations fighting for gender equality in athletics including the Womens Sports Foundation, the Womens National Basketball Players Association, and the National Womens Law Center. The two cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear include: Little v. Hecox, a challenge brought by one transgender and one cisgender student athlete against Idahos 2020 ban on transgender athletes and requirements for sex testing West Virginia v. B.P.J., a challenge brought by a teenage transgender girl against West Virginias 2021 ban on transgender athletic participation The two cases charge the bans with violating the rights of transgender and cisgender female students under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. In addition, West Virginia v. B.P.J. argues that the bans violate Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs. Federal courts have blocked enforcement of these bans in both lawsuits. These cases are part of the 勛圖眻畦s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.Court Case: B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of EducationAffiliates: Idaho, West Virginia -
News & CommentaryJun 2025
LGBTQ Rights
The Supreme Court Dealt A Blow to Trans Rights. Here's How to Take Action
The decision in Skrmetti v. U.S. is not the end of the road. We can, and must, show up for trans youth in the courts and in our communities.By: Gillian Branstetter -
PodcastJun 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Who We Fight For: The Journey to Trans Liberation
By: 勛圖眻畦 -
Press ReleaseJun 2025
LGBTQ Rights
勛圖眻畦, Lambda Legal Respond to Supreme Court Ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti
WASHINGTON This morning, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a challenge brought by three transgender adolescents, their families, and a Memphis-based medical provider against a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming hormone therapies for transgender people under 18. The Court agreed with parts of the Sixth Circuits opinion that allowed the law to take effect, holding that Tennessees SB1 does not draw a sex-based (or a trans status-based) line and thus only necessitates deferential review by the courts. That means SB1 can remain in effect. Notably, however, the decision is based on the record in and context of the Tennessee case and therefore does not extend to other cases concerning discrimination based on transgender status. Todays ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution, said Chase Strangio, Co-Director of the 勛圖眻畦s LGBTQ & HIV Project. Though this is a painful setback, it does not mean that transgender people and our allies are left with no options to defend our freedom, our health care, or our lives. The Court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful. We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve. This is a heartbreaking ruling, making it more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive, said Sasha Buchert, Counsel and Director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal. But we will continue to fight fiercely to protect them. Make no mistake, gender-affirming care is often life-saving care, and all major medical associations have determined it to be safe, appropriate, and effective. This is a sad day, and the implications will reverberate for years and across the country, but it does not shake our resolve to continue fighting. Today the Supreme Court told Tennessee transgender youth and their families that they cannot access healthcare that is vitally important for a successful life, said Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, Senior Staff Attorney at the 勛圖眻畦 of Tennessee. This ruling creates a class of people who politicians believe deserve healthcare, and a class of people who do not. We will continue to stand with transgender people in Tennessee and are committed to realizing a world where all people belong, are valued, and can access the necessary healthcare they need. U.S. v. Skrmetti began when a lawsuit was filed by the 勛圖眻畦, the 勛圖眻畦 of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on behalf of Samantha and Brian Williams of Nashville and their 16-year-old transgender daughter, as well as two other plaintiff families filing anonymously and Memphis-based physician Dr. Susan Lacy. The plaintiff families and Dr. Lacy argued that the law violates the Equal Protection rights of transgender adolescents. Under President Joe Biden, the United States intervened to also argue that the Tennessee law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After President Trumps inauguration, the U.S. reversed its position. Since 2021, 25 states have enacted categorical bans on gender-affirming medical care, such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, for treating gender dysphoria in transgender youth yet readily allow those same medications for other and similar purposes for cisgender youth. Over 100,000 transgender people under 18 now live in a state with a ban on their health care. In January 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing federal agencies to withhold funds from medical providers and institutions that provide gender-affirming medical treatments such as puberty suppressants and hormone therapies to any trans person under 19. That order was soon challenged on behalf of families, medical providers, and advocates by the 勛圖眻畦 and the Lambda Legal and is blocked from enforcement by a preliminary injunction. This case is a part of the 勛圖眻畦s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.Court Case: L.W. v. Skrmetti/U.S. v. SkrmettiAffiliate: Tennessee