Connect with us

U.S. Federal Courts

Families with trans kids sue Florida over trans youth healthcare ban

“This policy came through a political process with a predetermined conclusion in direct contrast to evidence & science”

Published

on

Florida's Governor Ron DeSantis & Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph Ladapo (Screenshot/YouTube WTXL ABC 7 Tallahassee)

TALLAHASSEE – A lawsuit on behalf of four families with transgender children was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, challenging the state’s Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine’s ban on gender affirming healthcare for minors.

The legal groups representing the four families, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the Human Rights Campaign and the Southern Legal Counsel, Inc. (SLC) noted in the suit that the bans contradict guidelines established through years of clinical research and recommended by every major medical association including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

The lawsuit also spells out that the policies unlawfully strips parents of the right to make informed decisions about their children’s medical treatment and violates the equal protection rights of transgender youth by denying them medically necessary, doctor-recommended healthcare to treat their gender dysphoria. 

The enactment of Florida’s transgender healthcare ban, which went into effect on March 16, 2023, has faced considerable scrutiny as a politically-motivated process instigated at the urging of the governor and ignoring established medical and scientific consensus on medical care for transgender youth. 

Statewide LGBTQ Equality rights advocacy group Equality Florida has decried the ban saying it was little more than a cultural war maneuver by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis who is widely expected to announce a run for the presidency in 2024.

In the summer of 2022, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and the Department of Health asked the state Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine to adopt a categorical ban on all treatment of gender dysphoria for people under eighteen years of age.

In February and March of 2023, respectively, the Boards adopted formal rules prohibiting all access to safe, effective medical treatments for transgender youth who have received a gender dysphoria diagnosis but who have not yet begun puberty delaying medication or hormone treatments. Surgeon General Ladapo and all members of the Florida Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine are defendants in the families’ suit challenging the ban.

“This policy came about through a political process with a predetermined conclusion, and it stands in direct contrast to the overwhelming weight of the evidence and science,” said Simone Chriss, Director of Transgender Rights Initiative, Southern Legal Counsel. “There is an unbelievable degree of hypocrisy when a state that holds itself out as being deeply concerned with protecting ‘parents’ rights’ strips parents of their right to ensure their children receive appropriate medical care. I have worked with families and their healthcare providers in Florida for many years. They work tirelessly every day to ensure the best health outcomes for their kids and patients, and they are worried sick about the devastating impacts that this ban will have.”

“The Florida Boards of Medicine chose to ignore the evidence and science in front of them and instead put families in the unthinkable position of not being able to provide essential healthcare for their kids,” said Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders.

“Parents, not the government, should make healthcare decisions for their children,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “This policy crosses a dangerous line and should concern anyone who cares about family privacy or the ability of doctors to do their jobs without undue government interference.”    

“It’s alarming to see such a concerted, top-down effort to target a small and vulnerable population,” said Sarah Warbelow, Human Rights Campaign Legal Director. “The Florida Surgeon General, Department of Health and Boards of Medicine should be focused on the real and serious public health issues Florida faces, not on putting transgender kids and their families in harm’s way.”

In a press statement by the legal teams representing them, the four families also weighed in:

“Like most parents, my husband and I want nothing more than for our daughter to be healthy, happy, and safe,” said Jane Doe speaking about her 11-year-old daughter, Susan. “Being able to consult with our team of doctors to understand what our daughter is experiencing and make the best, most informed decisions about her care has been critically important for our family. She is a happy, confident child, but this ban takes away our right to provide her with the next step in her recommended treatment when she reaches puberty. The military doctors we work with understand the importance of providing that evidence-based, individualized care. We’re proud to serve our country, but we are being treated differently than other military families because of a decision by politicians in the state where we are stationed. We have no choice but to fight this ban to protect our daughter’s physical and mental health.”

“This ban puts me and other Florida parents in the nightmare position of not being able to help our child when they need us most,” said Brenda Boe, who is challenging the ban on behalf of herself and her fourteen-year-old son, Bennett Boe. “My son has a right to receive appropriate, evidence-based medical care. He was finally getting to a place where he felt hopeful, where being prescribed testosterone was on the horizon and he could see a future for himself in his own body. That has been ripped away by this cruel and discriminatory rule.” 

“Working with our healthcare team to understand what my daughter is experiencing and learning there are established, effective treatments that are already helping her to thrive has been an incredible relief,” said Fiona Foe, who is challenging the ban on behalf of herself and her ten-year-old daughter, Freya Foe. “I know everyone may not understand what it means to have a transgender child, but taking away our opportunity to help our daughter live a healthy and happy life is cruel and unfair.”

