More stories

  • in

    Woman in anti-LGBTQ+ supreme court case did make wedding site after all, report says

    A Colorado woman who claimed her state’s support for same-sex marriage barred her from designing wedding websites, fueling a case that last month delivered a major US supreme court blow to LGBTQ+ rights, appears to have designed at least one wedding website before it was scrubbed from her archive.The discovery, by the New Republic, followed reporting by that outlet and the Guardian which showed the request for a site for a same-sex wedding that lay at the heart of the 303 Creative v Elenis supreme court case appeared to have been a fabrication.Represented by the rightwing Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the web designer behind 303 Creative, Lorie Smith, argued that her right to free speech, regarding her opposition to same-sex marriage, was “chilled” by a Colorado anti-discrimination law.Claiming Smith was unable to design any wedding websites at all, for fear of falling foul of the state law, her attorneys told the supreme court: “For six years, she has been unable to speak in the marketplace.”The six conservative justices who dominate the court ruled for Smith, delighting rightwingers and faith groups but appalling LGBTQ+ groups and other advocates of equal treatment under the law.Questions over the supposed request for service have lingered. On Monday, the New Republic added to such disquiet.The progressive magazine said that by using the Wayback Machine, a service from the Internet Archive, a researcher found what appeared to be an image of a wedding website designed by Smith around 2015.The image, in a folder of “Recent Website Projects”, showed a couple walking on a beach, under a couple’s names and section headings including “You’re invited”, “Schedule”, “Accommodations” and “Travel Guide & FAQs”.The name of the woman in the couple on the site matched the name on another image, for “Healthy4LifeColorado.com”. Other images were for a church, a site about French bulldogs and a campaign site for a Republican state politician. The last image matched a site currently live.The apparent wedding site was found by Kate Redburn, a fellow at Columbia Law School in New York.They told the New Republic: “I couldn’t believe it. The idea that she hadn’t made any wedding websites for anyone was so baked into the narrative around this case.”The magazine said “a Colorado woman whose name matched the name of the bride” did not respond to requests for comment.Through the ADF, Smith “acknowledged she had made the website as a gift for a family member and had subsequently removed it from her online portfolio before the lawsuit was filed”.On Twitter, the ADF accused the New Republic of “manufacturing its fifth desperate attack” on Smith.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Why? To impugn Lorie and delegitimise the landmark supreme court ruling in 303 Creative that protects every American’s free speech rights.”Saying Smith had “nothing to hide”, the ADF said she designed the wedding site as a gift for her sister in 2014, around the time she “started exploring whether she could create custom wedding websites as part of her business consistent with her faith”.The New Republic said the ADF “did not answer our questions about what knowledge its lawyers had of the website on Smith’s site”.Jennifer Pizer, chief legal officer at Lambda Legal, who worked on the 303 Creative case, described why questions about its provenance and conduct remained important, in light of the ruling handed down last month.“I think the public reaction we’re seeing is probably a mix of surprise, shock and anger that this case seems to have been contrived, and probably also that such an important court ruling might well have been based on facts that were not entirely true,” Pizer told the New Republic.“People seem to be expressing understandable distress at the idea that this impactful case was won by people who might have misled the court – it’s alarming for multiple reasons.”The ADF, Pizer said, “has been gunning for this result – and not just this result, but has been gunning to win licenses to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people and ways to undermine civil rights laws more broadly for many years.” More

