Attorneys for gay former FBI employee David Maltinsky, who was fired from his job as a non-agent employee at the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office in October 2025 after more than 16 years of service for displaying an LGBTQ Pride flag at his workstation, filed court papers on July 15 opposing a motion by government attorneys to dismiss some but not all of the provisions in his unlawful discrimination lawsuit seeking to overturn the firing.

Maltinsky’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in D.C. on Nov. 19, 2025, states that FBI Director Kash Patel acted illegally by violating Maltinsky’s First Amendment conditional rights and the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 by ordering his firing on grounds that he “exercised poor judgement with an inappropriate display of political signage” by displaying the Pride flag.

The firing came at a time when Maltinsky successfully completed 16 weeks of the FBI’s 19-week training program at the FBI training academy in Quantico, Va. to become an FBI Special Agent, according to the lawsuit.

In addition to Patel, who took office as FBI director in February 2025 under the Trump administration, the lawsuit names as defendants the FBI itself, Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, and the U.S. Department of Justice, which oversees the FBI.

“Defendants discriminated against Maltinsky for engaging in protected speech, for his sexual orientation, and for opposing discrimination – a clear and brazen violation of federal law and the Constitution,” the lawsuit states in an amended complaint filed May 5, 2026.

The Department of Justice, which is representing the FBI in its response to the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to a request from the Washington Blade for comment on the lawsuit and why it is seeking dismissal of some but not all of the lawsuit’s multiple allegations, including its claim that the firing violated Maltinsky’s First Amendment rights.

In its “Partial” motion filed on June 15, 2026, to dismiss some provisions in the lawsuit, the Justice Department through Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate and Associate Branch Director Christopher Hall, stated that the lawsuit fails to provide sufficient evidence that Maltinsky was fired because he is gay.    

“The Amended Complaint contains no factual allegations that Director Patel or any other decisionmaker expressed hostility toward gay employees, relied on Plaintiff’s sexual orientation in making employment decisions, even knew Plaintiff’s sexual orientation or otherwise indicated that Plaintiff’s status as a gay man played any role in the challenged actions,” the motion states.

Based on that, among other things, the motion says the lawsuit’s claim that the firing violated the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be dismissed. A 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled that the 1964 law bans employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity along with its other categories including race, religion, and gender.  

In its arguments that the decision to fire Maltinsky was illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust, the lawsuit’s amended complaint points out that FBI officials at the Los Angeles Field Office where Maltinsky worked presented the Pride flag to him and gave him full permission to display it at his workstation.  

“The FBI encouraged and honored Maltinsky’s work by awarding him the 2020 Director’s Award For Excellence-Outstanding Service in Diversity and Inclusion,” the lawsuit says. “In 2022, the Attorney General for the Department of Justice awarded Maltinsky the Attorney General’s Award for Equal Employment Opportunity, DOJ’s highest award for performance in support of the Equal Employment Program,” it says.

“In special recognition of Maltinsky’s efforts to improve the FBI, in June 2021 LAFO [Los Angeles Field Office] leadership entrusted to Maltinsky two Pride flags that had been flown from the flagpole located in front of the LAFO,” the lawsuit complaint continues. “Maltinsky displayed one of those flags at his workstation.”

Although the lawsuit doesn’t say so directly, all of that happened during the administration of President Joe Biden and previous FBI Director Christopher Wray, who held the director’s position from August 2017 to January 2025, when Donald Trump took office as president.

Nathaniel Zelinsky, one of the attorneys representing Maltinsky regarding the lawsuit, told the Blade that because the Justice Department did not contest the lawsuit’s First Amendment provisions, the case will move forward to the discovery stage, in which he and fellow attorneys can seek and obtain government documents, and most likely go to trial. He said that regardless of whether the judge approves the dismissal of the lawsuit provisions the government has asked for, the other provisions and the case as a whole  will continue.

“And those First Amendment claims are extremely serious,” he said. “The government, by its admission, fired David Maltinsky because they did not like the speech he displayed when he put up the Pride flag that was gifted to him by the FBI,” Zelinsky said. “The federal government cannot discriminate against its workers based on their speech.”      

An officer-involved shooting outside of a gay dive bar, Shakey’s, in downtown Asheville, N.C., left one man dead Wednesday.

