By Erin Reed | GULFPORT, Miss. – The ACLU has filed a Title IX complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights over the consistent, deliberate, and cruel mistreatment of transgender and gender-nonconforming students in the Harrison County, Mississippi School District.

Allegations include forcing these students to abide by a “biological sex” dress code, enduring repeated and severe harassment and bullying, and removing transgender and gender-nonconforming students from school-related functions in violation of Title IX. Previously, the school made national news for forcing a transgender girl, as well as a cisgender gender-nonconforming girl, to miss graduation for wearing a dress and pants, respectively.

The complaint was primarily brought by A.H., a transgender 16-year-old girl who attends Harrison Central High School. After being told by her band teacher that she could wear a black dress to a regional band concert evaluation, she received compliments from her fellow bandmates.

However, when HCHS Principal Kelly Fuller saw her in the hallway, she balked, saying, “You know you can’t wear that right? Boys can’t wear skirts or dresses,” and then added, “you can’t represent our school dressed like that.” She then forced her mother to bring “boys clothes” or threatened to send her to in-school reassignment.

The incident that appears to have triggered the complaint was not the only time A.H. has suffered harassment and abuse over her gender identity in the school district. Previously, when she entered the girls’ restroom in eighth grade, she was screamed at by a teacher to the point of tears. She was then forced to use the teacher’s restroom. In ninth grade, a hall monitor confronted her on her way to the bathroom, demeaned her, and asked, “What are you?”

She also alleges severe bullying and harassment from other students with no resolution from the school. She even received a suspension after being targeted by bullying in the classroom. One student allegedly repeatedly called her a “fa***t” and a “tr***y” in the presence of a teacher while class was in session. No action was taken until A.H. stood up for herself and told the student to stop harassing her loudly in the classroom. As a result, A.H. was written up and suspended for two days.

A.H.’s story is not unique in the district: the district has recently made national news after excluding a transgender girl, as well as a cisgender gender-nonconforming girl, from their own graduation due to their attire. The transgender girl, identified as L.B., was denied entry to her own graduation for wearing a dress and adhering to the girls’ dress code. Another cisgender student, identified as Jai, wore black pants to her graduation in accordance with her usual gender expression and was barred from attending. She was even told that she could remove her pants under her graduation gown, but if her pants were on under her gown, she would not be allowed to walk.

The following summer, the school released a “biological sex” dress code that mandates students “follow the dress attire consistent with their biological sex.” Boys are required to “wear shorts or pants, and shirts and footwear” and are banned from wearing items commonly associated with girls, such as skirts, dresses, and blouses. Girls must “wear dresses or skirts or shorts or pants, and shirts or blouses and footwear.” The policy appears to violate Title IX, as 34 CFR 106.31(b)(4) states that students cannot be subjected to different rules of behavior, sanctions, or treatment based on their sex. Numerous courts have ruled that sex-based dress codes violate Title IX, including the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals, which stated, “Based on the plain language and structure of the statute, we conclude that Title IX unambiguously encompasses sex-based dress codes.”

The ACLU is seeking five remedies for A.H. and students in the Harrison County School District.

• They seek an order for the district to adopt gender-neutral dress code policies.
• They demand that the school stop targeting, surveilling, and disciplining students based on sex.
• The school should adopt policies and procedures for promptly and equitably responding to reports of discrimination.
• The school should be made to provide mandatory training for District employees about non-discrimination and compliance with federal anti-discrimination lawss
• The school should issue a written apology to A.H. for discriminatory conduct.

The complaint will be a significant test of how the Biden administration handles a major Title IX complaint concerning gender identity and expression, following recent updates to Title IX guidance.

Additionally, the complaint emerges in the wake of the death of transgender teenager Nex Benedict in Oklahoma, where similar longstanding allegations of harassment and abuse led to an ongoing formal investigation into the school district.

More than 20 GOP-led states are suing the Biden administration over new Title IX rules, arguing that they have a right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ students despite Title IX protections. It remains uncertain whether these lawsuits will impact prohibited dress codes, which have been successfully challenged under Title IX even before the new rules.

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

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.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday took a major step toward loosening the federal government’s regulation of marijuana by issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the Drug Enforcement Administration, which outlines a proposal to reclassify it under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

The move comes pursuant to the Biden-Harris administration’s April 30 announcement of plans to recategorize cannabis as a Schedule III substance, which could substantially lessen the criminal penalties for those convicted of using, possessing, selling, distributing, or cultivating the drug.