  • in

    In reversal, California school district adopts curriculum on LGBTQ+ figures

    A school district in southern California has decided to adopt the state’s new social studies book and curriculum after previously rejecting it for its reference of LGBTQ+ figures in history.The Temecula Valley unified school district voted to accept the curriculum following a lengthy meeting on Friday where parents, teachers and community members spoke for and against it. The decision has been welcomed by Gavin Newsom, California’s governor, for thwarting an attempt to “whitewash history” and removed the threat of sanctions against the school district for not adopting the curriculum.The board voted to reject the material in May and even in its acceptance of the curriculum on Friday it said it would strike out anything mentioning Harvey Milk, the gay rights activist and politician who was assassinated along with San Francisco mayor George Moscon in 1978. Milk, who has become a totemic figure in the push for LGBTQ+ equality in the US, is thought to have been the first openly gay person to be elected to public office in California.Milk does not feature in the new social studies textbook, a school board member told CNN, but is listed in supplemental material along with a range of other historical figures’ biographies.“Fortunately, now students will receive the basic materials needed to learn,” said Newsom. “But this vote lays bare the true motives of those who opposed this curriculum. This has never been about parents’ rights. It’s not even about Harvey Milk – who appears nowhere in the textbook students receive. This is about extremists’ desire to control information and censor the materials used to teach our children.”California’s department of education will investigate the school district over the episode, which pitted some board members against a 2011 state law that requires students to get instruction about “the role and contributions” of LGBT people, as well as those of different ethnicities, cultures and disabilities.The president of the school board, Joseph Komrosky, called Milk a “pedophile” during a May meeting that resulted in the textbook being barred. Komrosky has said he will resist any attempt to implement the new textbook and accused Newsom of overstepping his authority.“I’ve already instructed the superintendent, if books come from shipping and receiving, to say ‘no,’ and we’ll ship them right back,” Komrosky said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe furor in California follows a wave of book bans in schools and libraries across the US, often driven by conservative activists who have opposed mentions of LGBTQ+ people, or accurate portrayals of America’s history of slavery. Meanwhile, least 492 bills attacking LGBTQ+ rights have been introduced in state legislatures, according to the ACLU. More

  • in

    Obscure Iowa non-profit produces new flyer calling Trump ‘trailblazer for trans’

    An obscure non-profit political group in Iowa that has been attempting to portray Donald Trump as an advocate for the LGBTQ+ community is doubling down on its unlikely claim, producing a second flyer condemning the former president for “fighting conservatives” over trans rights.The mailer repeats the messaging from the original communication that the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for next year’s election is a “trailblazer for trans”.The new missive, reported on Saturday by the Iowa political blog Bleeding Heartland, introduces a rainbow-colored heart to the mix, and says Trump “opposed conservative members of Congress when they tried to strip the US Mexico Canada agreement of language protecting sexual orientation and gender identity”.Conversely, a 2019 analysis by the Yale law journal notes that the Trump administration, which it said was “hostile to transgender people”, had watered down such protections in the language of the agreement, but was unable to eliminate it entirely despite its best efforts.The flyer was published by a group called Advancing Our Values, a Des Moines-based non-profit that registered with the secretary of state’s office only two weeks ago. Renewed efforts by the Guardian to reach the group were unsuccessful.The fresh attack on Trump, which Bleeding Heartland said was sent as a mass mailing to an unknown number of households in Iowa, also states he “stood strong” against bathroom bills that deny access to toilets based on declared gender identity instead of that assigned at birth.While Trump has delivered contradictory messages on LGBTQ+ rights, saying he was “fine” with same-sex marriage during the 2016 campaign then rolling back protections for transgender patients as president, and overruling his own education secretary in 2017 to rescind protections for trans students.“It’s an odd piece of advertising,” David Peterson, a professor of political science at Iowa State University, told the Guardian after the first flyer was published.The origins of Advancing Our Values are unknown, although its agenda would seem to align with those opposing Trump for the Republican nomination.The campaign of rightwing Florida governor Ron DeSantis recently took down a “homophobic” video attacking Trump for his alleged support of trans rights, which he initially defended in the face of a wave of outrage.According to the group’s incorporation papers posted online, it registered as a section 501(c)(4) non-profit – a status that allows it to “engage in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office” as long as its activity is not the main fundraising arm for any candidate’s campaign.A person named Kyle Adema, of Nebraska, is listed as its chairperson. The Guardian was unable to reach Adema for comment.The Bleeding Heartland blog, which has been researching the group, says it has “not found any link to operatives for … DeSantis”, but points out its objectives are the same: “To diminish support for Trump among potential Iowa Republican caucus-goers”.According to the blog author Laura Belin: “Discrimination against transgender people is popular in GOP circles, and presidential candidates often receive applause or ovations in Iowa for rhetoric opposing inclusive policies.” More

