A gay couple from the U.S. is among the four people found dead in a mass grave in Mexico last month.

The Associated Press reported Zafar Mawani and Guillermo Hidalgo Ortiz disappeared on May 20. The couple was last seen in Mexico City’s Isidro Fabela neighborhood.

Media reports indicate Mawani and Hidalgo lived in Mexico and Chicago. They note the couple had traveled to Mexico City to care for Mawani’s sick mother. NBC Chicago reported investigators found “unusual withdrawals from the couple’s bank accounts” after they disappeared.

The AP notes Mexican authorities on June 25 confirmed Mawani and Hidalgo were among the four people found in the mass grave in La Marquesa National Park, which is roughly 20 miles southwest of Mexico City, on June 17.

Mexican media reports indicate a female former police officer who allegedly led a kidnapping and robbery gang is among the five people who have been arrested in connection with the couple’s murder.

“We are grateful beyond words to everyone who tried to help bring Zafar home to us — investigators on the ground, our core strategy and support team, authorities in both countries, generous volunteer organizations, as well as friends and loved ones who stepped forward to help without being asked,” said Mawani’s family in a statement.

Kidnappings are common in Mexico.

The AP notes more than 135,000 people are currently missing in the country “as a product of criminal violence,” with 977 people reported to have disappeared in May. Members of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel in February set fire to cars and buses in Puerto Vallarta, a resort city in Jalisco state that is a popular destination for LGBTQ+ tourists from the U.S., after Mexican forces killed its powerful leader.

It is not clear whether Mawani and Hidalgo were specifically targeted because of their sexual orientation.

More than 100,000 people participated in the 26th Pride March in Santiago, Chile, one of the largest demonstrations by the LGBTQ+ movement in the South American country, on June 27. 

The event, organized by the Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation and Fundación Iguales, proceeded along the Alameda, the capital’s main avenue, with flags, signs, and slogans in support of equality, against a backdrop of concern among organizations regarding the direction of President José Antonio Kast’s administration.

The march was preceded by speeches in Plaza Baquedano and included the participation of human rights organizations, families, activists, victims of discrimination, and representatives from various embassies. This year, the parade was also led by LGBTQ+ seniors from the group Años Rosados, part of Acción Gay, as a gesture of historical remembrance for those who lived through decades when publicly expressing one’s sexual orientation or gender identity could mean persecution, imprisonment, or social exclusion.

“This march demonstrates that the fight for equality is still alive and will not be pushed back into the closet,” said Movilh spokesperson Javiera Zúñiga. “We march with remembrance, with pride, and with the conviction that Chile cannot roll back the rights we have won.” 

During the event, the organizations called upon the Chilean government to move forward with a comprehensive reform of the Zamudio Law — the anti-discrimination law in effect since 2012 — as well as to introduce penalties for hate speech and strengthen protections for LGBTQ+ people in education, health care, the workplace, and public spaces.

Movilh founder Rolando Jiménez noted that Chile between 1991 and 2022 made significant strides toward equality and nondiscrimination. He warned, however, that this progress has begun to lose momentum in recent years and that, under the current administration, the signs have become increasingly concerning.

“For decades, Chile forged a path of progress, with laws and public policies that expanded rights. Today we are marching because there are attacks aimed at weakening those protections and preventing further progress,” Jiménez stated.

The march took place place in a country that, in recent years, has established a robust legal framework for sexual and gender diversity. Chile has had a Civil Union Agreement since 2015, a transgender rights law since 2018, and marriage equality since 2022. For these organizations, this legal framework explains why recent decisions by the executive branch and Congress are viewed as signs of regression, not merely as administrative debates.

One of the main points of concern arose in March, when the Kast administration shortly after the new president took office decided not to endorse an Organization of American States’ LGBTQ+ rights declaration. The decision marked a departure from the stance taken by previous administrations and was interpreted by civil society organizations as a sign of a weakening of Chile’s foreign policy on human rights.

The Foreign Affairs Ministry, however, has maintained that Chile remains committed to promoting and protecting human rights without discrimination, and that the decision stemmed from differences regarding the document’s wording. That explanation has not fully dispelled the doubts of these organizations, which, during the march, demanded that the executive branch take a clear and consistent public stance.

