Prop 8 Federal Appeal Will Be Televised On Dec. 6!

On Monday December 6th at 10am, A 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, also known as the federal Proposition 8 lawsuit. On August 4th, openly gay federal District Court judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated the United States Constitution.

These facts have been known for awhile. The new information is that apparently the oral arguments in the Perry appeal will now be televised by C-SPAN and local channel KGO. This is a big deal, because the lower court was intended to be broadcast as well but the heterosexual supremacists defending Proposition 8 objected and appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court who overruled Judge Walker and banned the broadcasting of the oral arguments just days before the trial was scheduled to begin this past January.

Here are the details of the hearing on Monday, which will be in two 2-hour segments. The first session will be on whether the Proposition 8 propnents have "standing" to actually continue defending the statue, since the official parties to the lawsuit (the Governor and Attorney General) have refused to defend the voter-passed initiative in court. The second hour will be about the constitutionality of Proposition 8 itself.

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:KKW): The Court orders that oral argument in these appeals be conducted in the following manner: The argument shall be divided into two hour-long sessions, with a brief recess in between. In the first hour, the parties shall address each appellant’s standing and any other procedural matters that may properly be raised. In the second hour, the parties shall address the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

During the first hour, the Hollingsworth defendants-intervenors-appellants (“Proponents”) shall first have 15 minutes, and the Imperial County movants-appellants shall next have 15 minutes in which to present their opening arguments regarding standing and other procedural issues. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 30 minutes in which to respond. Any time reserved by either appellant may be used for rebuttal, but only one rebuttal argument may be made and that by either appellant.

During the second hour, the Proponents shall first have 30 minutes to present their opening argument on the merits of the constitutional question. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 15 minutes, and the plaintiff-intervenor-appellee City and County of San Francisco shall have the next 15 minutes, in which to respond. Any time reserved by the Proponents may be used for rebuttal.

No later than November 24, 2010, the parties shall advise the Court of any objection they have to the allocation of time within each hour or of any reallocation of time within each hour that they wish to propose, by electronically filing letters with the Clerk of the Court. If any party wishes to give its full allotted time within either hour to an amicus curiae, it may request that the Court reallocate that time accordingly. Otherwise, no motions for leave to participate in oral argument by amici curiae will be entertained.. [7545517]

The names of the judges who will hear the appeal have not been released yet. Whoever loses at this level will appeal to the United States Supreme Court, who may or may not accept the case.

White House Rejects Openly Gay Federal Judge Nominee

Daniel Alter, who was set to become the first openly gay man nominated to a federal judgeship by Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York) has had his potential nomination quashed by the Obama White House.

The Washington Blade has the scoop:

The White House has rejected the recommended nomination of a New York attorney who would have become the first openly gay man to sit on the federal bench, because of comments he reportedly made about the Pledge of Allegiance and Christmas that were deemed anti-Christian.

In February, U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) recommended the nomination of Daniel Alter to serve as a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Presidents traditionally follow the guidance of senators from the state where there’s a vacancy for judicial nominations.

But informed sources told the Washington Blade that the White House rejected Alter’s nomination because of remarks he reportedly made regarding a case challenging inclusion of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. In addition, the White House reportedly objected to remarks that Alter made suggesting that merchants not wish shoppers “Merry Christmas” during the holidays.

Interestingly, in a little noted move on September 23rd, Sen. Schumer has also nominated another openly gay man, J. Paul Oetken, to become a federal judge in the same district that Alter was intended to be nominated for, the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York.

We shall see if the Obama Administration accepts the nomination of Oetken, who hopefully has been vetted even more completely for nothing that conservative Republicans can object to.

AFER Files Brief To Oppose Prop 8

AFER's Brief Opposing Propsition 8

DOJ Appeals Rulings Against DOMA To 1st U.S.Circuit

As expected, the Department of Justice announced yesterday that it would appeal two federal district court rulings striking down the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The two cases are Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services where federal judge Joseph L. Tauro declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional this summer.

As Chris Geidner of PoliGlot reports:

In a move expected by most legal observers, the U.S. Department of Justice this afternoon filed notices of appeal in two cases striking down the federal definition of marriage, contained in the Defense of Marriage Act, as unconstitutional.

[...]

The White House issued no comment on the filing and directed questions to DOJ.