  • in

    Wisconsin teacher fired for criticizing school district ban of song Rainbowland

    A teacher in Wisconsin has been fired from her job after she criticized her public school district’s decision to ban the song Rainbowland, which exalts the virtues of inclusivity, from a children’s concert at her campus.The members of the board governing public schools in the solidly Republican community of Waukesha voted unanimously to dismiss Melissa Tempel from her job on Wednesday, saying the teacher’s defense of the Miley Cyrus and Dolly Parton duet violated district policy because she did not speak to her supervisors first.Tempel and her advocates, meanwhile, have maintained that she was exercising her constitutionally protected right to free speech but was punished because the song in question references rainbows, a key symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, according to reports from local television station WISN as well as other media outlets.Her dismissal comes amid a fresh national wave of anti-LGBTQ+ action and rhetoric from political conservatives, including the US supreme court’s decision in late June to strike down a Colorado law compelling businesses and organizations there to treat same-sex couples equally.The dispute pitting Tempel against the Waukesha district dates back to March, when the teacher expressed her frustration on Twitter that officials had blocked students at her school from singing Rainbowland during an upcoming concert that they were staging.“When will it end?” wrote Tempel, who had taught classes in Spanish and English to students in first grade (the UK equivalent of year 2) at Heyer elementary school.The tweet went viral and caused an uproar in some quarters. Leaders at the school defended the ban by pointing to a district policy which essentially prohibited “controversial issues in the classroom”.But officials have declined to say why they considered Rainbowland to be controversial, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel – a leading Wisconsin news outlet – reported. The song was reportedly replaced with Kermit the Frog’s differently themed Rainbow Connection.Tempel’s superiors put her on leave in early April. And in May, she received notice that the school district’s superintendent – James Sebert – would recommend that the local education board fire her, setting the stage for a four-hour hearing on Wednesday over Tempel’s future.According to WISN, at the hearing, Sebert asserted that Tempel “deliberately brought negative attention to the school district because she disagreed with the decision as opposed to following protocol and procedure”. He added: “I believe that behavior is intolerable.”WISN reported that Tempel countered, “I thought that the fact that the tweet that I made – that Rainbowland wasn’t going to be allowed – was something that the public would be really concerned about and that they would be interested in knowing about it.”The board’s vote to fire Tempel was 9-0.A former US attorney in Wisconsin, James Santelle, told the Journal Sentinel that he believes the district’s policy which led to Tempel’s firing violates the American constitution’s first amendment, which protects free speech.Tempel has said she intends to file a first amendment lawsuit against the Waukesha school district but has been deliberating which court to pursue her case in, according to the Journal Sentinel.Waukesha is a city with about 71,000 inhabitants. The community also drew national attention in 2021, when a man intentionally drove a car into a crowd at a local Christmas parade, killing six people and wounding more than 60 others. More