One hundred days into the Kast administration, Fundación Iguales also presented the findings of its LGBTQ+ Radar, an ongoing monitoring initiative of government, legislative, and administrative measures that impact the rights of LGBTQ+ people in Chile. 

According to the organization, of the nine measures recorded so far, five have been rated as unfavorable, three remain under evaluation, and only one has been considered favorable.

Among the adverse measures, Fundación Iguales identifies actions that, in its view, involve hostility, restriction, or elimination of previously existing public policies or safeguards. In this category, it includes the repeal of Circular 781, which protected LGBTQ+ students in educational institutions; Chile’s decision to abstain from the OAS LGBTQ+ declaration; the elimination of the section on diversity from the national household survey; the discontinuation of the inclusion training program for public officials; and alignment with the U.S. to restrict the definition of gender at the U.N.

The monitoring also includes three measures currently under evaluation whose final impact has not yet been determined: the National Human Rights Plan, the regulations on access to justice, and the regulations for the Adoption Law. In contrast, the only favorable measure identified so far is the enactment of the School Coexistence Law, which the foundation considers an action that expands or protects rights.

Fundación Iguales states that the LGBTQ+ Radar is updated in real time and that each measure includes its source, date, and the responsible institution. For the organization, the assessment of Kast’s first 100 days confirms that the signals from the executive branch are not isolated incidents but part of a pattern that must be monitored by civil society and the international community.

Another controversial move took place in the education sector. The Superintendency of Education repealed circulars related to school coexistence and internal regulations, including provisions addressing gender identity and nondiscrimination. However, a few days before the march, the Comptroller General’s Office upheld the legality of Circular 812, which protects the rights of trans students in the school system, rejecting the attempt to declare that regulation illegal.

For Fundación Iguales, this ruling was a significant signal amid an adverse political climate. 

“The fact that organized groups have tried to eliminate this circular speaks volumes about the times we are living in. We celebrate that the Comptroller’s Office has clarified the matter, and we will remain vigilant to prevent setbacks,” said María José Cumplido, the organization’s executive director.

The debate also reached Congress. 

The Chamber of Deputies amid Pride month approved a draft resolution calling on Kast to eliminate the use of inclusive language in public services. The initiative, backed by right-wing sectors, called for the repeal of administrative acts promoting these forms of communication and for a ban on what it defined as “grammatical distortions” based on gender, ethnicity, or other identity classifications.

For LGBTQ+ organizations, the measure is ideological in nature and fails to recognize that inclusive language has not been a widespread imposition, but rather a tool used in certain contexts to name historically excluded groups. At the march, this point was one of the most frequently cited examples of the new political climate that has taken hold under the Kast administration.

Despite this situation, the organizations also highlighted a positive institutional development: Senate President Paulina Núñez of Renovación Nacional, a more moderate right-wing ruling party, pledged in May to push for reform of the Zamudio Law and to serve as a bridge with the executive branch to advance the modernization of anti-discrimination legislation. The reform is currently stalled in Congress, despite years of criticism from human rights organizations regarding its limited effectiveness.

“The commitment to move forward with reforming the Zamudio Law is good news, because Chile needs effective anti-discrimination legislation, with real tools to protect victims and combat hate speech,” Movilh representatives stated.

The march culminated with a cultural event in Plaza Los Héroes, but the political message was clear from the start: the organizations not only celebrated the progress made but also warned that these rights require constant defense.

For the organizing groups, the country continues to have a strong legal foundation regarding sexual and gender diversity, but it faces a period of uncertainty under a conservative government that, in its first months, has sent mixed signals about the continuity of those commitments.

Chile already has legislation in place regarding gender identity, civil unions, and marriage equality. For this reason, the organizations believe that the setbacks they have observed are not merely symbolic but could undermine the safeguards that form part of the democratic framework the country has built over the past decades.

Massachusetts Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging the Trump-Vance administration to take urgent action to defend LGBTQ+ people across the globe; including in countries that are violating international human rights protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, putting at risk the safety of civilians and U.S. citizens working, living, and traveling abroad.

