Connect with us

U.S. Federal Courts

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Biden’s ability to enforce immigration laws

In its 5-4 ruling the high court said that the president may repeal the Trump-era ‘remain in Mexico’ policy

Published

on

Screenshot/YouTube NBC News

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday in a 5-4 ruling said the Biden administration can end a policy that forced asylum seekers to pursue their cases in Mexico.

The previous White House’s Migrant Protection Protocols program, which became known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, took effect in 2019.

The Biden administration suspended MPP enrollment shortly after it took office in January 2021. The program was to have ended six months later, but a federal judge in Texas ordered MPP’s reinstatement after the state and Missouri filed suit against the Biden administration.

Thursday’s ruling sends the Texas and Missouri case back to lower courts.

“As Secretary Mayorkas concluded in October 2021 after a thorough review, the prior administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) has endemic flaws, imposes unjustifiable human costs and pulls resources and personnel away from other priority efforts to secure our border,” said the Department of Homeland Security in a statement. “We welcome the Supreme Court’s decision affirming that the Secretary has the discretionary authority to terminate the program, and we will continue our efforts to terminate the program as soon as legally permissible.” 

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) also welcomed the ruling.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision correctly acknowledges the Biden administration’s authority to end the unlawful and cruel ‘Remain in Mexico’ program,” he said in a statement. “For more than three years, this horrifying policy has denied asylum seekers their right to due process and subjected them to crimes like rape, kidnapping and torture in northern Mexican border cities while they await their court hearings.”

Advocates sharply criticized MPP, in part, because it made LGBTQ+ and intersex asylum seekers who were forced to live in Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, Reynosa, Matamoros and other Mexican border cities even more vulnerable to violence and persecution based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

TransLatin@ Coalition President Bamby Salcedo on Thursday told the Los Angeles Blade the Supreme Court ruling “will certainly impact our community in a positive way.”

“We know that people who have to remain in Mexico to wait continue to be victims of violence,” said Salcedo. “This is definitely a step in the right direction and we’re grateful that this happened in this way.”

Emilio Vicente, communications and policy director of Familia: TQLM, an organization that advocates on behalf of Transgender and gender non-conforming immigrants, echoed Salcedo.

“We’re glad to finally have some good news from the Supreme Court after horrible rulings on abortions, climate change, Native American rights,” said Vicente. “Ending ‘Remain in Mexico’ will allow LGBTQ+ asylum seekers who face increased discrimination and abuse during the journey to the U.S., to be able to seek asylum here.” 

Abdiel Echevarría-Cabán is a South Texas-based immigration attorney and human rights law and policy expert who the LGBTQ+ Bar in 2021 recognized as one of its 40 best LGBTQ+ lawyers who are under 40.

He told the Blade on Thursday the Supreme Court ruling is “a victory we must celebrate.” Echevarría-Cabán also said MPP placed LGBTQ+ and intersex asylum seekers at increased risk. 

“Refugees in general, but especially LGBT refugees, are extremely vulnerable to other type of harms such as kidnappings by cartel members, extortion, physical and psychological abuses from Mexican law enforcement authorities and third parties given the high levels of discrimination for LGBT refugees in Mexico,” said Echevarría-Cabán.

The Supreme Court issued its ruling a day after the Justice Department filed charges against four people in connection with the deaths of 53 migrants who were found in the back of a tractor trailer truck in San Antonio.

The Biden administration in April announced its plans to terminate Title 42, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention rule that closed the Southern border to most asylum seekers and migrants because of the pandemic. Title 42 was to have ended on May 23, but a federal judge ruled against the White House.

“This decision isn’t the end of the fight for ensuring that people seeking asylum get asylum but it’s an important step in protecting vulnerable people,” Vicente told the Blade after Thursday’s ruling. “President Biden must follow through on his commitment to end MPP and protect all asylum seekers.”

Salcedo noted to the Blade the “system, as it is, particularly when it comes to trans women, needs to be completely changed so that we can be at a better place as a community.” Padilla in his statement urged the Biden administration “to do everything in its power to swiftly end ‘Remain in Mexico’ once and for all.”

“Misguided and inhumane Trump-era policies like ‘Remain in Mexico’ and Title 42 have only decimated an already broken immigration system,” he said. “We must keep working to restore the lawful processing of asylum seekers at the border, in keeping with America’s most deeply held values as a nation of immigrants.”

The Department of Homeland Security in its statement notes Title 42 remains in place.

“The department also continues to enforce our immigration laws at the border and administer consequences for those who enter unlawfully, and will continue the court-mandated enforcement of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Title 42 public health order,” it reads.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Federal Courts

L.A. County Fire Dept. Lifeguard Capt. sues over Pride flags

Little’s refusal to raise the ‘Progress Pride Flag’ the suit claims led to threats of his dismissal & is a form of religious discrimination

Published

on

Towers 17 & 18 in Will Rogers Beach, more affectionately known as "Ginger Rogers" Beach, were unveiled last June to help celebrate the LGBTQ+ community and Pride Month. The towers have been painted with the colors of the Progress Pride Flag. (Photo Credit: Los Angeles County Fire Department, Lifeguard Division)

LOS ANGELES – A Los Angeles County Fire Department-Lifeguard Division Captain has sued the LACFD-LGD and LA county over the county’s policy regarding display of the LGBTQ+ ‘Progress Pride Flag’ at his workplace. In the suit claiming that requiring him to raise the Pride Flag constitutes religious discrimination as he describes himself as a devout evangelical Christian.