  • in

    US supreme court ‘creeping dangerously towards authoritarianism’, AOC says

    The conservative supreme court is “creeping dangerously towards authoritarianism”, the Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said on Sunday, raising again the unlikely scenario of impeaching justices for recent actions.Her comments came just days after the nation’s highest court released a batch of incendiary and far-reaching rulings striking down affirmative action in colleges, LBGTQ+ rights and Joe Biden’s student loan relief program.“These are the types of rulings that signal a dangerous creep towards authoritarianism and centralization of power in the court,” she told CNN’s State of the Union.“In fact, we have members of the court themselves, with justice Elena Kagan, saying that the court is beginning to assume the power of a legislature right now.“They are expanding their role into acting as though they are Congress itself. And that, I believe, is an expansion of power that we really must be focusing on, the danger of this court and the abuse of power.”Referring to ethics scandals that have involved two of the conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, Ocasio-Cortez repeated previous calls for Congress to look at removing them, a proposal that would be dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House.Senate Democrats and independents who caucus with them, meanwhile, hold only a slim majority.Alito is accused of not disclosing gifts from a rightwing billionaire who lobbied for the court to end Biden’s loan relief program. Thomas is also alleged to have taken undeclared gifts, among other alleged transgressions, prompting an ethics watchdog last month to urge him to resign.“We must pass much more binding and stringent ethics guidelines, where we see members of the supreme court potentially breaking the law,” she said.“There also must be impeachment on the table. We have a broad level of tools to deal with misconduct, overreach and abuse of power in the supreme court [that] has not been receiving the adequate oversight necessary in order to preserve their own legitimacy.“And in the process, they themselves have been destroying the legitimacy of the court, which is profoundly dangerous for our entire democracy.”Ocasio-Cortez also called on Biden to expand the court to 13 justices, something the president has said he is unwilling to attempt.Her comments reflect a wave of Democratic outrage at the decisions, which came after Donald Trump’s appointments of justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett gave conservatives a 6-3 majority on the supreme court.Ocasio-Cortez’s fellow progressive Ayanna Pressley, Democratic congresswoman for Massachusetts, was equally scathing on MSNBC’s Katie Phang show, calling the conservative majority “far-right extremists”.“They continue to overturn the will of the majority of the people and to make history for all the wrong reasons, legislating from the bench and being political from the bench,” she said.The panel’s most controversial ruling last year, written by Alito, reversed its 1973 decision on Roe v Wade and ended almost half a century of federal abortion protections in the US.As Biden put it after an address at the White House on Friday: “This is not a normal court.”A poll released Sunday by ABC’s This Week showed that 52% of Americans believed that justices ruled “mainly on the basis of their partisan political view rather than on the basis of the law”, a significant rise from January 2022 when only 38% felt that way.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe poll, however, did show that a majority, 52%, approved of the decision ending affirmative action in colleges.Condemning the ruling that allowed a Colorado website designer to refuse business from a same-sex couple, transport secretary Pete Buttigieg, who is openly gay, noted the court addressed a situation “that may have never happened in the first place”.“We’re seeing more of these cases, of these circumstances that are designed to get people spun up and [are] designed to chip away at rights,” he told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday.“You look at the supreme court taking away a woman’s right to choose, Friday’s decision diminishing … same sex couples’ [quality of life], you look at a number of the decisions, they pose the question, ‘Did we just live to see the high-water mark of freedoms and rights in this country before they were gradually taken away?’“Because up until now, not uniformly, but overall, each generation was able to say they enjoyed greater inclusion, greater equality, and more rights and freedoms than the generation before.”In other interviews on Sunday, two prominent Republican presidential candidates said they supported the supreme court’s recent rulings, with one, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, accusing Democrats of hypocrisy.“For decades the Democratic party cheered a supreme court that went outside the constitution and made extra-constitutional decisions, in my opinion, because the decisions went in a philosophical direction that they liked,” Christie said on State of the Union.“Now, when the court makes decisions they don’t like, all of a sudden the court is ‘not normal’. This is a results-oriented type of judgment. Instead, what they should look at, is the way they analyze the law.”Former vice-president Mike Pence, speaking on CBS, praised the website ruling. He said: “I’m a Bible believing Christian, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman, and I believe every American is entitled to live, to work, to worship, according to the dictates of their conscience.“The supreme court drew a clear line and said yes to religious liberty.” More

  • in

    The US supreme court has dismantled our rights but we still believe in them. Now we must fight | Rebecca Solnit