The bar released a statement the following morning regarding the incident, stating that bar staff had asked a patron to leave earlier in the night citing concerning behavior. The bar said that later the man was spotted with a gun in the parking lot.

The bar proceeded to call 911, locked the doors to the establishment, and followed dispatcher instructions on how to keep patrons of the bar safe while officers arrived. These protocols included getting patrons away from the windows and staying low to the ground.

According to Shakey’s, shots were fired outside of the business. When the Asheville Police Department officers arrived, they fired back. The individual died from their injuries, according to the police.

“Because of everyone’s quick actions, cooperation, and concern for one another, every customer and every employee inside Shakey’s made it home safely. We are incredibly thankful,” Shakey’s said on their Instagram page. They thanked Asheville police, emergency dispatchers, EMS, and all first responders who were on scene.

On Thursday, a spokesperson for the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, Chad Flowers, stated that the suspect involved in the shooting was Arturo Castillo Palomar.

The Los Angeles Blade reached out to the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation for a comment regarding the possibility of the event being considered a hate crime. They said the issue is currently under investigation and that the findings would be turned over to the district attorney for review.

Uncloseted Media published this article on July 14.

By HOPE PISONI | Jordan Korgood has come a long way. In 2023, she ran into financial difficulties while studying at Northeastern University in Boston and ended up unhoused. Ordinary shelters are hotbeds of discrimination and mistreatment for transgender women like her, and the only trans shelter was full. So for five months, she slept in her car, in public libraries and anywhere she could find in order to continue her studies and campus activism.

Korgood, now 24, started a bid in March for a seat on Massachusetts Governor’s Council, a state board tasked with approving judicial candidates. Despite running against an incumbent who has been in office for 41 years, she secured key endorsements from local Democrats and racked up more than 7,000 Instagram followers, the equivalent of nearly one-tenth of primary voters during the last election cycle.

But last month, her momentum was ripped away. It started when Ronald Iacobucci, one of her opponents, noticed that she was still registered to vote in the 2024 election with an old New York address. He proceeded to file an objection with the state, alleging that Korgood didn’t meet the five-year residency requirement. While Korgood has lived in Massachusetts since 2019, she didn’t have a valid address to register in the state while she was unhoused. So she used her mother’s address, where she had lived before moving.

In an email to Uncloseted Media, Iacobucci wrote: “Because serious questions have arisen concerning compliance with those requirements, an objection was appropriate so the matter can be reviewed through the lawful process established by the commonwealth. This objection was nothing personal, it was always about the integrity of the process.”

While most residency challenges like this fail in Massachusetts, the State Ballot Law Commission disqualified Korgood on June 18. While she initially attempted to appeal the decision, the financial and logistical burden became too much — she estimates it drained about 40 percent of her campaign funds. So on July 10, Korgood suspended her campaign.

“I am incredibly frustrated that this is what I have to do at this point,” Korgood told Uncloseted Media. “I’ve spent thousands of hours, I’ve sacrificed my own mental health, my social life, friendships, my professional aspirations and advancement to work on this campaign, and this is how they’re ruling.”

“These are cherry-picking remote issues to target specific individuals,” Eliot Tracz, assistant professor of law at New England Law Boston, told Uncloseted Media. “They’re legitimate laws, but what they’re looking for is a selective application.”

Korgood isn’t the only trans candidate facing barriers. While a 2025 report by the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute found that trans representation among elected officials has increased by over 700 percent since 2017, candidates still face major hurdles.

Uncloseted Media found examples of trans candidates running for public office in Ohio and Michigan who have been threatened with disqualification over challenges to their eligibility. Often, the challenges come from their primary opponents: fellow Democrats.

“It should be voters, not political opponents, who decide who represents them,” Daniel Hernandez, vice president of political programs at the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, a nonprofit supporting queer candidates for public office, told Uncloseted Media. “This is not a legitimate way to fight — if you have a disagreement on policy, that’s one thing, but to try and target trans people just because of who they are is completely unacceptable, especially in a Democratic primary.”

A growing strategy

The first widely publicized eligibility challenge against a trans candidate Uncloseted Media identified took place in Stark County, Ohio, in 2024. The Stark County Board of Elections, which has the same chairman as the county’s Democratic Party, disqualified Vanessa Joy, a trans woman who was running for a seat in the state legislature. The board cited an obscure state law requiring candidates who changed their name in the last five years to list their former name on candidacy petitions — in Joy’s case, her deadname.