The filing of the notice means that the record of the trial court case will be sent to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Once the record is complete, DOJ will have 40 days to file its brief. GLAD or Massachusetts, depending on the case, will then have 30 days to file its brief. The government then has 14 days to file a reply brief.

The full statement by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) is:

Today, the Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal in the case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the challenge brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Representing seven married same-sex couples and three widowers, GLAD filed Gill in March 2009.  The case was heard in May 2010 by U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro, who issued a decision finding DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional on July 8, 2010.

“We fully expected an appeal and are more than ready to meet it head on,” said Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director.  “DOMA brings harm to families like our plaintiffs every day, denying married couples and their children basic protections like health insurance, pensions, and Social Security benefits.  We are confident in the strength of our case.”

The case is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The next step will be for the government to file its brief to that court arguing that Judge Tauro’s ruling was wrong.  GLAD will then file its brief in opposition to the government, and finally the government will file a reply brief.  At that point, the appeal will be scheduled for oral argument.  Briefing could be concluded by the spring of 2011 with oral argument to follow by the fall of 2011.

The government also today filed its notice of appeal in the related case Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Department of Health and Human Services.

Co-counsel in the Gill case are attorneys from the firms Foley Hoag LLP, Sullivan & Worcester LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.

MadProfessah supports the appeal by the Administration and fully expects GLAD to be successful at the 1st Circuit appellate level and U.S. Supreme Court.

Federal Judge Issues Injunction Suspending DADT Worldwide

U.S. district court judge Virginia Phillips today issued a final injunction in the case of Log cabin Republicans v. United States in which she permanently enjoins the federal government from enforcing the anti-gay policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" worldwide.

The text of the order is:

1) DECLARES that the act known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" infringes the fundamental rights of United States servicemembers and prospective servicemembers and violates (a) the substantive due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (b) the rights to freedom of speech and to petition the Government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(2) PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense, their agents, servants, officers, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting in participation or concert with them or under their direction or command, from enforcing or applying the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act and implementing regulations, against any person under their jurisdiction or command;

(3) ORDERS Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act, or pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 654 or its implementing regulations, on or prior to the date of this Judgment.

(4) GRANTS Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans' request to apply for attorneys' fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and

(5) GRANTS Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans' request to file a motion for costs of suit, to the extent allowed by law.

A number of organizations (HRC, Equality California, Courage Campaign, Servicemembers United) are calling for the Obama Administration's Justice Department not to appeal the judge's ruling. MadProfessah is not one of them. I think the Department should not appeal the injunction, but should appeal the decision. I think it is very bad precedent to set that a single federal judge can make a final determination of law for how the United States needs to enforce or not enforce a federal law. Besides, there are literally hundreds of district court judges that have been appointed by Bush who I would not want their interpretation of the law to be the final one. To me, that is why we have appellate courts, and why appellate court appointments are so important. I would strongly not encourage the government to appeal a loss from the 9th Circuit to the United States Supreme Court.

What do YOU think?

10 States File Joint Brief Supporting Prop 8 Proponents

10 states have filed amicus briefs with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the behalf of the heterosexual supremacists who are defending Proposition 8 on appeal from the August 4th striking the gay marriage ban as unconstitutional. The ten states who signed the brief are: Wyoming, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

Additionally, many other heterosexual supremacists groups such as PFOX and the Ethics and Public Policy Center have also filed briefs supporting Proposition 8 and "protecting traditional marriage."

For more info see the Courage Campaign's Prop8TrialTracker.com

White House Issues Statement on DADT Appeal

The White House has just issued a statement about the Department of Justice filing an appeal in federal court today in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America, the case in which a federal judge recently struck down the military's anti-gay "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy as unconstitutional.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

____________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 23, 2010

Statement by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Justice Department filing in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America

Today, the Department of Justice made a filing in a legal challenge to the Don’t Ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged.  This filing in no way diminishes the President’s firm commitment to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT – indeed, it clearly shows why Congress must act to end this misguided policy.   The President was disappointed earlier this week when a majority of the Senate was willing to proceed with National Defense Authorization Act, but political posturing created a 60 vote threshold.  The President spoke out against DADT in his first State of the Union Address, and the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have both testified in support of repeal.   And the Department of Defense continues to work on a plan on how to implement repeal.  The President, along with his Administration, will continue to work with the Senate Leadership to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT as outlined in the NDAA this fall.