    The first thing to remember about the damage done by the US supreme court this June and the June before is that each majority decision overturns a right that we had won. We had won a measure of student debt relief thanks to the heroic efforts of debt activists since 2011. We had won reproductive rights protection 50 years ago with Roe v Wade, and we won wetlands protection with the Clean Water Act around the same time. We had implemented affirmative action, AKA a redress of centuries of institutionalized inequality, step by step, in many ways over the past 60-plus years. We had won rights for same-sex couples and queer people in a series of laws and decisions.What this means is that the right wing of the US supreme court is part of a gang of reactionaries engaging in backlash. It also means we can win these things back. It will not be easy, but difficult is not impossible. This does not mean that the decisions are not devastating, and that we should not feel the pain. The old saying “don’t mourn, organize” has always worked better for me as “mourn, but also organize”. Defeat is no reason to stop. Neither is victory a reason to stop when victory is partial or needs to be defended. You can celebrate victories, mourn defeats and keep going.Each of those victories was hard-won, often by people who began when the rights and protections they sought seemed inconceivable, then unlikely, then remote, and so goes the road of profound change almost every time. To win environmental protections, the public had to be awakened to the interconnectedness, the vulnerability and the value of a healthy natural world and our inseparability from it. To win marriage equality for same-sex couples and equal protection for queer people involved changing beliefs, which was achieved not just by campaigns but by countless LGBTQ+ people courageously making themselves visible and audible in their communities.To recognize the power of this change requires a historical memory. A memory of rivers catching fire and toxic products being dumped freely in the 1960s. Of laws and guidelines treating queer people as criminal or mentally ill or both in ways that terrorized them and made them largely invisible to the public eye. Of women dying of or damaged by illegal abortions or leading the bleak lives to which unwanted pregnancies consigned them. Of the way the Ivy League universities in particular were virtually all white and all male into the 1970s. Of how inequality was so normalized that first people had to see and believe that women and Bipoc people should have equal rights and access to and a role in the places of power that decide the fate of each of us, the nation and the world. All that changed – not enough, of course, but a lot.Memory is a superpower, because memory of how these situations changed is a memory of our victories and our power. Each of these victories happened both through the specifics of campaigns to change legislation but also through changing the public imagination. The supreme court can dismantle the legislation but they cannot touch the beliefs and values. We still believe in these rights. We still recognize the harm and the destruction they were meant to prevent. If you didn’t believe that equal access and rights were wrong yesterday or last year, you don’t have to believe it now. Not just because those rights were denied by six justices, at least four of whom are so utterly corrupt in how they got their seats or what they’ve done while seated that they should be forced to resign.Last year’s attack on reproductive rights has produced its own backlash, with many states working to protect those rights, many elections seemingly pivoting on voter outrage about the Republican party’s brutality toward and hatred of women, and Republicans scurrying away from their own achievement and its hideous impacts. If the Republican party deserves admiration for anything, it’s for their long view, understanding of strategy and tenacity.The building up of an illicit rightwing supreme court took many years, and took fundamentalist Christians holding their noses to vote for Donald Trump because they understood that meant getting the justices to overturn Roe v Wade. It meant building power from the ground up to take state legislatures to gerrymander electoral maps and sticking vicious clowns like Jim Jordan into bizarrely tailored districts. It meant chipping away at voting rights, achieved in part by the supreme court’s attack on the Voting Rights Act in 2013 and its 2010 Citizens United decision that let a filthy tsunami of corporate dark money into electoral politics, thereby overturning two of its own earlier decisions.While each of the issues under attack need their own campaigns, voting rights and free and fair elections are crucial to all of them. Don’t forget that the only reason we have such a conservative government, including the supreme court, is voter suppression. If we truly had equal access to the ballot, American voters would choose more progressive candidates and pass more progressive legislation. That’s why what the public wants, believes and values so often differs from what the politicians chosen by dark money and voter suppression give us.One of the striking features of recent years is the baldfaced Republican effort to prevent Black people in particular, but also young, poor and other non-white demographics from voting. Baldfaced because it acknowledges that they are unpopular and that they’ve given up the goal of being in power because they represent the majority. As they become more marginalized through their own extreme and unpopular views, they have to use more extreme means – now including trying to steal and overturn elections – to hold onto power.This is as true of climate action as anything else: a new Yale 360 poll shows that “57% of registered voters support a US president declaring global warming a national emergency if Congress does not take further action” and “74% support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.” The problem isn’t the people. It’s the power, and history shows us that when we come together with ferocious commitment to a shared goal we can be more powerful than institutions and governments. The right would like us to feel defeated and powerless. We can feel devastated and still feel powerful or find our power. This is not a time to quit. It’s a time to fight.
    Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist. Her most recent books are Recollections of My Nonexistence and Orwell’s Roses More

  • in

    Kamala Harris: supreme court rulings portend ‘attack’ on ‘hard-fought freedoms’

    The US supreme court rulings which struck down the White House’s student debt relief plan, affirmative action in college admission and a Colorado law that protected LGBTQ+ rights portend “a national movement to attack hard-won and hard-fought freedoms”, Vice-President Kamala Harris has said.In an interview with National Public Radio’s Michel Martin, Harris declared that “this is a serious moment” for people “who believe in the promise of our country [but] understand we have some work yet to do to fully achieve that promise”.“Fundamental issues are at stake,” Harris said, as she called on Americans to vote – including in the 2024 presidential race – for political candidates who would work to shield rights rather than rescind them.Harris’s remarks came after the supreme court’s conservative supermajority on Thursday ended race-conscious admissions at universities across the US, defying decades of legal precedent to the detriment of greater student diversity on the nation’s campuses. The court on Friday also ruled that both a Colorado law which compelled businesses and organizations to treat same-sex couples equally as well as Joe Biden’s landmark student debt forgiveness plan were both unconstitutional.The decision on the Colorado law came on the last day of Pride month, which annually celebrates LGBTQ+ achievements and commemorates the 1969 Stonewall uprising in New York, a key moment in the community’s civil rights movement.That decision and the two others all were handed down a year after the supreme court eliminated the federal abortion rights which had been established by the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling.Harris said she and other members of Joe Biden’s administration have a role in mounting a counteraction to the supreme court rulings, which she characterized as “moments of great consequence and … crises”.In the early stages of his 2024 re-election run, as some Republicans call for national abortion restrictions, the president has pledged to work to enshrine abortion rights, among other reproductive health care protections.Biden also outlined a new student debt relief plan within hours of the supreme court’s striking down his previous one.But Harris told Martin that voters can also help plot the way forward. Besides voting all the way down ballots during local, state and national elections, they can organize against the political forces which planted the seeds for this week’s volley of supreme court rulings, the vice-president said while appearing at the Essence Festival of Culture in New Orleans on Thursday and Friday, according to Nola.com.The supreme court’s shift to the hard right became possible after the Donald Trump presidency succeeded in appointing the ultra-conservative justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.Harris predicted the week’s supreme court decisions would “have generational impact” and described herself “deeply concerned about the implications of this … to the future of our country”, Nola.com added.In her remarks at the Essence Festival, one of the US’s top annual showcases for Black culture, Harris said: “I feel very strongly that the promise of America will only be achieved if we’re willing to fight for it.” More