“The original spirit of the law I kind of agree with,” Joy told Uncloseted Media. “But there’s hardly any information about this law ever being enforced.”

Days later, Arienne Childrey and Bobbie Arnold, two other trans candidates, had their eligibility challenged based on this law. While both candidates were cleared to run, that wasn’t the case for Joy, who never made it on the ballot.

Tom Sutton, a political science professor at Baldwin Wallace University, told Spectrum News 1 he had never seen this law enforced in his 30 years of study. At the time, the relevant forms didn’t include a space to list former names, an omission that has since been corrected.

“The only way to find out about it was to dig deep into all of the additional documents on their website,” says Joy. “They used this law against me.”

Similar challenges cropped up in Michigan this year. Joanna Whaley, a trans woman running for a seat in the state legislature, faced a legal complaint from her Democratic primary opponent Frank Liberati, who claimed in April that she should have filed campaign paperwork under her deadname.

“Because both the original and amended affidavits of identity filed by ‘Joanna Michelle Whaley’ contain FALSE statements, she/he cannot be certified to appear on the Aug. 4, 2026, primary election ballot,” the complaint argues.

The county clerk denied the challenge, which deadnames Whaley, because she had legally changed her name. Liberati’s complaint was widely condemned, with the Michigan Legislative LGBTQ+ Caucus calling it “meritless” and “transphobic.”

“It completely backfired on him,” Whaley told Uncloseted Media. “We tripled our cash on hand within a week because of the support that we’ve gotten from our community, and actually are in a stronger position now to win this race.”

While Whaley benefited from the challenge, that’s not the norm. Toni Mua, a trans woman running for a seat in the Michigan legislature, received a complaint from political activist Robert Davis in April who alleged that she also should have run under her deadname.

One of Mua’s opponents, Democrat Arthur Harrington, had discussed the challenge with Davis before it was filed, according to DeNiro Jones, Harrington’s former campaign manager. Jones told Uncloseted Media he sat in on a meeting between the two where they discussed the plan.

Jones also sent Uncloseted Media a screenshot of what he says is a text thread that Harrington sent him. In the screenshot, Davis tells Harrington, “The transgender candidate will be eliminated,” and Harrington responds that “Toni also won’t have the money to fight it.” Those texts were from April 22, two days before Davis filed the challenge.

In an email to Uncloseted Media, Davis called this story “baseless and meritless” and referred to Mua as “an illegitimate candidate seeking attention.”

“A candidate who happens to identify as transgender clearly violated Michigan Election Law and should not have been allowed to appear on the ballot,” Davis wrote. “A person’s sexual orientation nor identity played no part in the litigation seeking to have the person who filed a false affidavit of identity properly removed from the ballot.”

Arthur Harrington did not reply to multiple requests for comment. But in a June statement to Michigan Advance, he denied allegations that he was involved in Davis’s challenge.

These legal fights cost a lot. Korgood paid her lawyer $5,000. And while Mua defeated her challenge, she also had to use an estimated 40 percent of her campaign funds, or $10,000, to fight it.

In its opinion rejecting Davis’s challenge of Mua’s candidacy, the state court of appeals wrote, “Plaintiff misreads the statute … The Court of Claims did not err by concluding that Mua complied with the law or that the Wayne County Clerk did not err in rejecting plaintiff’s challenge.”

“I had to leave my job to run for this open seat,” Mua told Uncloseted Media. “It truly pisses me off, because [Democrats] have always said that they were better than this, and it’s showing truly where their support lies.”

Quinn Allred, executive director at Let Us Lead, a youth-focused voting rights nonprofit, finds these eligibility challenges from Democrats “despicable.”

“Instead of saying ‘trans people shouldn’t be running,’ [they’re entering] into this respectability politics and saying ‘oh, it’s actually because the names don’t match up, or it’s because of this residency law,’” Allred told Uncloseted Media. “[It’s a] special brand of cowardice that it takes for a Democrat to target a queer person who is also running for office.”

Uneven enforcement

While challenges to candidates’ residency aren’t uncommon in Massachusetts, they usually fail, according to Western Mass Politics & Insight, a long-running blog by local political and legal analysts.