###

White House Responds to Federal Court DADT Decision

The White House has responded to the recent federal court ruling in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States by U.S. District Court Judge Virgina Phillips (a Clinton appointee) striking don the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy as unconstitutional.

Although other federal judges have ruled the military's anti-gay policy unconstitutional previously in individual cases of specific military officers, this was the first federal judge to strike down the policy on what is called a facial challenge.

White House spokesperson Shin Inouye said:

"The Justice Department is studying the decision, including the question of its scope and immediate effect and we expect them to announce their next steps after that review is completed. The President remains committed to legislative repeal of DADT, and he will continue to work with lawmakers to achieve that goal this fall. And he will continue to work closely with Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on an ongoing study of how to best implement the repeal."

This lawsuit has taken years to reach this point, and if appealed will take several more years to be resolved. Some LGBT activists are insisting that the Obama Administration's Department of Justice not appeal the ruling, but to me the district court ruling has very little legal effect unless an appellate court affirms it.

The main importance of the ruling is the political impetus it gives to pending legislative repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the United States Congress.

GOP Kills 2 API Federal Judicial Nominations

Edward M. Chen, federal district court nominee

Wow. The GOP must really care about what people of color think about their actions. What they really do care about is the (federal) judiciary. So, it is notable that they have done their best to kill the nominations of two Asian-American men to be federal judges in the 9th Circuit.

Goodwin Liu and Edward Chen were nominated to the federal judiciary by President Obama but blocked by Republicans despite having received 12-7 endorsements from the Senate Judiciary committee.

Under a rarely invoked rule, the Senate must agree to carry over pending nominations when it goes on a 30-day recess. But Republican leaders objected to carrying over several disputed nominees, including Liu and Chen.

"The Republicans are obstructing and, in effect, trying to kill these nominations," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Friday. "It is tragic because these are very worthy nominees who deserve to have their nominations debated and put to a vote."

The San Francisco Chronicle explains why the Republicans are blocking the confirmation of Liu and Chen to the bench.

Liu, a former Rhodes scholar and Supreme Court clerk, has been labeled an extreme liberal by Republican opponents, who cite his support of same-sex marriage and affirmative action.

Chen's opponents point to his background as an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer in San Francisco from 1985 until 2001, when federal judges appointed him as a magistrate.

Under procedures requiring unanimous consent, Republicans have regularly objected to holding Senate votes on Obama's judicial candidates.

They agreed to allow a handful of confirmation votes Thursday, the last day before the recess. But they blocked votes on more than 40 other candidates, and returned five who have encountered opposition, including Liu and Chen, to the White House.

If renominated, Liu and Chen will return to the Judiciary Committee for new votes after Congress returns Sept. 13. To force the Senate to consider their confirmation over Republican objections, Senate Democrats would have to muster 60 votes, which would require support from at least one Republican.

As I noted last month, whether Goodwin Liu joins the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a key test to see whether President Obama will actually go to bat for things that progressives believe in.

The 9th Circuit, of course is the appellate court which will be hearing the appeal of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the Proposition 8 case.

Prop 8 Decision Day Rally in Downtown LA

Federal Prop 8 Decision TOMORROW!

The American Foundation for Equal Rights has announced that the decision in the federal challenge to California's Proposition 8, Perry v. Schwarzenegger will be released tomorrow, Wednesday August 4th (Barack Obama's 49th birthday!)

Federal district court judge Vaughn Walker is widely expected to strike down Proposition 8, but his reasoning and the extent of his ruling should be very interesting. Ted Olson and David Boies were the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

UPDATE TUESDAY 08/03/2010 6:41PM

The decision will be released electronically on the federal court's website between 1pm and 3pm on Wednesday August 4th.

Federal Judge Stops Bad Parts of AZ Immigration Law

Good news from Arizona for once! The federal judge who was was considering seven lawsuits filed against Arizona's controversial, draconian immigration law has enjoined several key provisions from going into effect tomorrow.

The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.

There are still many provisions of SB 1070 that will go into effect that will make life harder for immigrants in that state, however, so protests against the law will continue.
MadProfessah will continue his boycott of the state until the legal status of the law is resolved.