The lawsuit, filed on May 24, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, LACFD-LGD Captain Jeffrey Little, a 22 year veteran, who is represented by the anti-LGBTQ+ law firm, Thomas More Society, is alleging that Little’s refusal to raise the ‘Progress Pride Flag’ which he claims has led to threats of his dismissal, is a form of religious discrimination.

According to the suit, the Fire Department is violating Little’s rights under the First Amendment, federal, and state law. “Little’s sincere and deeply held religious beliefs prohibit his participation in raising the Progress Pride Flag. For that, he has suffered religious discrimination, harassment, and retaliation at the hands of the Los Angeles County Fire Department,” his attorney’s claim.

In March 2023, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution requiring that all county-operated facilities fly the Progress Pride Flag during the month of June. According to Little’s attorneys, in June 2023, Little requested a religious accommodation that would exempt him from personally participating in the required raising of the Progress Pride Flag in accordance with the county board’s resolution. On June 19, 2023, the Los Angeles County Fire Department initially granted Little’s request and promised him that he would neither have to raise the Progress Pride Flag himself, nor personally ensure that the flag is raised at his station. Little’s religious accommodation was rescinded two days later on June 21, 2023.

According to Little’s attorneys, almost immediately after the accommodation was revoked, Los Angeles County Fire Department personnel engaged in illegal retaliation and harassment against Little. His supervising officers—particularly Little’s division and section chiefs—ordered him to raise the Progress Pride Flag. In issuing a direct order to Little on June 22, 2023, Division Chief Fernando Boiteux told him, “You are an LA County employee, that’s the only thing that matters,” and, “Your religious beliefs do not matter.”

In the suit it states that Little was subsequently removed from his Fire Department role on the background investigation unit.

The suit also alleges the LACFD-LGD then revealed to unauthorized persons that Little had requested a religious accommodation. Following that disclosure, Little received a death threat that also targeted his daughters.

In a statement, Paul Jonna, Thomas More Society Special Counsel and Partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP, said:

Captain Jeffrey Little is an upstanding American, a devout Christian father, and a public servant who has honorably served the Los Angeles County Fire Department for over 22 years. He courageously stood on principle and asked for a simple religious accommodation—which he is rightfully and legally due—only to be first denied, then threatened, harassed, discriminated and retaliated against for his widely shared Christian religious beliefs. In our great country, Americans can’t even be forced to salute the American flag as a condition of government employment. Yet, in this case, the L.A. County Fire Department seeks to force Captain Little to personally raise the Progress Pride Flag in violation of his sincere and deeply held religious beliefs—or face termination. The L.A. County Fire Department’s actions are not only deeply un-American, but also flagrantly illegal. We’ve filed this federal lawsuit to vindicate Captain Little’s religious liberty rights and to firmly establish that this sort of blatant religious discrimination has no place in our public life.”

A spokesperson for the L.A. County Fire Department, which oversees lifeguards, said the department cannot comment on personnel issues or any ongoing litigation.

Read the lawsuit filing here: (Link)

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

NH federal court strikes down ‘banned concepts’ curriculum law

The “banned concepts” law, violated teachers’ 14th Amendment rights because it’s too vague for them to follow the judge ruled

Published

on

The Warren B. Rudman U.S. Courthouse in Concord, New Hampshire. (Photo by Ken Gallager)

By Ethan DeWitt | CONCORD, N.H. – Patrick Keefe says he just wanted to teach Toni Morrison’s “Beloved.”

The high school English teacher has long included the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about slavery in his curriculum at Litchfield’s Campbell High School. And in the past, he had questioned students about whether Morrison’s themes about the legacy of slavery applied to the present.

But after a state law passed in 2021 that regulated how teachers may talk about race and other concepts to students, Keefe became more cautious, he testified in a deposition last year. Any student-led discussion about structural racism might lead to a complaint under the new law, and might cause Keefe to lose his teaching license, he feared.

On Tuesday, a federal judge cited Keefe and other teachers’ examples in an order striking down the law, siding with teachers unions and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire and ruling that the law is unconstitutionally vague. 

In his decision, Judge Paul Barbadoro held that the law, known by opponents as the “divisive concepts” or “banned concepts” law, violated teachers’ 14th Amendment rights because it is too vague for them to follow. 

“The Amendments are viewpoint-based restrictions on speech that do not provide either fair warning to educators of what they prohibit or sufficient standards for law enforcement to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” Barbadoro wrote, referring to the statutory changes passed by the law. 

