Connect with us

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal court blocks part of Alabama trans medical treatment law

“Kids in Alabama can now continue to receive this lifesaving care, & doctors cannot be prosecuted simply for doing their jobs”

Published

on

Hugo L. Black United States Courthouse, Birmingham, Alabama (Photo Credit: US Courts/DXR)

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — In a 32 page ruling released Friday evening, U.S. District Judge Liles Burke preliminarily enjoined the state from enforcing the law criminalizing medical care for transgender minors in Alabama.

The law made it a felony for Doctors and licensed healthcare providers to give gender-affirming puberty blockers and hormones to transgender minors.

Burke, who was nominated to the bench by former President Donald Trump to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, wrote that the section of the Alabama Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act that makes treatment of trans minor children a felony; “the Court finds that there is a substantial likelihood that Section 4(a)(1)–(3) of the Act is unconstitutional and, thus, enjoins Defendants from enforcing that portion of the Act pending trial.”

Judge Burke however ruled that all other provisions of the Act remain in effect, specifically: (1) the provision that bans sex-altering surgeries on minors; (2) the provision prohibiting school officials from keeping certain gender-identity information of children secret from their parents; and (3) the provision that prohibits school officials from encouraging or compelling children to keep certain gender-identity information secret from their parents.

The U.S. Department of Justice had challenged the state’s  SB 184 – a bill that would criminalize doctors for providing best-practice, gender-affirming care to transgender and nonbinary youth.

In the filing by the Justice Department, the complaint alleges that the new law’s felony ban on providing certain medically necessary care to transgender minors violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The department is also asking the court to issue an immediate order to prevent the law from going into effect.

S.B. 184 makes it a felony for any person to “engage in or cause” specified types of medical care for transgender minors. S.B. 184 thus discriminates against transgender youth by denying them access to certain forms of medically necessary care.

It further discriminates against transgender youth by barring them from accessing particular procedures while allowing non-transgender minors to access the same or similar procedures. The penalties for violating the law include up to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $15,000. S.B. 184 would force parents of transgender minors, medical professionals, and others to choose between forgoing medically necessary procedures and treatments, or facing criminal prosecution.

The United States’ complaint alleges that S.B. 184 violates the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating on the basis of sex and transgender status.

LGBTQ legal rights advocates SPLC, GLAD, NCLR, and HRC, joined by co-counsel King & Spalding LLP and Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC, had previously filed a legal challenge in federal district court against Alabama SB 184.

Shannon Minter, the Legal Director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, one of the legal rights advocacy groups who had sued Alabama told the Blade late Friday night:

“We are thrilled by this outcome, which will provide enormous relief to transgender children and their families. As the court recognizes, this is well established medical care that has been endorsed by 22 major medical associations. Thanks to this decision, kids in Alabama can now continue to receive this lifesaving care, and their doctors cannot be prosecuted simply for doing their jobs. This is a huge victory for compassion and common sense and a much needed antidote to the tidal wave of hostile legislation targeting these youth.”

In addition to the U.S. Justice Department,  the doctors challenging SB 184 in Ladinsky v. Ivey are Dr. Morissa J. Ladinsky and Dr. Hussein D. Abdul-Latif, both providers at the Children’s Hospital of Alabama and members of the medical staff at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital and the teaching staff at UAB School of Medicine. Dr. Ladinsky and Dr. Abdul-Latif have long-term expertise in caring for transgender children of Alabama families. Under SB 184, they both face criminal penalties including up to 10 years in prison if they continue to provide that support to their patients.

The Alabama family plaintiffs are proceeding anonymously to protect their children. They include Robert Roe, and his 13-year-old transgender daughter Mary, of Jefferson County; and Jane Doe and her 17-year-old-transgender son John, of Shelby County. These families have deep ties to Alabama. If SB 184 is allowed to go into effect both families will be forced to choose between leaving the state, breaking the law, or facing devastating consequences to their children’s health.

********************

Continue Reading
Advertisement

U.S. Federal Courts

Bisexuality not covered by federal employment law lawsuit claims

“There is nothing in Title VII that prohibits employers from discriminating because of the employee’s sexual or romantic partners”

Published

on

John Minor Wisdom United States Court of Appeals Building in New Orleans, Louisiana (Photo Credit: U.S. Courts/GSA)

NEW ORLEANS – Lawyers in a Texas case filed a brief last week arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, in June of 2020, does not apply to bisexual men. In that ruling the High Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because they are gay or transgender.

Lawyers for Braidwood Management, a business owned by hardline anti-LGBTQ activist Steven Hotze, and Bear Creek Bible Church in Keller, Texas, argued in their brief that “An employer who discriminates on account of an employee or job applicant’s bisexual orientation (or conduct) cannot engage in ‘sex’ discrimination as defined,” the lawyers wrote, “because that employer would have taken the exact same action against an identically situated individual of the opposite biological sex.” In other words, employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity does not apply to bisexuals — as long as bi men are being discriminated against “on equal terms” as bi women.

The Dallas Morning News reported the brief was filed on the day it was due, Sept. 21, by former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell and Gene Hamilton, with the Trump affiliated American First Legal, are representing the plaintiffs. midway through Bisexuality Awareness Week.

The Dallas Morning News noted that:

Mitchell sued the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2018, arguing that employers with religious objections should be able to hire and fire employees based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. Last year, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled largely in his favor.

But the judge sided with the federal government on two issues — so-called bisexual conduct and certain transgender health care procedures.

In their reply to that ruling with the Fifth Court of Appeals, Hamilton and Mitchell argue the Texas judge erred on these issues. The lawyers explained their reasoning like this: The Supreme Court’s decision said that an employer cannot treat two people differently solely based on their sex under federal employment discrimination rules known as Title VII.