A 60-day public comment period will begin after the NPRM is published on the Federal Register, along with a concurrent review of the proposed regulatory reforms by an administrative law judge assigned by the DEA.

Since the CSA was passed in 1971, cannabis has been listed under Schedule I, the category reserved for drugs that are considered to be the most dangerous and lacking any currently accepted medical use in the U.S.

In a press release, a senior administration official noted that “marijuana is currently classified higher than fentanyl and meth – the drugs driving our Nation’s overdose epidemic.”

President Joe Biden posted a video on X in which he said the proposal to house cannabis under the Schedule III regulatory regime constitutes “an important move towards reversing longstanding inequities.”

“Today’s announcement builds on the work we’ve already done to pardon a record number of federal offenses for simple possession of marijuana,” the president said. “It adds to the action we’ve taken to lift barriers to housing, employment, small business loans, and more for tens of thousands of Americans.”

“Look folks no one should be in jail for merely using or possessing marijuana,” Biden said. “Period.”

The president added, “Far too many lives have been upended because of a failed approach to marijuana and I’m committed to righting those wrongs. You have my word on it.”

Too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana.

So today, the @TheJusticeDept is taking the next step to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug under federal law.

Here's what that means: pic.twitter.com/TMztSyyFYm

— President Biden (@POTUS) May 16, 2024

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.”

By Piper Hutchinson | BATON ROUGUE, La. – Two anti-LGBTQ+ bills advanced Wednesday from the Louisiana Senate Committee on Education, putting them one step away from final legislative approval. 

The committee advanced House Bill 121 by Rep. Raymond Crews, R-Bossier City, which prohibits the use of transgender and nonbinary youth’s chosen names and pronouns in public K-12 schools without parental permission. 

House Bill 122 by Rep. Dodie Horton, R-Haugton, which limits discussion of gender and sexuality in public K-12 schools, was also approved. 

Both bills were advanced without objection. Sen. Katrina Jackson-Andrews, D-Monroe, was the only Democrat present. 

The Legislature approved both bills last year. Then-Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, vetoed them, and Republicans were unable to overturn his action. Lance Maxwell, a legislative liaison for Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, attended the committee meeting in support of Crews’ and Horton’s bills. 

Wednesday’s emotional hearing marked the latest step for an advancing culture-war agenda, once held back under a Democratic governor. With the support of an ultra-conservative in the governor’s mansion, a slew of anti-LGBTQ+ proposals are rapidly advancing toward enactment. 

“I don’t know how y’all continue to hear things from us about our pain and our trauma, and just still pass bills,” Peyton Rose Michelle, executive director of Louisiana Trans Advocates, said. “I don’t know how y’all sit through these things, and you don’t break down.” 

Crews’ bill would require teachers and other school personnel to use a student’s given name and pronouns that align with their birth sex unless a student has permission from their parents to use their chosen name. The proposal has been promoted as a “parental rights” bill. 

“This bill is a grave violation of parental rights by prioritizing the moral objections of others over the fundamental rights of transgender students to be recognized by their chosen names, pronouns and identities,” SarahJane Guidry, executive director of LGBTQ+ rights group Forum For Equality said. “This legislation sets a dangerous and discriminatory precedent.” 

“This relentless focus on legislating the lives of a small, vulnerable population diverts precious time, money and energy away from addressing real educational issues,” Guidry added. 

Under Crews’ bill, teachers would be allowed to disregard a parent’s choice to respect their transgender or nonbinary child’s name and pronouns if they have religious opposition to doing so.

In an interview, Crews said that while his bill supports parental rights, parents should not be able to eclipse somebody else’s religious rights. 

His bill does not have an exception for those who have a religious opposition to deadnaming or misgendering students. Deadnaming is when someone uses a transgender or nonbinary person’s birth name or “dead name” against their wishes. Misgendering occurs when someone refers to an individual as a gender that they do not identify. 

While the bill would allow parents to request a classroom change if a teacher disregards their permission for their transgender or nonbinary child to use their name or pronouns, it does not require this change to take place. Advocates have argued such classroom changes may not be feasible in smaller schools. 

Jacob Newsom, an Ascension Parish public school teacher, said disregarding students’ names and pronouns would make them uncomfortable, which he believes would hamper the learning environment.

“How am I going to reach this child? How am I going to effectively teach this child?” Newsom said. 