“Our daughter has been saying she is a girl since she was three – it hasn’t gone away,” said Carla Coe, a plaintiff in the lawsuit along with her nine-year-old daughter, Christina Coe. “Since she started being able to live as a girl she has been so much happier and better adjusted. Having the resources and support to make the best decisions for her wellbeing has been so important for our family. I’m scared this ban will take away the essential medical care she may need when she gets older. We just want to do what’s right for our kid.”

Read the lawsuit filing:

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Federal Courts

Supreme Court denies to lift West Texas A&M University drag ban

A U. S. District Court judge & a three judge panel of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled against the student group

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court (Photo by Michael Key, the Washington Blade)

WASHINGTON – In a simple one sentence order issued Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the request by West Texas A&M University’s Spectrum LGBTQ+ student organization to block a ban of an annual charity drag show implemented by West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler in March of 2023.

“The application for writ of injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.,” the order reads.

A Texas U. S. District Court judge and a three judge panel of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled against the student group’s request to block the university’s ban on the performance.

Arguing that the actions taken by West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler infringes on Spectrum LGBTQ+ group’s free speech, JT Morris, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, wrote in the emergency application to the high court earlier this month:

“If courts abdicate their responsibility to provide oversight when university officials overstep constitutional bounds, it will hollow out this court’s well-settled rule that university presidents cannot arbitrarily parcel out First Amendment rights only to those groups of which they approve.”

Related

Last year, several West Texas A&M student groups were organizing the drag show, called “A Fool’s Drag Race,” for months. Spectrum advertised the show on its Instagram page, encouraging people to sign up to perform. wanted to host a drag show to raise money for the Trevor Project, a nonprofit that provides suicide prevention services for LGBTQ youth. 

The show was planned with the help of university staff and intended for audiences over 13 years old. Spectrum WT said the show would be anything but risqué, avoiding profane music and other “lewd” conduct. Minors were allowed to attend only if accompanied by a parent. 

Wendler drew considerable ire for canceling the student drag show, arguing that such performances degrade women and are “derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny.”

The students accused Wendler of violating university policy, which states the school can’t deny student groups any benefits “on the basis of a political, religious, philosophical, ideological, or academic viewpoint expressed by the organization or any expressive activities of the organization.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

First Black and first LGBTQ judge to serve on R.I. federal court

DuBose’s nomination was enthusiastically supported by her state’s two Democratic U.S. senators., Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse

Published

on

Judge Melissa R. DuBose (Screen capture: Roger Williams University School of Law/YouTube)

WASHINGTON — Judge Melissa DuBose was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Tuesday for her appointment by President Joe Biden to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, where she will be the first Black and the first LGBTQ judge to serve on the bench.

DuBose thanked her partner Amy “for blessing me with over two decades of unwavering love, support, laughter and patience,” and their “two remarkable sons … for gracing me with that special love that is reserved for mothers and sons.” 

The vote was 51-47, with only two Republicans supporting her nomination, Susan Collins of Maine and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

During a confirmation hearing in February, U.S. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) grilled DuBose about an article 24 years ago in which she was quoted as saying she had gone through “a Marxist phase.”

Currently serving as associate judge on the Rhode Island District Court in Providence, DuBose’s nomination was enthusiastically supported by her state’s two Democratic U.S. senators., Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse.

“She’s proven to be an exceptional jurist with a stellar record,” said the former on the Senate floor, adding, “She has dedicated her life to public service, and Rhode Island is fortunate that she has once again answered the call.”

Whitehouse said, “This is a person, a lifelong Rhode Islander, who is exceedingly well regarded in our community.”

Nicole Berner’s nomination advances


Another lesbian judge nominated by Biden to serve a lifetime tenure on the federal bench is Nicole Berner, who has long served as general counsel of the Service Employees International Union and was tapped to join the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Senate moved for a cloture vote on her nomination Thursday, meaning a final vote is expected as early as next week. She would be the first LGBTQ judge on the circuit court and the 11th confirmed LGBTQ judge nominated by Biden — tying with the record number who were appointed by former President Barack Obama over two terms in office.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Texas LGBTQ students ask U.S. Supreme Court to block drag ban

The drag show was planned with the help of several groups plus university staff & was intended for audiences over 13 years old

Published

on

West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler (Screenshot/YouTube WTAM Channel)

CANYON, Tx. – Attorneys for the West Texas A&M University’s Spectrum LGBTQ+ student organization filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to block a ban of an annual charity drag show, put on by the students, that had been canceled by West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler in March of 2023.