  • in

    Republican executive blogged about ‘conversion therapy’ for extremist group

    The executive director of a Republican-linked non-profit wrote blog posts for an extremist organization in which he advocated so-called “conversion therapy”, the supremacy of biblical rules on marriage over “man-made law”, and expressed a general theocratic view that divine law as interpreted by US evangelical Christians trumps secular law.The since-deleted posts by Mark Trammell – now executive director of the self-styled civil rights group Center for American Liberty (CAL) – were written for Liberty Counsel, dubbed an anti-LGBTQ+ extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its work “to ensure that Christians can continue to engage in anti-LGBT discrimination in places of business under the guise of ‘religious liberty’”.The Guardian has previously reported on the financial relationship between CAL and CEO Harmeet Dhillon’s law firm, which a non-profit expert described as “problematic”, and the lack of transparency in the non-profit’s arrangements with a PR firm.But CAL’s extremist links, and other CAL attorneys links to groups like the Proud Boys and the Claremont Institute, raise questions about the organization’s recent pivot to suits that seek to limit transgender rights.Theocratic postsIt was while Trammell was working as director of public policy at another rightwing non-profit, Liberty Counsel Action, that Trammell wrote a number of blogposts for an affiliated organization, Liberty Counsel. Those posts, published in 2013 and 2014, have since disappeared from the organization’s website, but were exposed in a data breach of the organization’s website, and revealed now by the Guardian.In a September 2013 post, Trammell complained about laws passed in California in 2012 and New Jersey in 2013 that were the first in the country to ban so-called “conversion therapy” or “reparative therapy”, a scientifically discredited practice whose practitioners falsely claim to be able to change the sexual orientation of same-sex-attracted people.In the post, Trammell wrote: “In both California and New Jersey, by statute, licensed physicians are not permitted to provide reparative therapy to minors, under the age of 18, who struggle with an unwanted same-sex attraction and who desire such reparative therapy.”He continued: “This restriction on therapy is a viewpoint-based content restriction aimed at silencing Christian views on human sexuality.”In other posts, Trammell criticized Republicans for moves that in his view failed to acknowledge the supremacy of biblical over secular law, even if they were ostensibly defending conservative moral positions.In a March 2014 post on efforts by Republicans including Ted Cruz and Mike Lee to limit the power of the federal government to enforce same-sex marriage in states where it did not yet exist, he wrote that the proposed Defense of Marriage Act was “not the answer”.Rather, Trammell wrote, “as a component of the Natural Law, authored by God, the institution of marriage is beyond the ability of mankind to change. Simply put, it is a law given to us by God and since God’s ways are justice and His ways are higher than our ways.”Further on in the post, Trammell continued his advocacy of theocracy, writing: “For one to state that the Tenth Amendment reserves the authority for states to define marriage according to the will of the citizens of that state is to say that the Constitution had authority over the Natural Law. Such a conclusion is contrary to the essence of the Natural Law and is contrary to Scripture.”In a post that May, Trammell criticized the supreme court for its Town of Greece v Galloway decision that month, which upheld the right of the New York town’s board to open its meeting with a prayer, providing it did not exclude representatives of minority faiths from officiating in those prayers.Whereas the court defined the prayers as “ceremonial” and intended to “place town board members in a solemn and deliberative frame of mind”, Trammell wrote that the prayers were to “invoke divine guidance in town affairs”.He further wrote that the court was wrong in “concluding that the purpose of prayer is civic in nature and bifurcated from God”, adding that, “Legislative prayer is not about government; it is about God. Its purpose is not to solemnize the occasion or acknowledge religious leaders; it is to humble ourselves before God, seeking Him and His guidance.”Neither Mark Trammell nor Liberty Counsel responded to emailed requests for comment.Heidi Beirich is co-founder and chief strategy officer at the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE) and an expert on the North American and European far right.In a telephone conversation, she said that Liberty Counsel was “crudely anti-LGBTQ” and that “everything the organization does is part of a crusade to strip LGBTQ people of their rights”.On Trammell’s