The law prohibits K-12 public school staff from any instruction that advocates for four concepts: that a person of any race, gender, sexual orientation, or other characteristic is inherently “superior” to another; that any individual is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive against another for any characteristic; that an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment for any characteristic; and that people of one characteristic “cannot and should not attempt to treat others without regard to” one of their characteristics.

The characteristics covered by the law are a person’s “age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin.” 

The law, which was in part modeled after an executive order by President Donald Trump that applied to federal employees and was repealed by President Joe Biden, was presented by Republican lawmakers as an anti-discrimination statute meant to ensure that all students were treated equally. It came as Republican lawmakers raised concerns about diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts implemented in public schools, and argued that teachers were espousing “critical race theory” in classrooms.

The law allowed parents to bring complaints to the state’s Commission for Human Rights against teachers and school staff who they believed violated the new anti-discrimination statute. And it gave the State Board of Education the power to revoke educators’ teaching licenses if they were found by the commission to be in violation. 

But teachers unions and others raised concerns that the prohibited concepts were too unclear to follow and would result in educators self-censoring instruction around certain topics such as race or gender for fear of losing their teaching credentials.

In his order Tuesday, Barbadoro sided with the state’s two teachers unions – the National Education Association of New Hampshire (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers of New Hampshire (AFT) – who had argued that the law violated their 14th Amendment rights because it did not provide clear guidance of what teachers should or shouldn’t teach. 

Barbadoro’s ruling grants “declaratory relief” to plaintiffs, meaning he is ruling that the law is unconstitutional, but it does not grant “injunctive relief” – a stricter ruling that would have stopped the state from carrying out the law. In his order, Barbadoro wrote that he didn’t believe he needed the latter relief because he believed the state would respect the ruling and stop enforcing the law.

The ruling was a setback for the state, which had argued that the Attorney General’s Office had given teachers sufficient guidance in a “Frequently Asked Questions” document released in 2021 that outlined scenarios in which teachers would violate or not violate the law.

There are no known cases of New Hampshire teachers who have been found by the Commission for Human Rights to have violated the law. 

But Barbadoro said there were a number of scenarios that the FAQs did not address. One such unanswered question centered on Keefe’s attempts to teach “Beloved.” 

According to his deposition, Keefe had asked for clarity from his school’s administration but “was told there was none available other than the Attorney General’s Frequently Asked Questions,” Barbadoro noted. 

Barbadoro also noted the example of Jennifer Given, a former high school social studies teacher at the Hollis Brookline High School who “felt the need to significantly modify her teaching methods ‘out of fear that [she] would be accused of’ violating the Amendments, regardless of whether she was actually doing so.”

And he argued that the uncertainty applied to extracurricular activities as well, citing the testimony of Ryan Richman, a high school history teacher at Timberlane Regional High School. Richman said as a faculty adviser for the school’s Model United Nations team, he felt the law hampered his ability to help students for their competition in fear of saying something that might be seen as a violation. 

Barbadoro used the examples to bolster his larger conclusion. 

“The Amendments are vague not because they subject teachers to severe professional sanctions, but because they fail to provide teachers with sufficient notice of what is prohibited and raise the specter of arbitrary and discretionary enforcement,” he ruled.

He also said that the vagueness would allow state officials to apply their own arbitrary interpretations to enforcement. 

“… Because the Amendments fail to establish ‘minimal guidelines to govern [their] enforcement,’ officials are free to ‘pursue their personal predilections’ when applying the law,” Barbadoro wrote.

The decision was hailed by the plaintiffs; Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, called it “a victory for academic freedom and an inclusive education for all New Hampshire students.” 

“New Hampshire’s ‘banned concepts’ law stifled New Hampshire teachers’ efforts to provide a true and honest education,” agreed NEA-NH President Megan Tuttle in a statement. “Students, families, and educators should rejoice over this court ruling which restores the teaching of truth and the right to learn for all Granite State students.”

And it was cheered on by Democrats, including the two lead Democratic candidates for governor. Former Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig praised the plaintiffs who “fought this unconstitutional law.” In her own statement, Executive Councilor Cinde Warmington said, “Teachers should be free to teach – the truth – and students should be free to learn.” 

Republicans said they would redouble efforts to pass the bill. In a statement, former state Senate President Chuck Morse, a Republican candidate for governor who had helped push for the law in the Senate, said he was “deeply disappointed” in the decision but vowed to press on.

“As Governor, I will work tirelessly with lawmakers, educators, and community leaders to draft and pass a stronger bill that addresses the court’s concerns while keeping our fundamental goal intact: to prevent the dissemination of any materials that promote racial superiority or inferiority,” Morse said.

In a post on X, State Rep. Keith Ammon, a New Boston Republican, wrote: “Judge Barbadoro just put stopping Critical Race Theory back on the ballot in November.”

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

Ethan DeWitt

Ethan DeWitt is the New Hampshire Bulletin’s education reporter. Previously, he worked as the New Hampshire State House reporter for the Concord Monitor, covering the state, the Legislature, and the New Hampshire presidential primary. A Westmoreland native, Ethan started his career as the politics and health care reporter at the Keene Sentinel. Email: [email protected]

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

The preceding article was previously published by The New Hampshire Bulletin and is republished with permission.