A U. S. District Court judge and a three judge panel of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled against the student group’s request to block the university’s ban on the performance.

Arguing that the actions taken by West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler infringes on Spectrum LGBTQ+ group’s free speech, JT Morris, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, wrote in the emergency application:

“If courts abdicate their responsibility to provide oversight when university officials overstep constitutional bounds, it will hollow out this court’s well-settled rule that university presidents cannot arbitrarily parcel out First Amendment rights only to those groups of which they approve.”

Last year, several West Texas A&M student groups were organizing the drag show, called “A Fool’s Drag Race,” for months. Spectrum advertised the show on its Instagram page, encouraging people to sign up to perform. wanted to host a drag show to raise money for the Trevor Project, a nonprofit that provides suicide prevention services for LGBTQ youth. 

The show was planned with the help of university staff and intended for audiences over 13 years old. Spectrum WT said the show would be anything but risqué, avoiding profane music and other “lewd” conduct. Minors were allowed to attend only if accompanied by a parent. 

Wendler drew considerable ire for canceling the student drag show, arguing that such performances degrade women and are “derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny.”

The students accused Wendler of violating university policy, which states the school can’t deny student groups any benefits “on the basis of a political, religious, philosophical, ideological, or academic viewpoint expressed by the organization or any expressive activities of the organization.”

Courthouse News service reported that Spectrum LGBTQ+ in their application asked the high court’s justices to grant an injunction on the lower court’s order by March 22 so the group could hold its drag show at the university. The student group said the justices have the opportunity to provide an example for universities across the nation implementing viewpoint discrimination. 

“Public university and college officials nationwide from across the political spectrum are appointing themselves censors-in-chief, separating what they consider ‘good’ from ‘bad’ expression on their campuses,” Morris wrote. 

The group said Wendler’s censorship was based on nothing more than his personal opinion. 

“In this unique circumstance, only this court can halt an ongoing violation of two of the most fundamental First Amendment protections: the bars against prior restraint and viewpoint-based censorship,” Morris wrote. 

The court requested a response to the application by March 13. 

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Florida’s ‘Stop WOKE Act’ tossed by federal appellate court

The Act targets speech based on its content and by barring only speech that endorses any of those ideas, it penalizes certain viewpoints

Published

on

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis addressing an audience on higher education in June of 2023. (Photo Credit: Office of the Governor)

ATLANTA – A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled Monday that one of Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis’ signature efforts, the “Stop Woke Act,” “exceeds the bounds” of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression.

The law, HB 7, when it was passed was touted by the governor and his legislative allies as ending attacks based on so-called” white privilege,” stating that the law would prevent any Floridian from experiencing “guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress” due to their race, color, sex or national origin.

When the law was signed in April of 2022, the Human Rights Campaign warned “The ‘Stop WOKE’ Act is designed to further exclude marginalized groups from necessary conversations in our schools, communities, and workplaces and to further limit individuals who deserve to exist freely, proudly, and to have their stories shared.”

In its unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit wrote: “Florida may be exactly right about the nature of the ideas it targets. Or it may not. Either way, the merits of these views will be decided in the clanging marketplace of ideas rather than a codebook or a courtroom.” Politico reported that Judge Britt C. Grant, a Trump appointee and former law clerk of Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote: “By limiting its restrictions to a list of ideas designated as offensive, the Act targets speech based on its content and by barring only speech that endorses any of those ideas, it penalizes certain viewpoints — the greatest First Amendment sin.”

The lower federal court ruling described the law as a bizarro inversion of traditional free speech values, invoking the Netflix show “Stranger Things” to describe the law as a “First Amendment upside down” that upends the Bill of Rights.

Shalini Goel Agarwal, the Protect Democracy counsel who represented the plaintiffs in the suit, commented in a press release:

“Speech codes have no place in American society, and elected officials have no business censoring the speech of business owners simply because they don’t agree with what’s being expressed. Barring employers from engaging in speech that powerful politicians don’t like is a move straight out of the authoritarian playbook. Today is a good day for the First Amendment and the ability of American businesses to speak freely.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Guilty pleas in Planned Parenthood arson attack

The men also discussed and researched how to attack the Dodger Stadium’s electrical room on a night celebrating LGBTQ+ pride

Published

on

Planned Parenthood clinic Costa Mesa (Photo Credit: Costa Mesa Health Center of Costa Mesa)

SANTA ANA, Calif. – An Orange County man pleaded guilty Thursday to a firebombing attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic in Costa Mesa in March 2022 and planning to attack an electrical substation in Orange County, and further admitted to plotting an attack on Dodger Stadium last June on the Dodger’s annual Pride night game.

