This Day in Legal History: First Governmental Recognition of Same-sex Relationships
On October 1, 1989, Denmark became the first country in the world to legally recognize same-sex relationships through its Registered Partnership Act. The law allowed homosexual couples to enter into civil unions that granted nearly all of the same legal protections and responsibilities as marriage, except for adoption rights and access to religious marriage ceremonies. The Danish parliament had passed the legislation earlier that year with a strong majority, marking a historic shift in global LGBTQ+ rights.
The law was the result of more than a decade of activism by Danish LGBTQ+ rights organizations, particularly the group LBL (Landsforeningen for Bøsser og Lesbiske), which had been advocating for legal recognition since the 1970s. Public support in Denmark was relatively high by the late 1980s, aided by a culture of social liberalism and the country’s strong welfare state. When the law took effect, eleven male couples and one female couple registered their partnerships at Copenhagen City Hall in a widely publicized ceremony.
International reaction was mixed. Many human rights organizations hailed the Danish move as groundbreaking, while conservative and religious groups elsewhere condemned it. Still, Denmark’s action inspired a gradual but undeniable trend. Over the next few decades, many other countries—including Norway, Sweden, and eventually the United States—adopted laws recognizing same-sex unions or full marriage equality.
The Registered Partnership Act remained in place until Denmark legalized same-sex marriage in 2012, at which point existing partnerships could be converted into marriages. The 1989 law is now widely regarded as the legal foundation for modern same-sex union legislation worldwide, proving that structural legal change can begin in small, progressive nations and ripple outward.
A high-stakes redistricting hearing began October 1, 2025, in El Paso, Texas, where a panel of three federal judges will decide whether the state’s new congressional map—redrawn mid-decade—can be used in the 2026 midterms. At issue is whether the map was motivated by unconstitutional racial gerrymandering or permissible political considerations. Texas defends the redraw as a purely partisan move to benefit Republicans, which, while potentially unethical, may be legally protected under Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), a Supreme Court ruling that bars federal courts from reviewing claims of partisan gerrymandering.
The plaintiffs, a coalition of minority and voting rights groups, argue that the map violates constitutional protections against racial discrimination, citing a July letter from the DOJ which had warned that the 2021 map was unlawfully racially gerrymandered. Texas initially used that letter to justify the special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott, but has since pivoted to a political defense, potentially undercutting its earlier rationale. The court has set a fast-paced schedule, allowing no opening statements and warning that it will not tolerate delays.
Seven lawmakers are expected to testify, and the panel includes judges appointed by Reagan, Obama, and Trump. This same trio heard a race-based challenge to the 2021 map earlier in the year, which became moot after the legislature preemptively redrew the map. Experts say proving racial motivation will be difficult but critical, as plaintiffs cannot legally challenge maps solely for being politically gerrymandered.
Texas’ Political Aims on Trial as Redistricting Hearing Begins
The U.S. government officially shut down on October 1, 2025, after Congress failed to pass a funding bill by the end of the fiscal year. The standoff has quickly become a political battle, with President Donald Trump blaming Democrats for pushing a $1.5 trillion agenda and Democrats accusing Trump of sabotaging negotiations and gutting federal programs. Trump’s administration is reportedly planning mass terminations of federal workers, going beyond typical furloughs, as part of its long-standing effort to shrink the federal bureaucracy.
This shutdown flips the usual script: Republicans now seek a clean continuing resolution to keep the government open, while Democrats are demanding healthcare-related provisions and curbs on Trump’s spending discretion. Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are focusing on extending ACA subsidies and reversing Medicaid cuts, but unity within the party remains fragile. Trump has escalated tensions by sharing inflammatory, AI-generated content targeting Democratic leaders, prompting backlash and accusations of racism.
Polling suggests that blame is spread, with a third of voters holding both parties responsible. Markets are already reacting to the uncertainty, and concerns are rising about delayed economic data. Some Republicans, including Trump allies, warn that the shutdown could politically backfire on the president, as it did during his 2018 border wall standoff.
Trump, Democrats Grapple for Edge as Government Shutdown Begins
A federal judge ruled that Sigal Chattah is not lawfully serving as Nevada’s acting U.S. attorney, dealing another blow to the Trump administration’s approach to appointing interim federal prosecutors. Judge David G. Campbell, a George W. Bush appointee, found that Chattah’s appointment violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). Specifically, the Attorney General’s method of designating her as a “first assistant” to qualify her for the acting role was not consistent with congressional intent under the statute.
This decision echoes a similar August ruling in New Jersey, where Alina Habba was also found ineligible to serve as an acting U.S. attorney under the same legal reasoning. Courts have rejected the idea that the Attorney General can bypass standard succession rules to install political allies into key prosecutorial roles.
Though Chattah’s appointment was struck down, Judge Campbell denied motions to dismiss cases she oversaw, noting that Assistant U.S. Attorneys maintain independent authority and that defendants failed to show any prejudice to their cases. Additional legal challenges are still pending, including in the Central District of California against Bill Essayli, another controversial Trump acting appointment.
Nevada Acting US Attorney Chattah Disqualified by US Judge (1)
A California jury has found Uber not liable in the first U.S. trial over claims that one of its drivers sexually assaulted a passenger. The plaintiff, known as Jessica C., alleged that in 2016, her Uber driver pulled off the road and assaulted her during a ride. While the jury determined that Uber was negligent in implementing safety measures, it concluded that the company’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the assault.
This civil trial, held in San Francisco Superior Court, was the first bellwether case out of over 500 similar lawsuits consolidated in California state court. Another 2,500 related cases are proceeding in federal court. Bellwether trials serve as test cases to help guide broader litigation strategy or inform settlements in mass tort cases.
The plaintiff’s lawyers sought up to $1.2 million in compensatory damages per year of her life but did not request a specific amount in punitive damages. They argued Uber failed to take obvious safety steps, like assigning female riders to female drivers or requiring dash cams, despite knowing about widespread assault risks.
Uber denied liability for the criminal acts of its drivers and pointed to improvements in its safety protocols, such as enhanced background checks, safety reports, and in-app security tools. Nonetheless, Uber remains under scrutiny. A recent congressional inquiry and ongoing criticism highlight lingering concerns about the company’s handling of rider safety.
Uber found not liable in first US trial over driver sexual assault claims | Reuters