The independent, nonprofit New Hampshire Bulletin is guided by these words from our state constitution: “Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive.” We will work tirelessly every day to make sure elected officials and state agencies are held to that standard.

We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge may delay Alabama’s trans medical care ban trial

The law makes it a felony, punishable by 10 years in prison, for physicians to prescribe puberty blockers or HRT to trans youth under age 19

Published

on

The Frank M. Johnson Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Montgomery, Alabama, seen on January 24, 2023. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)

By Jemma Stephenson | HUNTSVILLE, Ala. – A federal judge this past Thursday weighed arguments on whether to move to a trial over Alabama’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for individuals under the age of 19. 

During a roughly three-and-half-hour hearing Thursday, attorneys for the state and for transgender children and their families suing over the law considered the merits of moving forward while circuit courts around the country consider similar laws with different conclusions, and whether a trial over Alabama’s law could move forward as planned or be delayed.

Alabama’s 2022 law makes it a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for physicians to prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to transgender youth under the age of 19. SB 184, sponsored by Sen. Shay Shelnutt, R-Trussville, also banned reconstructive surgery and genital surgeries on minors, which providers have stressed do not happen in Alabama.

The families that filed suit said the ban would jeopardize the physical and psychological health of their children. The state repeatedly questioned the effectiveness of the treatments. 

Following a two-day hearing in 2022, U.S. District Judge Liles C. Burke issued a preliminary injunction against the law, ruling that it interfered with parental rights.

The state appealed to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where a federal panel reversed the injunction. U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa, whose ruling cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision overturning federal abortion rights, wrote that earlier rulings did “not establish that parents have a derivative fundamental right to obtain a particular medical treatment for their children as long as a critical mass of medical professionals approve.”

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case moved for an en banc hearing where the entire 11th Circuit would hear the case. The full circuit had not ruled on the motion as of Thursday afternoon.

In Burke’s court on Thursday, Jeff Doss, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said that the decision to go to trial was a “purely discretionary” one for the court. The attorney said the full 11th Circuit — covering Alabama, Georgia and Florida — may not have the votes for the en banc hearing but said the court might not want “active machinery” until “we see there are further developments.”

The motion for the stay filed by the plaintiffs on May 3 also referenced waiting to see if pending cases in Tennessee and Kentucky were taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Burke told Doss to be trial ready for a regular track, but told Alabama Solicitor General Edmund LaCour, arguing for the state, that Doss’s statements were persuasive.

LaCour said they had “done a lot of work over the past two years.”

“We need a decision right away,” he said.

LaCour told Burke that it has become a “playbook” for the United States to enter the cases and ask for trust from doctors rather than lawmakers.

LaCour also referenced sealed evidence that the state had and said they had created a “very robust record.”

Burke said that they were “reading tea leaves,” and they did not know what would happen. He said he did not see the harm in waiting three months and that it is “certainly possible I could be reversed twice.”

LaCour told Burke that he could rule on a summary judgment, or a judgment entered without a full trial. 

Burke told LaCour that the state could enforce the law now, but LaCour replied that they had spent a lot of time on the case. 

“At some point, when is it our turn to finally get justice?” he said.

Burke said he was sympathetic to LaCour’s statements that one plaintiff has already aged out, and they might need new experts.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall was in attendance Thursday but did not present any of the state’s arguments.

Burke told the court that he was going to think more, but he checked around the room for major conflicts for Oct. 27, which no one objected to.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs have faced accusations of judge-shopping after they dismissed and refiled the case in 2022, prior to the two-day hearing. Burke clarified with one attorney Thursday that judge shopping is prohibited under the 11th Circuit.

Burke spent over an hour meeting with the attorneys – and their attorneys – in separate meetings Thursday on the format for hearings in the matter. While they met, the attorneys went around speaking in small groups amongst themselves. 

“Think we’ve got a plan,” Burke said at the end, saying that he would be open to attorneys taking the lead on discussion, or doing that himself. 

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

Jemma Stephenson

Jemma Stephenson covers education as a reporter for the Alabama Reflector. She previously worked at the Montgomery Advertiser and graduated from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Alabama Reflector and is republished with permission.

The Alabama Reflector is an independent, nonprofit news outlet dedicated to covering state government and politics in the state of Alabama. Through daily coverage and investigative journalism, The Reflector covers decision makers in Montgomery; the issues affecting Alabamians, and potential ways to move our state forward.

We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Guilty plea in Grindr cyberstalking, sextortion & id theft of gay men

He targeted young gay men on Grindr to obtain their sexually explicit photographs & videos consensually & used them to extort money or sex

Published

on

Joseph P. Kinneary United States Courthouse in Columbus, Ohio is home to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Photo Credit: The Carol M. Highsmith Archive, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs)

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Omoruyi O. Uwadiae, 28, of Chicago, offered a guilty plea in U.S. District Court on Wednesday, May 22 to cyberstalking, sextortion and identity theft crimes. His scheme involved dozens of victims in multiple states, including Ohio, Colorado and Washington.