“There is an undeniable correlation between feeling safe and secure and being able to learn,” Megan Sheehan-Dean, a child learning expert, later added. 

At the core of Crews’ proposal is his belief that parents have the right to know whether their children are transgender. Advocates for the LGBTQ+ community say the bill would force transgender youth to out themselves to their parents or else be deadnamed and misgendered at school. They have raised concerns about what happens when parents find out — and don’t approve.

A survey from the Trevor Project found 38% of transgender women, 39% of transgender men and 35% of nonbinary youth have experienced homelessness as a result of parental rejection. 

Horton’s bill is similar to a Florida law referred to by critics as a “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Her proposal is much broader and would apply to K-12 grades, whereas Florida’s law applies only to early grade students. 

Florida recently settled a lawsuit over the law filed by civil rights activists. As part of the agreement, students and teachers are permitted to discuss gender and sexuality as long as it is not part of classroom instruction. 

Horton said she didn’t believe teachers should discuss their “lifestyle choices” with students. 

“Having sexualized personal discussions between educators and students in our classrooms are not appropriate, and they can rob our children of their innocence while imposing suggested influence over their developing young minds,” Horton said. 

Horton’s bill would not just apply to classroom instruction. It also prohibits “covering the topics of sexual orientation or gender identity” during any extracurricular and athletics events, meaning it could potentially hinder student chapters of the Gay-Straight Alliance and other LGBTQ+ student organizations. 

When asked by committee Chair Sen. Rick Edmonds, R-Central, Horton agreed that heterosexuality falls under “sexual orientation” and is also not appropriate for classroom discussion. 

The bills will next be discussed in the Senate.

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

Piper Hutchinson is a reporter for the Louisiana Illuminator. She has covered the Legislature and state government extensively for the LSU Manship News Service and The Reveille, where she was named editor in chief for summer 2022.

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

The preceding piece was previously published by the Louisiana Illuminator and is republished by permission.

Louisiana Illuminator is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence.

Follow Louisiana Illuminator on Facebook and Twitter.

By Sam Stockard  | NASHVILLE, Tenn. – A challenge of Tennessee’s law dealing with the use of public school restrooms and locker rooms by transgender students remains alive after a federal judge declined to dismiss all claims against the state education department and Williamson County Schools.

U.S. District Court Judge William Campbell denied the state’s request in to dismiss the child’s claim of a violation of rights under the Equal Protection Clause. 

The judge, however, granted a request to dismiss the child’s claim that her Title IX rights were violated. The ruling notes that because the federal law allows schools to maintain separate restrooms for “the different sexes,” requiring the child to use the restroom based on her biological sex doesn’t violate Title IX.

The judge also dismissed the child’s request to correct all records to reflect her female gender.

Tennessee lawmakers have taken steps in recent years to prevent transgender athletes from playing sports based on their sexual identity. The Legislature enacted restrictions in 2023 on transgender medical treatment and this year adopted a bill preventing adults other than parents and guardians from taking children outside the state for transgender care.

The case against the Tennessee Department of Education and Williamson County Schools involves a 9-year-old transgender child who was male at birth but identifies as female, according to court filings. The child uses “she/her” pronouns and lives socially as a girl by wearing her hair long and dressing in a manner usually associated with girls. 

The complaint was brought by a friend and the child’s parents when the child was 8, claiming the Williamson County elementary school she attends requires her to use a single-occupancy restroom, not the multi-use girls’ restroom.

The child claims the school’s “insistence” that she use a separate restroom “isolates her and distinguishes her from her classmates and exacerbates the stress and anxiety she experiences while trying to fit in and avoid being stigmatized on the basis of her sex and gender identity.” The child also claims the restroom designated for her has problems with distance from her class, safety and cleanliness.

The Tennessee Legislature passed the Tennessee Accommodations for All Children Act in May 2021, requiring public schools to provide a “reasonable accommodation” to students, teachers and employees who want “greater privacy when using a multi-occupancy restroom or changing facility designated for [their] sex and located within a public school building.” 

“Reasonable accommodations” include single-occupancy restrooms or changing facilities or use of an employee restroom or changing facility.

The “reasonable accommodations” don’t include restrooms or changing areas designated for use by members of the opposite sex while the opposite sex is present or could be present. They also don’t require remodeling or structurally changing a school facility, or limiting access to a restroom or changing room designated for use by members of the opposite sex if that creates a violation or state or local building codes.