The blog says most officials with authority over elections have a “great reluctance … to remove an individual from the ballot.” This makes Korgood’s removal unusual.

And while the State Ballot Law Commission says it considers many factors when determining a candidate’s residency and “no factor standing alone can be dispositive,” it largely cited Korgood’s voter registration in its decision despite other evidence that supports her eligibility, including apartment leases and membership in city programs.

“While there’s an undertone of legitimacy to some of those claims, it’s very selective,” Tracz says. “Most of us, when we move to a new state, don’t bother to go through the process of getting rid of our registration to vote in the prior state.”

Throughout history, Massachusetts candidates who faced similar challenges have been left on the ballot. These include former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who received a tax credit in Utah reserved for primary residences, and Brockton, Mass., mayoral candidate Hamilton Rodrigues, who had gotten his voter registration in Brockton removed and hadn’t voted in the city for over 10 years.

Months after Joy’s disqualification in Ohio, the Mahoning County Board of Elections struck down a similar challenge against Republican Tex Fischer, a cisgender man who changed his legal name. They allowed him to stay on the ballot.

Tracz says a judge would likely find selective enforcement like this questionable.

“[That rule is] applicable to any candidate, and the question then becomes ‘Is this only being enforced against a select group of candidates?’” he says. “Why are we only investigating a specific type of candidate? I think that will give some courts pause.”

Making existing challenges worse

Trans candidates face hurdles beyond eligibility challenges. A June report from the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute found that nearly two-thirds of LGBTQ+ candidates face in-person harassment and nearly 80 percent of them face online harassment.

“Whether it’s threats of violence, coordinated harassment campaigns, attempts to remove people from the ballot, the cumulative effect is the same: public service becoming more difficult and less accessible to the LGBTQ community,” says Hernandez of the Victory Fund.

Whaley says the increased attention from Liberati’s challenge brought even more harassment her way. She says she reports death threats to the police weekly and has a security detail at every public appearance. Security has become her second-largest campaign expense, and for good reason; in October, her team intervened when a man wearing a Make America Great Again hat followed her around with a gun at a No Kings rally.

“At the end of the day, I want to get home to tuck my kids in bed,” Whaley says. “We could be using that money for other things, but we’re having to use it to just keep me alive.”

Eligibility challenges distract from the candidates’ policies. Childrey remembers one woman telling her she couldn’t vote for her because she’s “only about the rainbow people.”

“Most of what [I’m] talking about is affordability, funding for our public schools … bread and butter issues,” Childrey told Uncloseted Media. “There is an assumption, because we’re trans, that that’s all it is.”

Barriers also pile up intersectionally. Nearly one-third of trans people experience homelessness at some point in their lives, a rate eight times higher than the general population. This means barriers for unhoused people disproportionately affect trans candidates.

“Trans youth, trans people of color, students, those who are unhoused like [Korgood] was, or who are disabled or low-income — those barriers only compound,” Allred says.

What could change?

Zein Murib, a political science professor at Fordham University, says these incidents demonstrate the need for more leniency with official documentation, arguing that a candidate’s deadname or legal sex aren’t relevant information. Today, 45 states accept common-law names, or the name a person uses in everyday life regardless of their ID, for other legal procedures, and Whaley says this should apply to campaigns as well.

Besides these policy changes, Allred says LGBTQ+ advocacy groups should allocate more funds to defend trans candidates from eligibility challenges. And Hernandez says that more people should condemn these tactics and show support for those targeted.

“We need to make sure that we set the expectation that everyone … is rejecting these tactics that are disproportionately burdening our trans candidates,” he says. “We have to call it out when we see it, and we have to make sure that we are not just letting candidates fight these fights themselves.”

Mua says that she doesn’t see a future for herself or other trans people with the Democrats unless the party stands up for them. “I refuse to put myself into a party where I don’t see my safety and protection being vital.”

While Korgood says she is saddened by this outcome, she doesn’t intend for her political career to end.

“I’m incredibly proud of what we were able to accomplish, and while I am beyond disappointed and frustrated that this is how this is ending, I am so grateful that I earned the support and the attention of thousands of people in this race.”

---

Uncloseted Media also reached out to the Stark and Mahoning County Boards of Elections as well as the office of the Secretary of State in Ohio, and the Elections division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, under which the State Ballot Law Commission serves. None replied.

