Connect with us

U.S. Federal Courts

Parents seek emergency ruling to restart healthcare for trans teens

“No parent should be forced to sit by, powerless, while they watch their child experience unnecessary trauma and distress”

Published

on

Tallahassee, Florida Federal courthouse, (Screenshot/YouTube WCTV)

TALLAHASSEE – Florida families challenging the state’s ban on medically necessary healthcare for their transgender children filed a motion today asking the court to halt the ban while their case proceeds.

Parents told the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida in their motion for a preliminary injunction that the ban, which went into effect late last month, is causing their children significant harm through canceled doctors appointments and denials of treatment.

“No parent should be forced to sit by, powerless, while they watch their child experience unnecessary trauma and distress. This ban strips me and my husband of the right to care for our daughter and puts us in exactly that position,” said Jane Doe, who is challenging the ban on behalf of herself and her daughter, Susan.* “Our team of doctors has confirmed that Susan will need to start puberty blocking medication very soon as the next step in treating her gender dysphoria, but the Boards of Medicine rules prohibit them or any physician in the state from providing the treatment she needs. Thanks to the care she has received to date, Susan is a happy, confident child. She’s a girl scout, a straight A student, and has a great group of friends. It breaks my heart to know this ban could take that away. I hope the court will understand that and allow me to get my daughter the medical care she needs to keep her healthy and thriving.”

“All I want as a parent is to make sure my son is as healthy and happy as he can be. I can’t understand why the state would interfere with that by making it impossible for me to get him the medical care he needs,” said Gloria Goe, who is challenging the ban on behalf of herself and her son Gavin.* “Gavin has known he is a boy from a young age. While it took us time to understand what that meant, consulting with our trusted pediatrician helped us to be able to support him. That was absolutely the right path as we’ve watched Gavin grow into a bright, social, and happy child. Our pediatrician has now recommended that Gavin meet with a pediatric endocrinologist to evaluate next steps, but the appointment I made for him was canceled and this ban keeps anyone in the state from ensuring he gets all the medical care he needs. The state’s policy banning the care my son needs has taken away my right to make the best, most informed decision for him and his health.”

“As a parent, it’s my job to protect my daughter from harm and make sure she has everything she needs to live a healthy life. But I feel powerless in the face of this ban, which has taken away my ability to get her the healthcare she needs,” said Linda Loe, who is challenging the ban on behalf of herself and her daughter Lisa.* “Our pediatric endocrinologist confirmed in March that Lisa needs to start puberty blocking medication to maintain her health, but the clinic has told us they can’t provide it because of the state’s ban. Lisa was such a happy-go-lucky kid, but I have seen the devastating toll her gender dysphoria has taken on her health and know that she desperately needs to begin treatment. I feel as if we are racing against the clock to find a way to get her the care she needs.”

In addition to the motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint today adding three additional families to the lawsuit.

The seven parents challenging the ban on behalf of themselves and their children argue that the policy unlawfully strips them 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.

The plaintiffs, who are all proceeding under pseudonyms to protect their children’s privacy, are represented by Southern Legal Counsel, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the Human Rights Campaign. 

Florida’s ban on established medical care for transgender youth came through rules finalized by the state’s Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine that have faced widespread scrutiny for ignoring established medical and scientific consensus on treatment for adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

The bans contradict guidelines 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. 

Similar bans on established medical care for transgender youth have been blocked by federal judges in Alabama and Arkansas.

“These bans are already having devastating impacts on Florida families,” said Simone Chriss, Director of Transgender Rights Initiative, Southern Legal Counsel. “Transgender adolescents are being denied access to critical medical care, and parents are being forced to sit by and watch their children suffer preventable harm. The Florida Medical Boards and Surgeon General have not only failed to fulfill their own duty to protect the health and wellbeing of transgender youth in this state, but they have also blocked the parents of those youth from exercising their fundamental right to do so.”

“Florida parents are now 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. “Because of this ban which ignores decades of clinical research, parents of transgender adolescents have been stripped of their right to make informed decisions about their kids’ medical care.”

“Florida has crossed a dangerous line by letting this ban go into effect,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “Parents, not the government, should be in charge of directing their children’s healthcare. The state of Florida is interfering with family privacy and decision-making and children and parents are suffering because of it.”   

“Every day this ban is in place is hurting transgender kids and their families,” Sarah Warbelow, Human Rights Campaign Legal Director. “Like any parent, parents of transgender children want to do what’s best for their kids, but Florida has taken that right away from them. Instead, the state is targeting families with a cruel and unscientific policy that is putting transgender kids’ health at risk.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Federal Courts

U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear anti-trans parent’s appeal

The parents claimed their status as “christians,” free speech and religious rights, were infringed upon when the lower court intervened

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court. (Photo Credit: Architect of the U.S. Capitol)

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the appeal of a lower court’s decision to remove a transgender child from the parents’ custody due to allegations of abuse and their refusal to support the teen’s gender identity.

In October of 2022, the Indiana State Court of Appeals had published a 28-page ruling in the case of: In the Matter of A.C. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services, and M.C. (Mother) and J.C. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services,  which clarified that the parents’ freedom of speech/religious beliefs do not trump the child’s medical and/or psychological needs.

The mother and father claimed their status as “christians,” free speech and religious rights, were infringed upon when the lower court intervened.

“The parents have the right to exercise their religious beliefs, but they do not have the right to exercise them in a manner that causes physical or emotional harm to [their] child,” the appellate court said in its opinion.

The Indiana Lawyer reported the case started in May 2021, when the Department of Child Services received a report alleging that mother M.C. was verbally and emotionally abusing her 16-year-old child, A.C., by using rude and demeaning language regarding the teen’s transgender identity. As a result, A.C. had thoughts of self-harm.

A second report was filed and a week after the second report, DCS filed a proposed child in need of services petition in the Madison Circuit Court, alleging A.C. was a CHINS on two bases: A.C.’s physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or seriously endangered due to the parents’ neglect and/or A.C.’s physical or mental health was seriously endangered due to injury by the parents’ acts or omissions.

Following a hearing, the court issued an initial/detention order finding that it was in A.C.’s best interest to be removed from the home due to the parents’ “inability, refusal or neglect to provide shelter, care, and/or supervision at the present time.”

Later during the court process, The Indiana Lawyer reported:

At the close of a subsequent dispositional hearing, the court informed the parties that it would leave in place its earlier order prohibiting the parents from discussing the child’s transgender identity during visitation, but confirmed that it could be discussed at family therapy and that the court would reconsider the order when it could be safely discussed outside of therapy.

The trial court entered its dispositional order in which it found A.C. needed services and therapy, in which the parents were ordered to participate. The court also ordered that A.C. would remain in the current home or placement with DCS supervision.

On appeal, the parents argued the dispositional order and the trial court’s prior order on the combined initial and detention hearing were clearly erroneous. They also argued both orders violated their constitutional rights to the care, custody and control of A.C., the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.

Continue Reading

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

Popular