Tibet Ergul, 22, of Irvine, pleaded guilty to one felony count of conspiracy to damage an energy facility and one misdemeanor count of intentional damage to a reproductive health services facility. He is scheduled to be sentenced on May 30 and faces a maximum penalty of 21 years in prison.

According to his plea agreement, in February and March 2022, Ergul and Chance Brannon, 24, of San Juan Capistrano, California, agreed to use a Molotov cocktail to damage a Planned Parenthood clinic in Orange County.

Ergul and Brannon, who at the time was an active-duty U.S. Marine, targeted the clinic because it provided reproductive health services and they wanted to encourage others to engage in similar violent acts. Ergul and Brannon also wanted to make a statement about abortion; scare pregnant women away from obtaining abortions; deter doctors, staff and employees at the clinic from providing abortions; and intimidate the clinic’s patients.

On March 12, 2022, in Ergul’s garage, Ergul and Brannon knowingly assembled a Molotov cocktail. During the early morning hours of March 13, 2022, Ergul and Brannon – disguised in dark clothing, masks, hoods and gloves – drove to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Costa Mesa, ignited the Molotov cocktail and threw it at the clinic’s entrance, intentionally starting a fire. Due to the fire and the damage it caused, the clinic was forced to temporarily close and reschedule approximately 30 patient appointments.

Ergul further admitted that in June 2022, following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, he and Brannon planned to use a second Molotov cocktail to attack another Planned Parenthood clinic. Ergul and Brannon abandoned this plan after seeing law enforcement near the targeted clinic.

Ergul also conspired with others, including Brannon, to damage a Southern California Edison electrical substation to debilitate Orange County’s power grid. Ergul and his accomplices planned to attack the substation by using firearms or a Molotov cocktail that Ergul possessed in his garage. Ergul and Brannon consulted with an associate about surveillance, drone operations and firearms.

In March 2023, Ergul messaged an associate to say he had found a substation in Orange to target. Ergul sent the associate aerial photographs of the substation and suggested doing a “drive-thru” at 3 a.m. Ergul also sent Brannon a letter in which he wrote: “The rifle is in a box in my room waiting to be used in the upcoming race war,” and he discussed a desire to murder politicians and journalists. Ergul and Brannon did not carry out this attack prior to their arrest in this case.

During the early summer of 2023, Ergul and Brannon also discussed and researched how to attack the Dodger Stadium parking lot or the stadium’s electrical room on a night celebrating LGBTQ+ pride, including by using a device that could be detonated remotely, Ergul admitted in his plea agreement. Brannon and Ergul exchanged sabotage manuals and discussed doing “dry runs” to “case” the stadium. Law enforcement arrested Ergul and Brannon two days before Dodger Stadium’s scheduled “Pride Night.”

Ergul, who has been in federal custody since June 2023, is the third and final defendant to plead guilty in this case.

Related

Brannon, who also has been in federal custody since June 2023, pleaded guilty in November to four crimes: conspiracy, malicious destruction of property by fire and explosives, possession of an unregistered destructive device and intentional damage to a reproductive health services facility – a violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Brannon’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for April 15.

Xavier Batten, 21, of Brooksville, Florida, who has been in federal custody since July 2023, pleaded guilty on Jan. 19 to one count of possession of an unregistered destructive device and one count of intentional damage to a reproductive health services facility. Batten’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for May 15.

The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigated this matter. The Costa Mesa Police Department and the Costa Mesa Fire Department provided substantial assistance.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

N.Y. AG joins multi-state brief in Colo. anti-trans discrimination case

“Denying service to someone simply because of who they are is illegal discrimination, plain and simple,” James said

Published

on

New York Attorney General Letitia James. (Photo Credit: State of New York)

ALBANY, N.Y. — New York Attorney General Letitia James on Wednesday joined a brief by 18 other Democratic state attorneys general urging the Colorado Supreme Court to uphold a lower court ruling against Masterpiece Cakeshop for anti-trans discrimination.

A customer, Autumn Scardina, sued the business over claims that it refused to provide her a cake upon learning that it was for a celebration of her transition. The case is not the first in which owner Jack Smith has faced claims of anti-LGBTQ discrimination.