Just over two and a half miles from President Donald Trump’s primary residence lies one of Florida’s most reliably Democratic congressional districts. There, a 27-year-old progressive is mounting a campaign centered on resisting what he calls the Trump-Vance administration’s attacks on civil rights, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ Americans.

Elijah Manley, an openly gay Democrat, sat down with the Los Angeles Blade to discuss why he is running for Florida’s 20th Congressional District, why he believes this moment calls for a new generation of leadership, and what he hopes to accomplish if elected to Congress.

Born and raised in Fort Lauderdale’s historic Sistrunk neighborhood — the city’s oldest African American community — Manley was raised by a single mother who struggled to make ends meet. His family experienced housing insecurity and, at one point, homelessness, experiences he says continue to shape both his politics and his policy priorities.

For Manley, those experiences are precisely what he believes Congress is missing.

“I think now the country is in need of somebody like me, with my story, my lived experience, the struggles I’ve been through in my life. We’re going through a really dark time in the country with the Trump administration coming for our civil rights and an economy that is not working for everybody. In a time where we have MAGA fascism, we need progressive leadership, and we need people who are really going to do the work of fighting back and resisting and obstructing Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans’ agenda in Congress.”

Manley said his campaign is also about ensuring people from marginalized communities — those without wealth, political connections, or institutional backing — have a voice in Congress.

“I think my story sets me aside from everyone else. I’m the only one in this race who has a story to tell voters that lines up with their lived experiences and their struggles. Growing up in poverty and experiencing homelessness was instrumental in developing my worldview and how I fight for people, and I think that’s something that’s absent on Capitol Hill.”

He argues that lived experience offers a perspective often missing on Capitol Hill.

“There are too many lawyers and people coming from professional and political backgrounds. Then you have somebody like me who is rooted in the story of this district. That’s what sets me apart from everyone else in this race.”

According to his campaign website, Manley’s interest in public service dates back to childhood. He cites the election of President Barack Obama as a defining moment that inspired him to pursue politics.

“He was inspired by Barack Obama’s historic election, igniting his passion for public service. He began writing to elected officials, speaking at school board and city council meetings, and advocating for issues affecting his community,” the website states. It goes on to describe his involvement in criminal justice and law magnet programs, Navy JROTC, and hundreds of hours of volunteer service while in high school.

As an openly gay candidate running during Trump’s second administration, Manley said Congress must take a far more aggressive approach to protecting LGBTQ+ Americans, particularly as Republican-led states continue passing restrictions targeting transgender people.

“I think we need to bring the hammer down on some of these states. I’m not one of these states’ rights people — Congress has the power to preempt laws that states pass through the Supremacy Clause. There’s never been a more important time in our history when we’re seeing fascism, we’re seeing an administration out of control, and we need Congress to act.”

His campaign has also drawn criticism from both Republicans and establishment Democrats for his positions on Gaza, immigration, and his call to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Manley said abolishing ICE does not mean eliminating immigration enforcement altogether.

“I’m not saying there should be no immigration laws. We want laws around immigration, but we want dignity. We don’t need a hypermilitarized, paramilitary group chasing people through the streets, terrorizing communities, churches, schools, and families.”

His personal experiences also inform his healthcare agenda.

“When we talk about healthcare, my experience growing up on Medicaid is seeing the failure of the government to expand Medicaid here in Florida, and now we’re seeing cuts from the Trump administration. I’m not just looking at statistics or numbers on paper — this is based on lived experience. I know how the people in this district are going to be hurt by these policies because I’ve lived it.”

California Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, who has generated early buzz as a potential 2028 presidential contender for his “progressive capitalist” approach to governing, has endorsed Manley’s campaign, giving the first-time congressional candidate one of his highest-profile endorsements.

Manley faces six other Democrats in the primary, including U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and former U.S. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, along with four Republican candidates in the general election field. Cherfilus-McCormick resigned from Congress ahead of a potential expulsion and is running again while facing federal criminal charges.

Despite running as the youngest candidate in the field, Manley said he hopes voters leave the race remembering one thing above all else.

“I want people to remember bold and authentic leadership. I want them to know I’m running because I’ve been through what people are going through right now — and it’s not that I’ve been through it, I’m actually still going through it. We need bold people who are going to fight for everybody and stand up for what’s right, and that’s what I hope voters see when they go to the polls.” 