According to his plea documents, Uwadiae admitted to obtaining sexually explicit photographs and videos from potential victims and then using the content to threaten them. Uwadiae threatened to distribute the explicit material widely on the internet and specifically to victims’ friends, family members, employers and others.

The defendant demanded money from some victims. From others, he demanded they meet him, have sex with him, or make damaging admissions such as admissions that they were racist. On multiple occasions, Uwadiae carried through with his threats. He sent sexually explicit photographs and videos to the victims’ friends, family members (including at least one victim’s mother, at least one victim’s brother, and at least one victim’s sister), employers and acquaintances, and also posted sexually explicit photographs and videos widely on the internet.

Multiple victims had not publicly disclosed their sexual orientation, which Uwadiae’s actions disclosed, contrary to their wishes. The defendant also used victims’ identifications to create false accounts on social media and post personal information about the victims online.

Uwadiae targeted young gay men on Grindr and other online sites. He would obtain their sexually explicit photographs and videos consensually and then use them to extort. In some cases, he posted their nude images on Male General without their consent and then demanded money or other things of value to take down the images. Male General is a blog marketed to gay men containing, among other things, boards where users can post images and text.

For example, one victim was a student at The Ohio State University who communicated with Uwadiae on Grindr. Uwadiae ultimately demanded that the victim either pay him $200 or have sex with him. When the victim did not comply, Uwadiae created false social media accounts using true photos of the victim, stating, “this guy is gay, see pics for evidence.” The victim had not disclosed his sexual orientation to his family and had told Uwadiae he was concerned that his family would react negatively if they learned he was bisexual.

Uwadiae was charged in the Southern District of Ohio in April.

As part of his plea, Uwadiae pleaded guilty to 22 total counts. He pleaded guilty to eight counts of cyberstalking (punishable by up to five years in prison), seven counts of making interstate communications with the intent to extort (up to two years in prison) and seven counts of unlawfully using a means of identification (up to five years in prison).

Kenneth L. Parker, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, announced the guilty plea offered today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King. The case was investigated by the FBI and the Columbus, Ohio Police Department.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Supreme Court declines Maryland anti-LGBTQ+ guidelines suit

Three parents of students in the school district outside of D.C., — none of whom have trans children — filed the lawsuit

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Photo: Washington Blade/Michael Key)

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a lawsuit against Montgomery County Public Schools guidelines that allow schools to create plans in support of transgender or gender non-confirming students without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

Three parents of students in the school district in suburban Maryland outside of D.C., — none of whom have trans or gender non-confirming children — filed the lawsuit. 

A judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last August dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal court: Maryland parents cannot opt out of LGBTQ lessons

The lawsuit challenges Montgomery County Public Schools’ policy that “mandates the inclusion of literature with LGBTQ+ characters”

Published

on

Lewis F. Powell Jr. Courthouse, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Richmond, Virginia. (Photo Credit: U.S. Courts/GSA)

RICHMOND, Va. – A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled a group of Montgomery County parents cannot “opt out” their children from classes in which lessons or books on LGBTQ-related topics are taught.

The parents filed their lawsuit in May 2023.

An American Civil Liberties Union press release notes the lawsuit challenges Montgomery County Public Schools’ policy that “mandates the inclusion of literature with LGBTQ+ characters as part of the ELA (English and Language Arts) curriculum, aiming to promote understanding and acceptance among students.” 

“Although the district originally allowed parents to opt their children out of some ELA lessons, it rescinded the opt-out policy because the number of requests grew too difficult to manage, student absenteeism soared, and it created a stigmatizing environment for students who are LGBTQ or have LGBTQ family members, undermining the purpose of the inclusivity requirement,” said the ACLU.

U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled against the parents. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., upheld the decision.

“We’re talking about books like ‘Pride Puppy,’ which is light-hearted and affirming,” said ACLU of Maryland Legal Director Deborah Jeon in a press release. “During a time of intensifying calls to ban books and limit access to information about LGBTQ+ people and identities, this ruling in support of inclusion in education matters.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

11th Circuit rules against trans exclusions, cites Title VII guidance

In making its decision, the court referenced two recent developments that may change the legal landscape for transgender people

Published

on

Photo Credit: Houston County, Georgia Sheriff's Department/Facebook

By Erin Reed | ATLANTA, Ga. – On Monday, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that transgender health insurance exclusions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The case was brought by a transgender employee of the Houston County Sheriff’s Office in Georgia who was denied coverage for gender-affirming surgery.

The employee sued in 2019, and after a protracted lawsuit, won at the district court level. Now, with this 11th Circuit Court ruling in favor of transgender employees, a significant precedent is building to protect transgender employees against health insurance restrictions that deny them the ability to get gender-affirming care.