The letter, which the Los Angeles Blade got an exclusive preview of prior to it’s sending, criticizes the Trump-Vance administration’s foreign policy direction at the State Department, arguing that it has moved to roll back LGBTQ+ protections that have long been part of the U.S.’s global human rights posture.

“Criminalizing LGBTQI+ individuals undermines democracy globally, as well as U.S. national security. Thus, we urge the State Department to take adequate measures to speak out against this criminalization and protect U.S. citizens abroad, including your staff, who may be detained or harmed under such laws, policies, and practices,” Pressley, a Democrat who represents roughly three-fourths of Boston and much of the city’s suburbs, said. “U.S. civilians, diplomatic personnel, military members, and nonprofit workers on the ground providing health care and disaster support will be affected and have their safety threatened if the U.S. does not take action. Even U.S. citizens perceived as being part of the LGBTQI+ community and traveling or living in those countries may be used as bargaining chips. This is a serious U.S. national security concern.”

In the letter, Pressley underscores what she describes as a global escalation in criminalization and violence against LGBTQ+ people, noting that one-third of countries still criminalize consensual same-sex sexual relationships and that 12 countries impose the death penalty. She argues that these conditions make LGBTQ+ travelers, diplomats, and aid workers particularly vulnerable, and calls on the State Department to reassert U.S. leadership in defending human rights abroad.

“Every person deserves to live authentically, yet several countries are violating international human rights laws that protect LGBTQI+ individuals,” she said. “One-third of countries around the world criminalize same-sex consensual acts between adults, and 12 countries allow LGBTQI+ people to be executed for being themselves.”

She also invokes the U.S. has played in promoting democratic values internationally, arguing that LGBTQ+ rights should remain central to that mission.

“Historically, the United States has played a critical diplomatic role in promoting democracy and freedom for all individuals, including LGBTQI+ persons. The U.S. should be a world leader promoting human rights domestically and globally.”

In a separate statement included in the letter, Pressley emphasized both the moral and national security implications of the issue, warning that rising anti-LGBTQ+ laws abroad are endangering lives and require a coordinated U.S. response.

“Every person deserves to show up as their true, authentic selves here in the United States and in countries across the globe — and that includes our LGBTQI+ community members,” she said.

“However, we are witnessing a deeply concerning rise in human rights violations and criminalization of LGBTQI+ individuals in other countries, endangering the lives of civilians and U.S. citizens. It is incumbent upon the United States to protect our LGBTQI+ siblings at home and abroad not only for our national security but for the safety and freedom of LGBTQI+ people everywhere.”

The letter goes on to press the State Department for concrete action, including a public reaffirmation of U.S. commitments to LGBTQ+ human rights, the restoration of LGBTQ+ analysis in annual country reports, and clearer guidance for Americans traveling abroad. It also seeks clarity on whether the department is tracking cases of U.S. citizens detained or harmed under anti-LGBTQ+ laws and what proactive steps are being taken to warn and protect LGBTQ+ travelers.

While she is not a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Pressley remains highly active in international affairs and global policy.

While the letter focuses on current policy, it also lands in the broader context of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s long record on LGBTQ+ issues. Rubio, a former senator from Florida, has consistently opposed same-sex marriage, calling the federal Respect for Marriage Act, which he voted against, a “stupid waste of time.” He has also expressed support for efforts to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

During his time in the U.S. Senate and as a Florida political leader, Rubio has a long anti-LGBTQ+ track record. He defended state policies that LGBTQ+ advocates say target queer and transgender people, including Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law — commonly known by critics as “Don’t Say Gay” or “Don’t Say Trans” — which restricts classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity.

He has also drawn criticism for his voting record, including a 0/100 score from the Human Rights Campaign’s Congressional Scorecard, reflecting opposition to expanding federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ people and for opposing adoption rights for same-sex couples.

Now serving as secretary of state, Rubio has overseen changes at the State Department that LGBTQ+ advocates say have reduced visibility and protections for transgender people, including the removal of trans-specific references from parts of the department’s public-facing materials and travel guidance. He has also been linked to broader restructuring efforts involving U.S. foreign assistance programs, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has historically supported global HIV prevention and LGBTQ+ rights initiatives in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America.