In 2012, Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to fulfill an order for a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, which led to the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission — and a narrow ruling that did not address core legal questions weighing the constitutionality of First Amendment claims vis-a-vis the government’s enforcement of LGBTQ-inclusive nondiscrimination laws.

“Denying service to someone simply because of who they are is illegal discrimination, plain and simple,” James said in a press release. “Allowing this kind of behavior would undermine our nation’s fundamental values of freedom and equality and set a dangerous precedent.”

She added, “I am proud to stand with my fellow attorneys general against this blatant transphobic discrimination.”

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Scardina, noting that Smith objected to fulfilling her cake order only after learning about her intended use for it “and that Phillips did not believe the cake itself expressed any inherent message.”

The fact pattern in both cases against Masterpiece Cakeshop resembles that of another case that originated in Colorado and was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court last year, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.

This time, the justices did not sidestep the question of whether the state’s anti-discrimination law can be enforced against a business owner, Lorie Smith, a website designer who claimed religious protections for her refusal to provide services to a same-sex couple for their nuptials.

The court’s conservative supermajority ruled in favor of Smith, which was widely seen as a blow to LGBTQ rights.

Joining James in her brief are the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and D.C.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Florida gay man found guilty of threatening a member of Congress

Lawyers for Stanzione noted that he told federal agents that “he feels offended by Santos and does not want him in his (gay) community”

Published

on

USCG Station Eatons Neck Officer-in-Charge BMCS Erich White, disgraced former U.S. Rep. George Santos, and Capt. Eva J. Van Camp, former Commanding Officer U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, April 2023. (Photo Credit: USCG Public Affairs)

MIAMI, Fla. – On Feb. 22, following a two-day trial, a federal jury in Ft. Lauderdale convicted a man for calling the office of former U.S. Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) in Washington D.C. and threatening to kill Santos and another person. 

On Jan. 29, 2023, Frank Stanzione, 53, of Boynton Beach, Florida, made a telephone call from his residence in Boynton Beach to the office of a member of the United States House of Representatives. Stanzione left a voice message for the member that stated the following:

[Victim 1 former Rep. Santos] you fat fucking piece of shit fucker. You better watch your mother fucking back because I’m gonna bash your mother fucking fucker head in with a bat until your brains are splattered across the fucking wall. You lying, disgusting, disgraceful, mother fucking fucker. You mother fucking piece of shit. You’re gonna get fucking murdered you goddamn lying piece of garbage. Watch your back you fat, ugly, piece of shit. You and [Victim 2 Redacted] are dead.

The Congress member’s chief of staff reported the message to the United States Capitol Police (USCP) the next morning. The USCP began investigating the voice message as a threat and determined that it was made from a telephone number assigned to Stanzione. 

On Jan. 31, 2023, USCP special agents went to the address associated with the telephone number and interviewed Stanzione. USCP confirmed that Stanzione had left the voice message for the Congress member. Stanzione found the telephone number on an online search engine. 

In a motion to dismiss, lawyers for Stanzione noted in the interview he told federal agents that “he feels offended by Santos and does not want him in his (gay) community.” He said he left the message to make Santos “feel like a piece of shit.”

The court filing described Stanzione as “a long-standing, active advocate for gay rights.”

In the motion to dismiss, Stanzione claimed his prosecution was “retaliatory and vindictive” and “based upon his exercise of political speech related to gay rights.”

Related

“Others who have allegedly committed similar acts,” his attorneys stated in the motion, “have not been prosecuted.”

U.S. Attorney Markenzy Lapointe for the Southern District of Florida and Chief J. Thomas Manger of USCP announced the guilty verdict. The USCP – Threat Assessment Section investigated the case.

Stanzione will be sentenced in May and faces penalties including up to five years in federal prison, a fine of up to $250,000, or both.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Appeals court allows Indiana’s ban on gender care for Trans youth

“This ruling is beyond disappointing and a heartbreaking development for thousands of transgender youth, their doctors, & their families”

Published

on

Main courtroom, for the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Indianapolis, Ind. (Photo Credit: U.S. Courts/GSA)

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. – The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals today issued a stay that will lift a lower court’s injunction blocking Indiana’s gender-affirming care ban. The law, originally set to take effect on July 1, 2023, will now take effect immediately.

In June 2023, Judge Patrick Hanlon, a Trump-appointed federal judge, issued a temporary restraining order halting Indiana’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The request for a preliminary injunction against SB 480 came in a lawsuit brought by four transgender youth and their families, as well as a doctor and health care clinic,

The law prohibits medical providers from providing gender-affirming health care to transgender youth, effective immediately.