The employee in question first transitioned in 2017. After informing Sheriff Cullen Talton at the Houston County Sheriff’s Office of her decision to transition, she was told that he “does not believe in” being transgender, but that she would be allowed to keep her job.

However, when it came time to obtain gender-affirming surgery, significant controversy erupted: her claims were denied. When she filed a lawsuit to have her surgery covered, the sheriff’s office and county fought against her right to equitable health care coverage.

Since then, the county has spent incredible amounts of money denying the plaintiff her care. As of 2023, Houston County, Georgia, had spent $1,188,701 fighting against providing health care coverage for the transgender plaintiff.

This is significant: ProPublica reports that it is over three times the county’s annual physical and mental health budget. Importantly, no other employee has requested coverage for gender-affirming surgery, so fighting against coverage has significantly cost the county far more than it would have gained by simply providing the employee with that coverage.

Ultimately, a lower court ruled in her favor, stating that such exclusions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In the decision, the judge stated, “the implication of Bostock is clear… discrimination on the basis of transgender status is discrimination on the basis of sex and is a violation of Title VII.”

The judge then ruled that the exclusion was facially discriminatory and violates Title VII. In doing so, he ordered that the county must drop such exclusions. The plaintiff was also awarded $60,000 following the ruling.

The county appealed the ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which seemed primed to potentially reverse it. Recently, the 11th Circuit has issued harsh rulings toward transgender individuals, such as a ruling that gender-affirming care bans for transgender youth do not violate Equal Protection and Due Process rights.

In this particular case, though, the court considered a different argument: whether such exclusions on transgender insurance coverage violate employment law under the Civil Rights Act. The 11th Circuit concluded that they did: “The exclusion is a blanket denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery… because transgender persons are the only plan participants who qualify for gender-affirming surgery, the plan denies health care coverage based on transgender status.”

Determination that insurance exclusions violate Title VII.

In making its decision, the court referenced two recent developments that may change the legal landscape for transgender people.

In one footnote, the court mentioned Kadel v. Folwell, a case just decided in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, with the court ruling that discrimination against transgender health care violates the Equal Protection Clause. Though it does not reference the case elsewhere, the 11th Circuit used similar legal arguments: that you cannot circumvent discrimination cases by discriminating by proxy. In this case, like in the Kadel case, the judge ruled that discriminating against transgender health care is also discriminating against transgender status.

The judge ruled that the defendant’s “sex is inextricably tied to the denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery,” and thus, one cannot circumvent discrimination statutes by claiming they are only discriminating against a procedure and not a category of people.

related

The court also referenced new Title VII guidance from the Biden administration in a footnote when making its decision that exclusions violate those regulations. On April 29, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued updated guidance stating that Title VII protections include protections on gender identity.

Although the guidance does not have the force of law, “numerous courts, including the Supreme Court, have said: Because these guidelines are based on the expertise and careful reasoning of the agency that’s charged with enforcing anti-discrimination laws, they’re to be given deference by the courts,” Christopher Ho, the director of the National Origin and Immigrants’ Rights Program at Legal Aid at Work, stated in an interview with the Washington Post at the time of the guidelines’ release. Now, it appears that a major court, which has ruled against transgender rights in the past, has indeed given those guidelines some credit in their ruling.

Title VII guidelines playing a role in reversing trans healthcare exclusions in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ruling is significant and will likely be one of the many rulings referenced whenever such cases eventually reach the Supreme Court. Multiple courts have ruled in favor of transgender people and their health care, but some significant courts, including in a recent decision by the 11th Circuit Court on health care for transgender youth, have ruled against such legal protections. It is likely that this decision will be cited favorably in many other court cases in the coming months.

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

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

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

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge: Teachers can challenge Tennessee instruction law

“I’m thrilled the judge listened to our concerns as educators & seemed to understand that this law puts teachers in an impossible position”

Published

on

Tennessee Education Association/Los Angeles Blade graphic

By Marta Aldrich | NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Tennessee teachers can move forward with their lawsuit challenging a 3-year-old state law restricting what they can teach about race, gender, and bias.

U.S. District Court Judge Aleta Trauger denied the state’s motion to dismiss the case.

The Nashville judge also sided with educators over questions of whether they have legal grounds to sue the state, plus whether the federal court is the appropriate jurisdiction to take up complaints about the 2021 state law.

And in a 50-page memorandum to explain her single-page order, Trauger was frequently critical of the statute, which restricts teachers from discussing 14 concepts that the Republican-controlled legislature deemed cynical or divisive. She also cited shortcomings of related rules, developed by the state education department, to outline the processes for filing and investigating complaints, appealing decisions, and levying punishment that could strip teachers of their licenses and school districts of state funding.

“The Act simply invites a vast array of potentially dissatisfied individuals to lodge complaints based on their understanding of those concepts and then calls on the Commissioner [of Education], as a sort of state philosopher, to think deeply about what equality, impartiality, and other abstract concepts really mean and enforce the Act accordingly,” Trauger wrote in her May 2 memorandum.