Celebrity Friday (Extra): Pamela Karlan

MadProfessah and Law Professah Pam Karlan

Today after the excellent panel at Netroots Nation 2010 in Las Vegas entitled "Liberal Perspectives on the Kagan Supreme Court Nomination" which featured Dahlia Lithwick, Nan Aron, Keith Kamisugi, Joan McCarter and Pamela Karlan. MadProfessah took a picture with one of my idols, Stanford Law Professor (and former Dean) Pamela Karlan, who has been on progressives' wet dream short list for the United States Supreme Court.

Karlan explicitly mentioned the Goodwin Liu nomination to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (which we have been following here at this blog), and said that progressives should pay careful attention as to whether the UC Berkeley Law Professor gets approved by the Senate. Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that he is putting a hold on all appellate-level federal judicial nominees before the mid-term election, so things do not look good. To support the nomination of a principled progressive to the 9th circuit, click here and here.

Take a look at the picture. Notice anything? Yes, we co-ordinated our colors. It's not pink, it's fuchsia! I think she wears the pearls better than I do, yes?

READ Gill v. OPM Decision Striking Down DOMA

A big day for supporters of marriage equality today! A federal judge struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in two cases, Gill v. OPM and Massachusetts v. DHHS today. The first case was filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) on behalf of seven same-sex couples who are married in Massachusetts and would like the federal government to recognize that status. The second case was filed by former Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Here's the text of the Gill decision:

2010-07-08 Gill v. OPM Case Striking Down DOMA Sec. 3

Here's the text of the Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services case:

DOMA decision in Mass AG case

DOMA Section 3 Struck Down By Federal Judge

GLAD is tweeting it has won its case in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management:

http://twitter.com/GLADLaw/status/18060773570

Great news! U.S. District Court held that #DOMA "violates ... equal
protection principles." Decision will be posted shortly. Please
retweet!

More later....

Prop 8 Supporters Ask Federal Judge To End 18,000 Marriages

Wow. The uber heterosexual supremacist Charles Cooper, the attorney for the defendants in the federal Proposition 8 trial Perry v. Schwarzenegger, has taken one more egregious shot at LGBT people: he asked the federal judge to not only uphold the state constitutional ban on marriage equality but apply it retroactively to strip state recognition of the estimate 18,000 same-sex couples who got married between June 15, 2008 and November 5, 2008.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

As the trial over California's prohibition on same-sex marriage enters its final stage today, the ban's sponsors are urging the judge to go a step further and revoke state recognition of the marriages of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before voters passed Proposition 8.

Such an order would honor "the expressed will of the people," backers of the November 2008 ballot measure said Tuesday in their final written filing before Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.

Andrew Pugno, an attorney for Prop. 8's backers, said in an interview that the sponsors aren't asking Walker to nullify the 18,000 marriages, but only to rule that government agencies, courts and businesses no longer have to recognize the couples as married.

So, they are basically asking the courts to divorce me and my husband in the eyes of the state of California. That's pretty deep.

You can follow coverage of the final day of this historic trial at multiple locations:

FireDogLake

Pam's House Blend

The Advocate

Olson-Boies Response To Prop 8 Judge Questions

Tomorrow the federal judge in the Proposition 8 case Perry v. Schwarzenegger will hear closing arguments. Last week he issued questions to both sides of the case. The American Foundation for Equal Rights has posted the answers provided by the good guys, Ted Olson and David Boies, who are fighting to have Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional.

Here are the plaintiff responses in SCRIBD. The defendants of Prop 8 have also responded:

Plaintiffs Responses to Prop 8 Judge's Questions

Judge Walker Issues Questions In Prop 8 Trial

Judge Vaughn Walker has issued questions for the litigants in Perry v. Schwazenegger to answer during closing arguments which are scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday June 16th. Some of the questions are fascinating:

What empirical data, if any, supports a finding that legal recognition of same-sex marriage reduces discrimination against gays and lesbians?

What are the consequences of a permanent injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8? What remedies do plaintiffs propose?

If the evidence of the involvement of the LDS and Roman Catholic churches and evangelical ministers supports a finding that Proposition 8 was an attempt to enforce private morality, what is the import of that finding?

The court has reserved ruling on plaintiffs' motion to exclude Mr Blankenhorn's testimony. If the motion is granted, is there any other evidence to support a finding that Proposition 8 advances a legitimate governmental interest?

Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination? See Doc #605 at 11 ("But sincerely held moral or religious views that require acceptance and love of gay people, while disapproving certain aspects of their conduct, are not tantamount to discrimination."). What evidence in the record shows that a belief based in morality cannot also be discriminatory? If that moral point of view is not held and is disputed by a small but significant minority of the community, should not an effort to enact that moral point of view into a state constitution be deemed a violation of equal protection?

What does it mean to have a "choice" in one's sexual orientation? See e g Tr 2032:17-22; PX 928 at 37

Very interesting questions, eh? I believe the Williams Institute could provide data which answers the first question. The answer to #2 should be very, very important. If the judge wants to know the answer to #3, he should watch 8: The Mormon Proposition, the documentary on the LDS church's involvement in the Proposition 8 electoral battle. I believe it's irrelevant whether some people claim to have a choice in their sexual orientation. Most people clearly do NOT choose their sexual orientation, and obviously constitutional rights do not go away because the issue in question is a choice, since most people's religion is a choice.

A full list of the Judge's questions can be seen here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32724803/Doc-677

Gay Blood Donor Ban Retained By 9-6 Vote

The Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability of the Department of Health and Human Services voted 9-6 on Friday to retain the current policy (in place since 1983) of preventing any man who has had sex with a man since 1977 from donating blood for the rest of their life.

Earlier this year, Senator John Kerry and a group of lawmakers sent a letter urging the FDA reconsider its long-held policy. The Los Angeles Times encouraged (sorta) the change.

Reporting from The Advocate:

Addressing the committee on Thursday, Kerry said he was joined by the nation's largest blood-banking organizations in opposition to the current policy. The American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks, and America’s Blood Centers have all blasted the policy as “scientifically and medically unwarranted.”

"This is a discussion with real social significance for gay men," Kerry said before the committee. "They are clearly the target of this policy, which was initiated in the early '80s, when little was known about HIV/AIDS, except that gay men seemed to be contracting it almost exclusively. Today, this lingering policy carries with it a social stigma for this population that is still engaged in battles for civil rights on a whole array of fronts."

In a unanimous vote the panel also called the policy "suboptimal," however, and recommended that distinctions be made between low- and high-risk potential gay donors in a report to the assistant secretary of HHS.

I suspect the question of who gets appointed to this committee in the future as well as possible federal legislation will be next steps. LGBT groups are NOT HAPPY.

BLOGSWARM: Revise FDA Gay Blood Donor Ban

Rod 2.0 and other blogs are doing a blogswarm today to end the ban on gay men donating blood.

Here is a letter summarizing the scientific and social reasons for revising the ban for yourconvenience. Feel free to copy and paste into an e-mail to jerry.holmberg@hhs.gov

Jerry A. Holmberg, PhD
Executive Secretary
Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability
Office of Public Health and Science
Department of Health and Human Services
1101 Wooton Parkway, Suite 250
Rockville, MD 20852

June 10, 2010

Dear Dr. Holmberg,

I am pleased that the Health and Human Services Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability (ACBSA) is planning to review the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) decades-long ban on blood donation by any man who has had sex with another man since 1977. I strongly urge the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to review its policy prohibiting gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) from donating blood.

The FDA's current blood donor eligibility policies are largely inconsistent, imposing significantly less restrictive deferrals to heterosexual men and women who engage in high-risk sexual behavior, yet banning gay and bisexual men who are HIV-negative, consistently practice safe sex, or are in monogamous, long-term relationships. This policy reinforces inaccurate stereotypes about gay men and HIV, and results in a significant loss of healthy blood donors.

The advent of new HIV testing technologies, which can detect HIV directly and has a window period of only 9-11 days after infection, has provided scientific and technological reasons to reconsider the policy. In the face of chronic blood shortages in the nation's blood supply, the unnecessary exclusion of large numbers of HIV-negative blood donors may harm patients in need of blood transfusions.

I join a growing consensus of voices who have called for reform of the FDA's donor eligibility policy. Many public health experts, the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks, America's Blood Centers, and others have supported reforming the policy. Additionally, 18 U.S. Senators, as well as U.S. Representatives, have recently sent letters to the FDA calling for the long-standing policy's review and modification.

It is both timely and necessary that an exhaustive review of alternative policies is conducted. I encourage Health and Human Services (HHS) and the FDA to act quickly to address our mutual concern for expanding the blood donor pool and ensuring the safety and adequacy of our nation's blood supply.

Sincerely,