This means, according to their argument, an employer cannot fire a gay man for being attracted to men if it would not also fire a woman for being attracted to men. But that same employer is in the clear if it discriminates equally against all bisexuals because it is not treating bi men and bi women differently, the lawyers argued.

“The text of Title VII prohibits sex discrimination only with respect to the sex of the affected employee or job applicant,” they wrote. “There is nothing in Title VII that prohibits employers from discriminating because of the ‘sex’ of an employee or job applicant’s sexual or romantic partners.”

One of the foundational arguments in their brief the lawyers cite is the fact that U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch who wrote the majority opinion in Bostock, outlined the fact that “The key to determining whether sex discrimination has taken place is determining whether a worker of the opposite sex would be treated the same.”

“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” Gorsuch wrote, leaving out any mention of bisexual workers. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

The lawyers are arguing the difference between romantic or sexual partners and gender identity or sexual orientation as it applies under those circumstances.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Supreme Court rules for LGBTQ students against Yeshiva Uni

The court’s order is a rare loss, for now, for conservative groups pushing so-called religious liberty arguments over LGBTQ rights

Published

on

The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court (Photo Credit: U.S. Supreme Court)

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote declined a request from New York City-based Yeshiva University to block a a New York County Supreme Court order that requires the university to recognize the “Pride Alliance” LGBTQ student club.

Last week Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a brief order, granted an emergency request made by Yeshiva University to temporarily block the order by New York County Supreme Court Judge who had ruled this past June that Yeshiva was bound by the New York City Human Rights Law, which bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In its order, the high court noted that the New York state courts had yet to issue a final order in the case, and that Yeshiva could return to the U.S. Supreme Court after the New York courts had acted.

Yeshiva University buildings and facilities on Wilf Campus, New York City (Photo Credit: Yeshiva University)

The university argued that it is a religious institution and therefore should be exempted from the law. Requiring it to endorse the group would be a “clear violation” of its rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which protects the free exercise of religion lawyers for the school said in court documents.

The court’s order is a rare loss, for now, for conservative groups pushing so-called religious liberty arguments over LGBTQ rights at the Supreme Court.

This is yet another in a series of cases the present court has heard and with its 6-3 conservative majority, has strongly backed religious rights in those cases.

Among its most recent rulings the high court has decided in favor of including a 6-3 ruling that sided with a former Bremerton, Washington assistant high school football coach fired for refusing to halt his practice of praying at mid-field after games on school property.

The court in 2021 ruled in favor of a Catholic Church-affiliated agency that Philadelphia had barred from participating in its foster care services because the group refused to place children with same-sex couples. Two years previously in 2018, the court ruled in favor of a conservative Christian baker in Colorado who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

This Fall term justices are set to hear arguments in cases from a web designer, also from Colorado, who wants the court to rule that, based on her evangelical Christian beliefs, she does not have to design wedding websites for same-sex couples. 

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

DOJ sues on behalf of gay tenant harassed by property manager

“We stand ready to use civil rights laws to combat sexual harassment in housing, including based on sexual orientation/gender identity”

Published

on

Milwaukee Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse (Photo Credit: U.S. Courts/GSA)

MILWAUKEE, Wi – The owner and managers of a rental property in Milwaukee, Wisconsin were sued by the U.S. Department of Justice on Friday over their harassment of a gay and disabled tenant in violation of the Fair Housing Act. 

According to the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the defendants subjected the complainant-tenant to “discrimination on the basis of sex and disability, including severe, pervasive and unwelcome harassment on multiple occasions” and  “unwelcome and unwanted sexual comments that were egregious, offensive, and violent.” 

“At times relevant to this complaint,” the complainant-tenant, who is gay, received social security disability benefits (“SSDI”) for mental health conditions that left him unable to do basic work-related activities. These included bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), the latter stemming in part from a sexual assault and rape. 

The complainant-tenant made the onsite property manager aware of his sexual orientation and disabilities, including the PTSD, partly because they had become friendly and partly to ensure they were comfortable with his renting a unit on the property. 

Sexual orientation and gender identity are not explicitly covered in the Fair Housing Act but the federal government considers discrimination on these bases tantamount to sex or gender based discrimination. 

Beginning in December 2019 and continuing “throughout most of Complainant’s Tenancy,” to July 2020, the onsite property manager repeatedly texted the complainant-tenant messages such as, “Your a fag a abomination against Jesus fuck you,” and would often yell epithets like, “God hates faggots” from his residence across the street. 

These messages included unwelcome and sexually violent texts like, ““Grab your ankles daddy is coming to get some,” “What do you think about anal fisting,” and “I have a bowling [p]in with your name on it,” according to the complaint. 

The complainant-tenant was also targeted over his disability with messages like, “Get off your lazy ass and work quit scamming off the government” and “Little fag parade scam off the government you can work you‘re no better than a … fucking lazy POS and judge others.”

This escalated into violent confrontations in which the defendant allegedly struck the complainant-tenant in the groin, saying “hope you enjoyed the sexual assault.” 

For these and other violations of the Fair Housing Act, the Justice Department is asking the court to, among other actions, enjoin the defendants from future discrimination, award monetary damages, and other relief. 

“We stand ready to use our civil rights laws to combat all forms of sexual harassment in housing, including harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, in a press release issued by the agency. 

“The Justice Department will hold accountable landlords and housing providers who engage in unlawful discrimination and harassment of vulnerable tenants.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Advertisement

Follow Us @LosAngelesBlade

Advertisement

Popular