Andrew Gillum, the former Democratic nominee for governor of Florida and former mayor of Tallahassee, was arrested on drug possession charges in Alabama last week.

Police in Daphne, Ala., said they pulled Gillum over for erratic driving and found marijuana and methamphetamine in his vehicle. He was charged with possession of marijuana and unlawful possession of a controlled substance, according to the Daphne Police Department. Jail records show he was arrested on July 2 and released on July 3, the Associated Press reports.

Gillum, the first Black nominee of a major political party for governor in Florida, lost the 2018 election to current Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in a highly contentious race.

Once considered a rising star in national politics, Gillum served in Tallahassee’s local government, first as a city commissioner and then as mayor of Florida’s capital from 2014- 2018.

The Daphne Police Department said officers stopped Gillum’s vehicle around 10:45 p.m. and initiated a probable cause search after one officer noticed a glass pipe on the center console.

During the search, officers found several rolled marijuana cigarettes and three packages containing a substance that tested positive for methamphetamine, police said.

The day after his arrest he was charged with possession of dangerous drugs, use or possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana.

In 2020, Gillum was involved in a similar incident when he was found in a Miami Beach, Fla., hotel room with a man identified as an escort who had apparently overdosed on drugs. Police also found three bags of suspected crystal methamphetamine in the room. The man survived, and no one was ever charged with a crime.

Later that year, Gillum came out as bisexual during an appearance on “The Tamron Hall Show,” where he discussed his struggles with drug and alcohol addiction and his decision to seek treatment following the 2020 incident.

In the same interview he shed light onto this, saying his substance use was a byproduct of the emotional struggles he experienced after losing the 2018 gubernatorial race to DeSantis.

This is not the first time Gillum has faced legal scrutiny.

During his 2014 mayoral campaign, he faced allegations of misconduct after hiring private equity investor Adam Corey as his campaign treasurer, raising questions about a potential conflict of interest. However, the FBI ultimately concluded there was no conflict of interest.

Police seek the public’s support in finding a suspect wanted in connection with three Philadelphia shootings, including two murders, who may have targeted his victims because they were gay. All three shootings took place near Hunting Park Recreation Center between May 29 and June 26.

The suspect is 21-year-old Jahylin Melchur, who has not been located by police and is not in police custody as of July 7. Police seek the public’s support in tracking down the suspect, whose image was captured on surveillance cameras. Previous reporting underlined that Melchur should be considered armed and dangerous.

Each of the victims was found partially clothed between 10 and 11 p.m.

On May 29, a 55-year-old in Juniata Park was found two miles from the rec center. The victim, who survived the encounter with critical injuries, said a man approached him and announced his intention to rob him, before shooting him in the elbow and torso.

Martin Higgins, 45, was pronounced dead on the bleachers of the rec center’s baseball field on June 20, suffering from a gunshot wound to the abdomen. Sharef Holman, 29, was found near the basketball courts on June 26, suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. He was transported to Temple University Hospital but died shortly thereafter.

Deputy Police Commissioner Frank Vanore declined to answer the Philadelphia Inquirer’s question regarding whether the victims may have met Melchur on a dating app, citing the ongoing investigation. Sources told the Philadelphia Inquirer that investigators are exploring this possibility

Although robbery may be at least part of the motive in the first shooting, other movies are unclear.

NBC10 reported that law enforcement sources told the station all three victims were targeted because they were gay, but the Philadelphia Police Department did not confirm this.

The Philadelphia Police Department replied to PGN’s questions with an email stating, “This remains a very active investigation, and investigators are looking at all aspects of the case, including underlying motivations for committing these crimes.

“At this point, we can confirm that Melchur is wanted for two homicides by shooting and one non-fatal shooting, all of which occurred in the Hunting Park area. 

“The investigation has not established that the victims were specifically targeted because of their sexual orientation.”

The Philadelphia Police Department is urging anyone with information to contact the Homicide Unit at 215-686-3334 or submit an anonymous tip by calling the PPD Tip Line at 215-686-TIPS (8477).

(This story is republished with permission of the Philadelphia Gay News.)

Madonna isn’t just back, she’s ubiquitous. 