“I’m thrilled that the judge listened to our concerns as educators and seemed to understand that this law puts teachers in an impossible position,”– Kathryn Vaughn, Tipton County teacher

Meanwhile, educators are at the mercy of the personal biases of authorities, which is “exactly what the doctrine of unconstitutional vagueness is intended to guard against,” she said.

The so-called prohibited concepts law was among the first of its kind in the nation that passed amid a conservative backlash to the racial-justice movement and protests prompted by the 2020 murder of George Floyd by a white police officer in Minneapolis.

Among its prohibitions are classroom discussions about whether “an individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously.”

The law’s defenders note that it permits an “impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history,” or as Rep. John Ragan, the House sponsor, described it: “facts-based” instruction.

But teachers say they don’t know how to be impartial when teaching about the theories of racial superiority that led to slavery and Jim Crow laws. The resulting confusion has influenced the small but pivotal decisions they make every day about how to prepare for a lesson, what materials to use, and how to answer a student’s question, ultimately stifling classroom discussion, many critics of the law assert.

Last July, lawyers for five public school educators and the Tennessee Education Association, the state’s largest teacher organization, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Nashville.

The suit says the language of the law is unconstitutionally vague and that the state’s enforcement plan is subjective. The complaint also says the statute interferes with instruction on difficult but important topics included in state-approved academic standards, which dictate other decisions around curriculum and testing.

Trauger, who taught school for three years before entering law school, suggested that the ambiguity could lead to a lack of due process for educators under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

“That does not mean that a law has to be wise or perfect or crystal clear, but it must mean something concrete and specific that a well-informed person can understand by reading its text,” she wrote in her memorandum.

Kathryn Vaughn, a Tipton County teacher who is among the plaintiffs, called the judge’s decision an important early step in the legal challenge.

“I’m thrilled that the judge listened to our concerns as educators and seemed to understand that this law puts teachers in an impossible position,” she told Chalkbeat on Thursday.

A spokesperson for the state attorney general’s office, which filed a motion for dismissal last September, declined to comment on the new development.

The judge set a June 17 scheduling meeting with attorneys in the case to discuss how to manage the litigation going forward.

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

Marta Aldrich

Marta Aldrich is Senior Statehouse Correspondent for Chalkbeat Tennessee.

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

Sign up for Chalkbeat Tennessee’s free daily newsletter to keep up with statewide education policy and Memphis-Shelby County Schools.

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Tennessee Lookout and is republished with permission.

Now more than ever, tough and fair journalism is important. The Tennessee Lookout is your watchdog, telling the stories of politics and policy that affect the people of the Volunteer State.

We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Man sentenced for obstruction in murder of Black Trans woman

“Pinckney’s obstructive actions delayed justice for Dime Doe and accountability for his co-defendant,” said the FBI Columbia Field Office

Published

on

The headquarters of the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division, Columbia, SC (Photo Credit: State of SC SLED)

COLUMBIA, SC – A South Carolina man was sentenced today to obstructing an investigation into the December 2019 murder of a transgender woman.

Xavier Pinckney, 24, was sentenced to 45 months in prison for providing false and misleading information to state authorities investigating the murder of Dime Doe. He previously pleaded guilty on Oct 26, 2023.

“The defendant’s sentence is part of our effort to fully seek justice and accountability following the tragic murder of a Black transgender woman,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The message should be clear: The Justice Department will fully investigate and prosecute those who target the Black transgender community and that includes those who unlawfully obstruct investigations into these heinous crimes. We want the Black trans community to know that we stand with the LGBTQI+ community, we reject transphobic-fueled violence, and that we will seek justice for victims and their families.”

“Pinckney’s obstruction delayed our investigation and delayed justice for Dime Doe,” said U.S. Attorney Adair F. Boroughs for the District of South Carolina. “Fortunately, Pinckney confessed his lies and his role in the coverup of her murder. This sentence underscores that no one who stands in the way of justice will go unpunished.”

“Pinckney’s obstructive actions delayed justice for Dime Doe and accountability for his co-defendant,” said Special Agent in Charge Steve Jensen of the FBI Columbia Field Office. “No matter the obstacle, the FBI and our law enforcement partners are poised to defend the rights and protections of all citizens, and those who engage in criminal activity will be met with the full weight of our investigative and prosecutorial power.”

Related

According to court documents, Pinckney admitted that he concealed from the state authorities the use of his phone to call and text Doe the day of her murder, and he lied to state investigators about seeing his co-defendant, Daqua Ritter, on the morning of Doe’s murder. Ritter was convicted of a hate crime, firearms charge and obstruction of justice in a jury trial arising out of the Ritter’s murder of Doe. Ritter was the first defendant to be found guilty by trial verdict for a hate crime motivated by gender identity under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

The FBI Columbia Field Office investigated the case, with the assistance of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Allendale County Sheriff’s Office and Allendale Police Department.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

4th U.S. Circuit Court: Gender identity is a protected characteristic

The court ruled that gender identity is a protected characteristic & Medicaid bans on treatments for gender dysphoria are unconstitutional

Published

on

Lewis F. Powell Jr. Courthouse, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Richmond, Virginia (Photo Credit: U.S. Courts/GSA)

By Erin Reed | RICHMOND, Va. – The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that transgender people are a protected class and that Medicaid bans on transgender care are unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the court ruled that discriminating based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is discrimination based on gender identity and sex. The ruling is in response to lower court challenges against state laws and policies in North Carolina and West Virginia that prevent transgender people on state plans or Medicaid from obtaining coverage for gender-affirming care; those lower courts found such exclusions unconstitutional.