The new state law defines sex as “a person’s immutable biological sex as determined by anatomy and genetics existing at the time of birth.” It also provides students, parents, guardians, teachers and employees the right to sue public school systems for “psychological, emotional, and physical harm,” including monetary damages, legal fees and costs if they “encounter a member of the opposite sex in a multi-occupancy restroom or changing facility located in a public school building … [and] the public school intentionally allowed a member of the opposite sex [defined as sex at birth] to enter the multi-occupancy restroom or changing facility while other persons were present.”

Campbell denied the child’s request for an injunction against the school district to stop it from enforcing the state law.

Yet the judge opted not to dismiss the child’s claims under the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits a state from “denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” and prevents government discrimination that “either burdens a fundamental right, targets a suspect class or intentionally treats one differently than others similarly situated without any rational basis for the difference.”

The judge’s ruling points out that classifications by the government based on sex are recognized as “a quasi-suspect classification subject to intermediate scrutiny.”

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

Sam Stockard is a veteran Tennessee reporter and editor, having written for the Daily News Journal in Murfreesboro, where he served as lead editor when the paper won an award for being the state’s best Sunday newspaper two years in a row. He has led the Capitol Hill bureau for The Daily Memphian. His awards include Best Single Editorial and Best Single Feature from the Tennessee Press Association.

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

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.

By Rachel Mipro | TOPEKA, Kan. —  Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach announced Tuesday he has sued President Joe Biden’s administration over the rewrite of federal rules to protect LGBTQ+ students.

Alaska, Utah and Wyoming partnered with Kansas on the lawsuit, which follows the U.S. Department of Education’s release in April of new guidelines to prohibit discrimination at federally funded schools.

Set to go into effect Aug. 1, the revised Title IX rules explicitly ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Under the revision, LGBTQ+ students who face discrimination will be entitled to a response from their school and can seek action from the federal government.

Kobach said the change would violate the First Amendment rights of teachers and school employees whose religious beliefs would prevent them from complying with the rule.

“It’s insanity,” Kobach said. “Biden’s Title IX rule is unconscionable. It’s dangerous to girls and women, and it’s against federal law.”

Explaining the 85-page lawsuit in a news conference Tuesday, Kobach focused on his assertion that transgender athletes shouldn’t participate in women’s sports. In 2023, Kansas lawmakers passed a ban prohibiting transgender student athletes from participating in girls and women’s sports. The state law could conflict with the new federal rules, although the federal revision doesn’t explicitly address transgender athletes.

“I can certainly tell you that if any of my girls are competing in sports against boys, that is going to make me very unhappy,” Kobach said.

The issue is whether cisgender and transgender girls should play together. When asked about his use of the term “boys” to describe transgender girls and women, and if he respected the transgender identity, Kobach said people had a right to change their appearance and presentation, but “the bottom line is that they can’t change the structure and other advantages that males gain.”

“Anyone who observes sports and observes the competition by these biological males in female sports has seen the obvious unfairness of it,” Kobach said. “The idea that someone should be punished or should be canceled by simply speaking what they have observed is really disturbing. It’s Orwellian if someone is canceled or punished simply for saying what they believe.”

Melissa Stiehler, advocacy director at Loud Light, a Kansas-based organization focused on LGBTQ+ rights and social issues, questioned Kobach’s motives.

“During his career, Mr. Kobach’s actions and legal theories have yet to show that he has the best interest of women and our legal protections at heart,” Stiehler said. “In fact, Kobach has actively sought to take away constitutional rights from Kansas women. With the experience of facing adversity as a woman, I fully encourage the AG to accept that transgender kids deserve protection from sex-based discrimination just as I received as a girl going through public school.  Protection for trans kids doesn’t nullify any gains women and girls have made in our strides towards realizing equity.”

Kobach is part of a wave of attorney generals in red states that have scrambled to challenge the ruling since the publication of the revised guidelines. Legal counsel from Alliance Defending Freedom joined Kobach in the news conference. ADF is known for promoting anti-LGBTQ+ policies.

Civil rights advocates oppose the legal challenges to anti-discrimination rules.

“Kobach is claiming that he is standing up for girls and women,” said Micah Kubic, executive director of the Kansas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. “But what he is really doing is continuing his decades-long crusade against our shared values and fundamental rights, using his misleading legal interpretations to try to transform the law into a tool that persecutes Kansans instead of protecting them.”

Reporters asked Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly about Kobach’s lawsuit after an unrelated news conference Tuesday.