From a Times Square takeover to Graham Norton’s couch, the pop legend is busy promoting her new album, “Confessions II,” a sequel to 2005’s “Confessions on a Dance Floor,” that is earning rave reviews.

“Madonna’s back in peak form with a fresh and honest dance record that’s not only her best in 20 years, but a genuinely vital addition to her canon,” says Pitchfork.

“Facing grief and loss has made Madonna’s music deeper than it’s been in 20 years, but also more alive,” the Guardian proclaims.

“If everyone in the club is a work of art, as ‘Danceteria’ says, then to live loudly is to make an indelible mark,” according to Vulture.

The album features upbeat dance productions along with some melancholic views on death and loss. On the song “Betrayal,” she reflects on the recent death of her stepmother Joan, singing, “You’ll never take my mother’s place … you betrayed me, you enslaved me.”

On “L.E.S. Girl,” she revisits her early days living on the Lower East Side and struggling to pay the rent. “Bizarre” seems to reference her failed 1980s marriage to actor Sean Penn. “Test” is a duet with daughter Lola Leon, in which she sings, “I wish I knew / The pain I’ve caused / My butterfly / Was always being watched.”

But the emotional high point of the album comes on “Fragile,” which she wrote about the death of her brother Christopher. The two were close early in Madonna’s career and he designed sets for early tours, including “Blonde Ambition.” But they had a falling out after her marriage to Guy Ritchie and he wrote a scathing tell-all book about his sister that led to years of estrangement. The two reconciled after Christopher’s cancer diagnosis and shortly before he died in 2024 at age 63. She sings, “Late last night I was fast asleep/You came to me in a dream/You said, ‘Don’t forget about me/Don’t forget to be happy.’”

Death emerges again but in a much more upbeat context in “Danceteria,” an ode to the iconic New York nightclub that has emerged as a gay favorite single and seems destined to be the song of the summer in queer nightlife. She recounts her pre-fame days trying to convince a DJ to play her first single “Everybody” at the club and name checks Jean-Michel Basquiat, Keith Haring, best friend Debi Mazar, and DJ Mark Kamins on the track. 

Streaming numbers and sales are strong for the new album with projected first week sales of 100,000 ensuring a No.1 debut in the U.S.

While the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J. continues to dominate headlines about transgender rights, three recent federal court cases produced significant rulings that limited or temporarily blocked Trump-Vance administration policies attacking trans Americans.

Talbott v. USA

Trump issued Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” on Jan. 27, 2025, banning trans people from serving in the military. The following day, 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 ban on behalf of six active-duty service members and two individuals seeking to enlist. The organizations argue the policy violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

The plaintiffs sought a nationwide preliminary injunction — a temporary block on enforcement of the executive order while the litigation continued. The district court granted that injunction and later rejected the Trump-Vance administration’s request to dissolve it, temporarily protecting trans service members from being discharged solely because of their gender identity.

That protection, however, was short-lived. In Shilling v. Trump, the Supreme Court stayed the lower court’s injunction, allowing the military to begin enforcing the trans service ban while litigation continued. The U.S. Air Force subsequently required trans service members facing involuntary separation proceedings to appear in uniforms and grooming standards corresponding to their sex assigned at birth and, in some cases, used their deadnames during those proceedings.

Despite that setback, the plaintiffs secured two significant legal victories during Pride month.

On June 1, a federal appeals court blocked the discharge of the trans service members involved in Talbott. Then, on June 30, a federal district court certified the case as a class action on behalf of all currently serving trans service members. That means future rulings in the case will apply not only to the original six plaintiffs but to all active-duty trans military personnel covered by the class.

The case remains ongoing, but class certification significantly strengthens the ability to protect trans service members as the litigation continues. Currently, there are 28 plaintiffs in total, including the two still attempting to enlist.

Z.A. v. Blanche

In Z.A. v. Blanche (formerly Z.A. v. Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an emergency order one day before a federal grand jury subpoena was set to be enforced on July 2. The order blocked the Department of Justice from obtaining confidential medical records belonging to California families whose children receive gender-affirming care.

The ruling relied in part on protections established under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the 1996 federal law governing the privacy and security of medical records.

The decision represented a significant check on the administration’s efforts to obtain sensitive patient information, protecting the privacy of trans patients and their families while the legal challenge proceeds.