blogposts, Beirich said: “He essentially doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state,” and pointed to the view of the UN’s independent expert on gender and sexuality that conversion therapy “may amount to torture”.Lawyer for the Christian rightExcept for brief stints as a congressional intern and a county-level law clerk, Trammell has spent his entire career working for a string of rightwing organizations. They include Young America’s Foundation (YAF), where as assistant general counsel he secured Dhillon’s services in suing UC Berkeley over the university’s cancellation of a speech by the conservative firebrand Ann Coulter in 2017.Much of his early career, however, was spent in the service of organizations that are directly affiliated or historically connected to Liberty University, an institution founded by the rightwing Baptist televangelist Jerry Falwell in 1971.Falwell’s son, Jerry Falwell Jr, was president of Liberty from the time of his father’s death in 2007 until 2020, when he quit amid media reports of a long-running affair in which his business partner would have sex with his wife, Becki, while Falwell looked on.Despite its former president’s outre personal life, Liberty’s honor code forbids students from “sexual relations outside a biblically ordained marriage, romantic displays of affection with a member of the same sex … and actions confirming denial of biological birth sex”.Liberty Counsel was founded by Matthew Staver in 1989, when he was dean of Liberty University Law School, and it has pursued lawsuits advancing a Christian right agenda under the banner of religious liberty. Its anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and activism is the reason for the SPLC listing.Liberty Counsel Action is a 501(c)(4) non-profit affiliated with Liberty Counsel, a 501(c)(3). According to US tax law, 501(c)(4) entities can engage in politically partisan activities and campaigning in a way that is prohibited to 501(c)(3) bodies.Other extremist linksOther lawyers associated with CAL have their own history of extremist associations.New Jersey-based Ron Coleman first met Dhillon at the 2019 Trump White House social media summit and joined her law firm in August 2020, according to a YouTube video posted by Dhillon Law.He is currently representing the Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes in a lawsuit against the SPLC over their listing of the all-male street-fighting fraternity as a hate group.Coleman is also acted for extremist-friendly social media site, Gab and its founder Andrew Torba against Google, after the tech giant banned Gab’s app from its Play Store in the wake of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017.Gab achieved infamy after Robert Bowers announced his murderous attack on the Tree of Life synagogue in 2018. Bowers was convicted on all charges related to that attack last week.The Guardian emailed Coleman’s Dhillon Law address for comment but received no response.On Coleman’s representation of McInnes and Gab, Beirich, the extremism expert, said that pursuing litigation was a “choice to affiliate with someone”, that McInnes is “absolutely a racist extremist” and the group he founded is a “white supremacist group”. She also described Gab as a “cesspool of hate”.CAL board member Lee Cheng has worked on lawsuits against admission policies in San Francisco since the 1980s, first winning a case against affirmative action quotas in the city’s school district in 1994, then winning another case in 1994 after the San Francisco United School District tried to change selective admission policies at Lowell high school to a lottery.He has advocated more broadly against affirmative action in education, including at a panel convened by the far-right Claremont Institute, where he appeared alongside the University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax. UPenn attempted to withdraw Wax’s tenure this year over her long record of racist statements, including claims that “on average, blacks have lower cognitive ability than whites”.The Guardian emailed Cheng to ask about his apparent criticisms of diversity issues, and his speaking engagement alongside Wax.Cheng responded: “I’m not sure why you would conclude that I say that diversity initiatives are bad. I think racial discrimination is bad. I’ve never said diversity per se, defined as diversity of experience and perspectives, are bad.”Cheng added: “Diversity initiatives are good as long as they do not use race determinatively and predominantly to favor or disfavor any race.”Dhillon, meanwhile, has spread baseless conspiracy theories about the attack on Paul Pelosi last October, joined election-denying legal efforts by Donald Trump and Kari Lake, and has been acting for far-right media figure Tucker Carlson since his ouster from Fox News.Beirich described Dhillon’s associations as “palling around with extremists”. More