“I wish that we would focus on issues that really make a difference in Kansans’ lives,” Kelly said. “I would suggest that that makes a difference in very few people’s lives, and not in a good way.”

Kobach’s lawsuit marks the latest stand in a series of anti-trans movements. Lawmakers passed a law in 2023 that bans gender marker changes on drivers’ licenses and birth certificates.

In this legislative session, lawmakers revived an effort to block teenagers from receiving gender-affirming care, such as hormones and puberty blockers. Senate Bill 233 also would have banned state employees from supporting “social transitioning,” which was defined to include the use of preferred pronouns. A Republican-driven effort to override Kelly’s veto narrowly failed in the House.

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

A graduate of Louisiana State University, Rachel Mipro has covered state government in Baton Rouge and New Orleans. She and her fellow team of journalists were 2022 Goldsmith Prize Semi-Finalists for their work featuring the rise of the KKK in northern Louisiana, following racially-motivated shootings in 1960. With her move to the Midwest, Rachel is now turning her focus toward issues within Kansas public policies.

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

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

Kansas Reflector is a nonprofit news operation providing in-depth reporting, diverse opinions and daily coverage of state government and politics. This public service is free to readers and other news outlets.

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

By Jemma Stephenson  | MONTGOMERY, Ala. – A bill that would have expanded Alabama’s “Don’t Say Gay” law died on the final day of the 2024 regular session.

HB 130, sponsored by Rep. Mack Butler, R-Rainbow City, would have extended Alabama’s prohibition on discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten to fifth grade to kindergarten to eighth grade. It also would have banned  flags or other insignia indicating gender identity or sexual orientation.

Butler said in a Friday phone interview that he didn’t know what the issues were in the final days of the session but said there was a filibuster in the Senate “which is not uncommon.” 

The legislation was the latest in a years-long attempt by Alabama Republicans to push LGBTQ+ Alabamians out of public life and in some cases restrict their health care. In 2021, the Legislature passed a ban on transgender students playing high school sports and the original “Don’t Say Gay” law, tacked into a bill restricting bathroom use by transgender youth.  

The following year, the Legislature banned puberty blockers and hormones for use in gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The Legislature last year expanded the transgender sports ban to college athletics. 

Katie Glenn, a policy associate with Southern Poverty Law Center, which opposed the bill, said in a phone interview Friday that it could have had a chilling effect which, she said, was emerging in some areas of the state.

“That chilling effect is absolutely what is intended by bills like HB 130,” she said. “it’s not actually to punish people, although it can be used to do that. It’s to scare people, to scare administrators, staff, teachers and students into hiding who they are while they’re at school.”

Butler also said he was not sure why the bill began moving again near the end of the session but said that bills “deemed a little controversial” are sometimes pushed back due to the amount they can take to pass.

“They shut down the House and the Senate,” he said.

But Butler said he would bring the bill back next year. He said that he has not met any parents who want the topics discussed in schools and claimed that “there is a move across this nation to sexualize our children.”

“Our schools in Alabama aren’t performing well enough to be going away from academics,” he said.

Legislative questions

The bill passed the House in late April and was in position for a final vote in the Senate. But Democrats repeatedly criticized the measure, and even some conservative Republicans had questions about its scope.

As originally filed, the bill would have extended the ban up to 12th grade. Butler described it in a House committee meeting as a measure to “purify” public schools, a statement he walked back after criticism from Rep. Barbara Drummond, D-Mobile. Drummond later amended the bill on the House floor to limit the grades to eighth grade.

In the Senate committee, senators had questions about the extent of the bill and potential constitutional violations, especially around the flag and insignia. One speaker suggested the bill was broad enough that it would ban rainbow stickers in parking lots. Sen. Larry Stutts, R-Tuscumbia, said he was “confused” after Butler said that parking lots were not part of school property. “The property is not the parking lot?” he asked.

“Well, we’re talking about the actual building,” said Butler.

The bill passed out of committee 5-2-2.

Butler said Friday that that concern is “ridiculous” and one of the committee members might have been having fun. He compared it to teachers being allowed to have political bumper stickers but not political signs in classrooms.

Glenn said the confusion could have contributed to the bill’s demise.

“There were lots of questions from legislators on both sides of the aisle,” she said.  

She said the vague language bill does make it unclear what the impact of the bill would ultimately be.

Glenn said the bill eventually suffered from organizing from people in the state, as well as the work of Democratic lawmakers, especially in filibustering.