Those cuts and shifts, critics argue, have weakened programs like PEPFAR — credited with saving millions of lives worldwide — and reduced U.S. support for LGBTQ+ communities facing persecution abroad. The program is credited with saving at least 25 million lives.

Pressley’s own record stands in contrast, with a 100/100 on HRC’s Congressional Scorecard and a long history of legislative and advocacy work centered on LGBTQ+ equality. In recent years, she has secured federal funding for The Pryde, an affordable housing development for LGBTQ+ seniors in Boston, and has repeatedly pushed for expanded civil rights protections, including support for the Equality Act and the Equal Rights Amendment.

She has also advanced policy efforts aimed at LGBTQ+ survivors of violence, trans, and nonbinary individuals navigating credit and legal systems, and broader protections under housing and civil rights law — framing her work as part of a sustained effort to ensure LGBTQ+ people are included in federal policy at every level.

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.

Both cases question the constitutionality of laws from both states that block trans girls from participating on girls’ teams at publicly funded schools — specifically if these bans violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Since 2020, 27 states have banned transgender youth from playing school sports.

In a 6-3 decision made on party lines, the conservative justices asserted that laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating in sports programs at publicly funded schools does not violate either constitutionally protected right. Notably the ruling does not require any state to categorically bar transgender girls from participating on girls’ sports teams, or transgender boys from participating on boys’ sports teams.

In the majority for the case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion. It holds that schools can determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex. It also holds that West Virginia did not violate Title IX, which bars educational programs that receive federal funding from discriminating based on sex.

“Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the States may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America.”

The Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Kavanaugh’s majority opinion. It permissibly maintains female sports for biological females.

In his conclusion, Kavanaugh shares his belief of the importance of sports to women and girls but also a caution that “[n]o student-athlete on either side of the issue … deserves to be ostracized or vilified.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor opinion was concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Justices Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor’s opinion.

In her dissent, Sotomayor explains that the majority opinion, while attempting to protect one groups Constitutional rights (those assigned women at birth), it puts another group’s constitutional rights (trans women) at its expense and in principle violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

“Because the majority, however, inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions, I respectfully dissent,” Sotomayor wrote, eventually pointing to how the states had evaluated issues of trans sports participants prior to these bans as evidence of general omission. “The ban eliminated this individualized approach in favor of categorical exclusion.”

She also pointed out that these rules to not equally exclude, further bolstering her argument that the majority opinion was not created with the truest sense of the Equal Protection Clause at its center.

“Teams “designated” for “females” “shall not be open to students of the male sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport.” Teams “designated” for “males” do not have the same restriction.”

Jackson wrote in her dissent that this ban does explicitly allow for sex discrimination in any school or education program that receives federal funding.

“A transgender woman penalized for being perceived as aggressive has experienced discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ just as much as a cisgender woman has, no matter that the transgender woman’s behavior matches expectations of her sex assigned at birth,” Jackson said. “Either way, the institution has imposed its gender-based expectations upon her. And either way, the institution may have violated Title IX.”

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the case centers on B.P.J., a trans girl who was barred from competing on her school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams under West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act, enacted in 2021. Under the law, it requires participation to be based on the athlete’s biological sex as indicated on their original birth certificate issued at the time of birth.

In Little v. Hecox, the details are slightly different, but ask the same 14th Amendment and Title IX questions but against Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. In this case Hecox, a trans woman and student at Boise State University wished to join the women’s cross-country team, but couldn’t under the law. She, with a cisgender athlete filed a suit against the governor, arguing the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment explicitly protects their rights to participate on the woman’s team.

Trans rights activists have criticized the highest court in the land’s decision, highlighting it legally allows for discrimination based on gender identity — something they argue is a foundational element of the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause.

Jennifer Levi, senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLAD Law outright called the six conservative justices view of Equal Protection and Title IX as “wrong.” 

“Today’s ruling gets it wrong. And it’s kids who will suffer for it. By upholding these blanket bans, the Supreme Court has allowed states to deny students even the chance to try out for a school team, simply because they are transgender,” Levi told the Los Angeles Blade in a statement. “Policies that categorically bar students don’t advance fairness; they mandate exclusion.” 

She continued, pointing out excluding some for the protection of others does not ensure fairness as the justices are arguing in their opinion.