“This ruling is beyond disappointing and a heartbreaking development for thousands of transgender youth, their doctors, and their families. As we and our clients consider our next steps, we want all the transgender youth of Indiana to know this fight is far from over and we will continue to challenge this law until it is permanently defeated and Indiana is made a safer place to raise every family,” said Ariella Sult, a spokesperson for the ACLU of Indiana in a joint statement issued with the American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday.

related

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Guilty verdict in first federal trial of murder based on gender identity

After a four-day trial a jury found a South Carolina man, Daqua Lameek Ritter, guilty of all charges in the indictment

Published

on

Dime Doe (Family photo)

COLUMBIA, S.C. — A federal jury handed down a guilty verdict of a man accused of murdering a Black transgender female in what is classified as the first in the nation federal trial over a hate crime based on gender identity.

After a four-day trial in a federal hate crime case, a jury found a South Carolina man, Daqua Lameek Ritter, guilty of all charges in the indictment, which included one hate crime count, one federal firearms count, and one obstruction count, all arising out of the murder of Dime Doe, a transgender woman.

“Acts of violence against LGBTQI+ people, including transgender women of color like Dime Doe, are on the rise and have no place in our society,” said Acting Associate Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer. “The Justice Department takes seriously all bias-motivated acts of violence and will not hesitate to hold accountable those who commit them. No one should have to live in fear of deadly violence because of who they are.”

According to court documents and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, evidence presented at trial showed that Ritter was upset that rumors about his sexual relationship with Dime Doe were out in the community. On Aug. 4, 2019, the defendant lured Doe to a remote area in Allendale, South Carolina, and shot her three times in the head. At trial, the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Ritter murdered Doe because of her gender identity. Ritter then burned the clothes he was wearing during the crime, disposed of the murder weapon, and repeatedly lied to law enforcement. 

This was the first trial under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act for violence against a transgender person. The Shepard-Byrd Act is a landmark federal statute passed in 2009 which allows federal criminal prosecution of hate crimes motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

“A unanimous jury has found the defendant guilty for the heinous and tragic murder of Dime Doe, a Black transgender woman,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The jury’s verdict sends a clear message: Black trans lives matter, bias-motivated violence will not be tolerated, and perpetrators of hate crimes will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This case is historic; this defendant is the first to be found guilty by trial verdict for a hate crime motivated by gender identify under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. We want the Black trans community to know that you are seen and heard, that we stand with the LGBTQI+ community, and that we will use every tool available to seek justice for victims and their families.”

Ritter faces a maximum penalty of life in prison. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled at a later date. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Pair of lawsuits filed against Virginia guidelines for trans students

Equality Virginia and other advocacy groups claim the guidelines, among other things, would forcibly out trans and nonbinary students

Published

on

Los Angeles Blade graphic

RICHMOND, Va. – The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia and a private law firm on Thursday filed two lawsuits against the state’s guidelines for transgender and nonbinary students.

One of the plaintiffs, a high school student in York County to whom the press release refers as “Jane Doe,” claims “at least one teacher refused to address by her correct first name.” The second plaintiff, “Lily Loe,” a middle school student in Hanover County, “is not allowed to participate in a girls’ sports team.”

“When you look at the ways that VDOE’s (Virginia Department of Education) model policies are hurting transgender and nonbinary students like our clients, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that their authors were purposefully trying to erase gender non-conforming students from the classroom,” said Andrew Ewalt, co-counsel and partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, which has an office in D.C. “That flouts both existing nondiscrimination law and the Virginia law that directed VDOE to develop model policies in the first place.”

The Virginia Department of Education last July announced the new guidelines for which Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin asked. 

Equality Virginia and other advocacy groups claim the guidelines, among other things, would forcibly out trans and nonbinary students. Arlington County Public Schools, Fairfax County Public Schools and Prince William County Schools are among the school districts that have refused to implement them. 

“It was clear since the day that he took office that Gov. Youngkin and his Department of Education would target LGBTQ+ Virginians and single out transgender and nonbinary students for discrimination, and now that some school boards are implementing and enforcing their model policies for public schools, it’s even more clear that the harm is real,” said Equality Virginia Executive Director Narissa Rahaman on Thursday in a statement. 

“We applaud the ACLU of Virginia for taking on these harmful policies and for fighting for the health and well-being of students,” added Rahaman. “We’re proud to work toward those goals, together.” 

Continue Reading

Popular