Doe v. Blanche

Doe v. Blanche, which remains ongoing, challenges Trump’s executive order, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government. Under policies implementing that order, many trans women in federal custody would be housed in men’s prisons.

A federal district court in D.C. granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a Bureau of Prisons policy that would require incarcerated trans women to be housed in men’s facilities regardless of individualized safety assessments or the risk of sexual assault.

The Bureau of Prisons policy also conflicts with the goals of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), enacted by Congress in 2003 to address sexual abuse in correctional facilities through standards, research, funding, and prevention measures. Federal data has consistently shown that trans people in custody experience sexual assault at dramatically higher rates than the general prison population.

There are moments when an incident stops being merely a local story and begins to reveal something much deeper. What happened on June 28 outside One Church, in Comerío, Puerto Rico, belongs in that category.

I do not know who painted the rainbow colors on the asphalt and on a roadside guardrail. I do not know what motivated them, and it is not my place to justify their actions. If someone believes a law was broken, there are authorities and legal mechanisms to address that. That is not the point of this reflection.

The point is the words that followed.

Hours after those colors appeared, Pastor Jorge J. Santiago Reyes went live on social media. He said he felt threatened. He described what happened as a physical attack against his church. He appeared angry and disappointed. He called those who painted the rainbow “cowards” and “charlatans.” He expressed frustration with the support that, according to him, the municipal government of Comerío has shown toward the LGBTQ+ community, and with those who support posts related to that community. He repeated several times that the people responsible had “crossed the line.” He ended his message by saying, “These charlatans have to be stopped.”

As I listened to his words, I stopped thinking about the paint.

I began thinking about fear.

There is one phrase the pastor repeated again and again: “They crossed the line.” Yet he never explained what that line was. If he was referring to a possible violation of the law, that is for the authorities to determine. If he meant respect for property, there are also procedures to deal with that. But when that line remains undefined and the message begins to associate a rainbow with a threat, the question changes. It is no longer only about a guardrail or a road. It becomes a question about what boundary, in the pastor’s view, was actually crossed.

Paint can be erased.

A brush can cover the asphalt and return a guardrail to its original color.

What does not disappear so easily is the meaning of those colors.

And perhaps that is where the real conflict begins.

It is significant that this happened precisely on June 28, the day when the LGBTQ+ community remembers a history marked by exclusion, violence, and the struggle for dignity. What represents memory, hope, and the possibility of living without hiding for millions of people was presented by others as a threat.

I do not know why someone painted that rainbow. I do not need to know in order to ask whether those were the words society should expect from a pastor.

A religious leader may feel hurt, frustrated, or angry. What he cannot forget is the responsibility that comes with every public expression. His words do not end when a livestream ends. They move beyond the space of his church, reach people who may never share his faith, and help shape the way others see those who think differently. When a pastor calls other people “charlatans” and “cowards,” says they “have to be stopped,” and turns a rainbow into evidence of an attack, he is no longer speaking only from frustration. He begins to build a discourse that can feed rejection toward a community far larger than the people responsible for that act.

There was another moment in the livestream that caught my attention. The pastor reminded viewers how much he has served Comerío, how much he has accompanied his community, and how much he has worked for it. I have no reason to question that service. I am sure many people can testify to the good he has done.

That is precisely why it was difficult to hear.

Pastoral vocation is not about reminding a town of everything one has done for it when conflict appears. Service does not lose its value when it goes unrecognized; it loses something when it becomes an argument to claim a moral position from which to speak down to others. A person who serves does so because that is the nature of the calling, not because that service grants authority to discredit those who think differently.

As a pastor, that part of the message left me deeply uneasy. Not because I expect ministers of God to be perfect. We are not. But because our words carry weight, we are called to speak with greater responsibility. Some expressions build bridges. Others raise walls. Some words invite encounter. Others end up justifying rejection.

The paint will disappear. A brush will be enough to cover the asphalt and return the guardrail to its original color.

The words will not disappear as easily.

They will remain recorded in a video, shared again and again on social media, and remembered by those who heard them. They will remain long after the last trace of paint has been erased.

When this episode is remembered, it probably will not be because of the rainbow that appeared outside One Church, in Comerío, Puerto Rico.

It will be because of the words a pastor chose to use when speaking about it.

And that difference changes everything.

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.”