“When a law bars every transgender girl regardless of age, hormones, or physiology, it isn’t about competitive fairness. It’s about keeping transgender kids out. We can protect women’s sports without doing that. Most of the country already does.”  

Chris Erchull, senior staff attorney at GLAD Law, pointed out that while disappointing, the court does not mandate discrimination as the policy.

“This ruling does not require any state to follow West Virginia’s or Idaho’s cruel, overly-broad approach, and it does not mandate categorical bans on transgender students participating in school sports,” Erchull said. “It also leaves intact broader nondiscrimination protections for transgender students in education, including Title IX’s protections against sex discrimination for LGBTQ+ students. Discrimination has no place in our schools, and we can and should ensure that every student has the opportunity to learn, to thrive, and to know that they belong.”  

Sasha Buchert, senior attorney and director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal, also emphasized the bad faith argument the majority opinion pushes for the sake of one exclusionary view of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.

“This ruling is deeply harmful for transgender women and girls who only asked for the ability to participate in sports with their peers,” Buchert said. “Countless studies have demonstrated the myriad benefits that come with participation in team sports. Now, one population, transgender youth and collegians, are targeted for specific and baseless discrimination. We will not be deterred and will continue to fight back to secure the equal participation that all youth, including transgender youth, deserve.”

Joshua Block, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project also echoed the lasting negative impact this ruling will have for trans Americans.

“This is a heartbreaking ruling for our clients and transgender girls like them who’ve asked for nothing more than the same opportunities afforded to their peers.” Block said. “The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from, and in fact promotes, the equality of all women and girls. We will continue to advance the fundamental principle that all young people deserve equal opportunity to thrive and succeed.”

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, who himself is trans, issued a statement, reassuring that while upon face value the decision seems to undermine the rights of trans sports participants, it does not make that the rule.

“Today’s limited decision means that states and schools across the country still have the power to make reasonable rules to ensure fairness without banning all transgender girls,” said Minter. “Like other health or medical considerations in sports, reasonable policies for transgender student athletes rely on individual assessments rather than blanket bans. Every child deserves the chance to play sports with their friends and learn the lessons sports teach, including determination, resilience, and teamwork.” 

Kelly O’Neill, an attorney for Legal Voice’s from Idaho also provided a statement to the Blade.

“It is profoundly unfair to deny a young person the benefits of teamwork and dedication because of who they are,” O’Neill said. “We should be removing barriers for girls and women in sports, not creating new ones.”

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson came to a similar conclusion.

“No kid — not my kid, not your kid, not any kid — deserves to be discriminated against. Yet this ruling is heartbreaking for transgender student athletes who are being forced to sit on the sidelines simply for who they are. When politicians convince the public that any girl could be ‘the wrong kind of girl,’ they invite harassment, intimidation, invasive questioning, or even an inspection of their body by a total stranger,” Robinson wrote in a statement shared with the Blade. “It’s sadly just the latest decision by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court to roll back protections for marginalized communities and create a second class citizenship for millions of people. We are sacrificing the dignity, privacy, and safety of America’s young people to solve a problem that was manufactured and exploited for political gain … We must continue this fight with full force until freedom, justice and equal opportunity are not flimsy promises, but nationwide guarantees.”

GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis, who presides over the world’s largest LGBTQ media advocacy organization, issued a statement on the ruling.

“This decision is at odds with the fundamental principles of fairness, freedom, and family that define our country and our communities. By allowing sweeping restrictions on a very small number of transgender students who simply wanted to participate in sports alongside their peers, the ruling creates an unnecessarily unfair playing field,” Ellis said. “Personal freedom and opportunity are best served when our legal protections expand access and guarantee safety for everyone. Today’s decision unfairly strips the rights of a few and threatens the ability of every girl and woman to play the sports they love.”

On the other side of the ideological isle, U.S. Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the state’s women and girl trans sport ban. In a statement the Republican called the court’s conservative view of as a win for “women, fairness, and the Gem State.”

“Idaho was the first state in the nation to ban biological men from competing in women’s sports and uphold the opportunities Title IX promised more than 50 years ago,” Risch said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s decision affirms those protections and the generations of women who fought for fair, equal athletics.”

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.