In issuing the final ruling, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that transgender exclusions were “obviously discriminatory” and were “in violation of the equal protection clause” of the U.S. Constitution, upholding lower court rulings that barred the discriminatory exclusions.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling focused on two cases in states within its jurisdiction: North Carolina and West Virginia. In North Carolina, transgender state employees who rely on the State Health Plan were unable to use it to obtain gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria diagnoses.

In West Virginia, a similar exclusion applied to those on the state’s Medicaid plan for surgeries related to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Both exclusions were overturned by lower courts, and both states appealed to the 4th Circuit.

Attorneys for the states had argued that the policies were not discriminatory because the exclusions for gender affirming care “apply to everyone, not just transgender people.” The majority of the court, however, struck down such a claim, pointing to several other cases where such arguments break down, such as same-sex marriage bans “applying to straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people equally,” even though straight people would be entirely unaffected by such bans.

Other cases cited included literacy tests, a tax on wearing kippot for Jewish people, and interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.

See this portion of the court analysis here:

4th Circuit rules against legal argument that transgender treatment bans do not discriminate against transgender people because “they apply to everyone”

Of particular note in the majority opinion was a section on Geduldig v. Aiello that seemed laser-targeted toward an eventual Supreme Court decision on discriminatory policies targeting transgender people. Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 ruling, determined that pregnancy discrimination is not inherently sex discrimination because it does not “classify on sex,” but rather, on pregnancy status.

Using similar arguments, the states claimed that gender affirming care exclusions did not classify or discriminate based on transgender status or sex, but rather, on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and treatments to alleviate that dysphoria.

The majority was unconvinced, ruling, “gender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.” In doing so, the majority cited several cases, many from after Geduldig was decided.

Notably, Geduldig was cited in both the 6th and 11th Circuit decisions upholding gender affirming care bans in a handful of states.

The court also pointed to the potentially ridiculous conclusions that strict readings of what counts as proxy discrimination could lead to, such as if legislators attempted to use “XX chromosomes” and “XY chromosomes” to get around sex discrimination policies:

The 4th Circuit Majority rebuts the State’s proxy discrimination argument.

Importantly, the court also rebutted recent arguments that Bostock applies only to “limited Title VII claims involving employers who fired” LGBTQ+ employees, and not to Title IX, which the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination mandate references. The majority stated that this is not the case, and that there is “nothing in Bostock to suggest the holding was that narrow.”

Ultimately, the court ruled that the exclusions on transgender care violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court also ruled that the West Virginia Medicaid Program violates the Medicaid Act and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of anti-trans expert testimony for lacking relevant expertise. West Virginia and North Carolina must end transgender care exclusions in line with earlier district court decisions.

The decision will likely have nationwide impacts on court cases in other districts. The case had become a major battleground for transgender rights, with dozens of states filing amicus briefs in favor or against the protection of the equal process rights of transgender people. Twenty-one Republican states filed an amicus brief in favor of denying transgender people anti-discrimination protections in healthcare, and 17 Democratic states joined an amicus brief in support of the healthcare rights of transgender individuals.

Many Republican states are defending anti-trans laws that discriminate against transgender people by banning or limiting gender-affirming care. These laws could come under threat if the legal rationale used in this decision is adopted by other circuits. In the 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction, West Virginia and North Carolina already have gender-affirming care bans for transgender youth in place, and South Carolina may consider a similar bill this week.

The decision could potentially be used as precedent to challenge all of those laws in the near future and to deter South Carolina’s bill from passing into law.

The decision is the latest in a web of legal battles concerning transgender people. Earlier this month, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also reversed a sports ban in West Virginia, ruling that Title IX protects transgender student athletes. However, the U.S. Supreme Court recently narrowed a victory for transgender healthcare from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and allowed Idaho to continue enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for everyone except the two plaintiffs in the case.

Importantly, that decision was not about the constitutionality of gender-affirming care, but the limits of temporary injunctions in the early stages of a constitutional challenge to discriminatory state laws. It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately hear cases on this topic in the near future.

Celebrating the victory, Lambda Legal Counsel and Health Care Strategist Omar Gonzalez-Pagan said in a posted statement, “The court’s decision sends a clear message that gender-affirming care is critical medical care for transgender people and that denying it is harmful and unlawful…We hope this decision makes it clear to policy makers across the country that health care decisions belong to patients, their families, and their doctors, not to politicians.” 

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

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

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

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

Continue Reading

Popular