Carmarion D. Anderson-Harvey, Human Rights Campaign’s Alabama state director, said in a statement Friday that Alabama lawmakers should spend their time on other issues, saying that LGBTQ+ Alabamians would continue fighting “despite years of dehumanizing rhetoric and relentless attacks on our community’s existence.”

“Most Americans, in addition to Alabamians, see these bills for what they really are – disgraceful, MAGA-led attempts to recycle false and outdated tropes about LGBTQ+ identities,” the statement said. “Alabama has real issues facing education, voting rights, and criminal justice reform, and now it’s time that lawmakers turn their attention to those issues instead of wasting taxpayers’ money to demonize an entire community.”

“Don’t Say Gay” laws had spread around conservative states, though they have also brought litigation Florida, which passed a version of the bill in 2022, settled a lawsuit over it in March, according to the Associated Press.

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

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.

By John Cole | HARRISBURG, Penn. – Later this month, Pennsylvania will mark 10 years since a judge struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. But lawmakers and advocates say there’s still work to be done, and that it’s time to codify marriage equality protections into law. 

“Too often we have seen long held rights and freedoms vanish in the blink of an eye,” state Sen. Carolyn Comitta (D-Chester) said at a press conference last Tuesday at the Capitol in Harrisburg, alongside fellow members of the Pennsylvania LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus. “The fact is, we cannot rely solely on the courts to fix the failings of our laws. There is just too much at stake.”

“We have the power to affirm this right,” she added. “And we must continue to advance equality for same sex couples, and all LGBTQ+ individuals in Pennsylvania.”

In May 2014, a federal judge ruled that Pennsylvania’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ended same-sex marriage bans nationwide.

Comitta and state Reps. Jessica Benham (D-Allegheny) and Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia) have legislation currently before the House Judiciary Committee that would update current laws to remove “outdated, unconstitutional, and unnecessary sections of law,” in regards to marriage equality. They argue that this language still  present in Pennsylvania’s laws would ban same-sex marriage if both the state and national court decisions were overturned.

Ryan Matthews, Pennsylvania State Director of the Human Rights Campaign, cited a Public Religion Research Institute poll that found 66% of Pennsylvanians support codifying marriage equality into law. He said it was time for Pennsylvania’s legislature to follow the lead of President Joe Biden, who signed the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022.

“So when our allies stand up and introduce important legislation like this, we are here to thank them, but we’re also here to say to all of the other legislators that ask why is this an important step, to show that it is because of basic respect for us and our community that we need to be recognized and protected in law,” Matthews said.

Benham, who was the first openly queer woman elected to the Pennsylvania General Assembly, said legislation needs to go further in protecting marriage equality rights. 

“But I do think it is important, too, when we talk about marriage equality being the law of the land to recognize that there is a group of people who still do not have full access to marriage rights,” Benham said. “Until individuals with disabilities can get married without losing their Social Security, disability or health care benefits, marriage equality is not a law of the land for all.”

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

John Cole is a journalist based in Philadelphia. He’s worked for various outlets such as The Northeast Times, PoliticsPA, and PCN. In these previous roles, he covered a wide range of topics from local civic association meetings to races across the commonwealth. He earned a degree in journalism from Temple University.

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Pennsylvania Capital-Star and is republished with permission.

The Pennsylvania Capital-Star is a nonpartisan, nonprofit news site dedicated to honest and aggressive coverage of state government, politics and policy.

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

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.”

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.

Federal court rules employer cannot deny Trans healthcare coverage

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.

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.

MINEOLA, N.Y. –  A judge from the Nassau County Supreme Court has struck down Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman’s February 22, 2024 executive order banning transgender girls and women from participating in girls’ and women’s sports at county-run facilities.  

In March, the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging Blakeman’s executive order on behalf of the Long Island Roller Rebels, a Nassau County recreational women’s flat track roller derby league. Under the executive order, the league, which welcomes trans women, was barred from using Nassau County’s facilities. 

The lawsuit argues that the policy violates New York’s Human Rights Law and Civil Rights Law, which explicitly prohibit discrimination based on gender identity following passage of New York’s Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA).  

This past Friday, Nassau County Supreme Court Judge Francis Ricigliano ruled that Blakeman did not have the authority to issue such an order. “In doing so, this Court finds the County Executive acted beyond the scope of his authority as the Chief Executive Officer of Nassau County,” Ricigliano wrote.

Judge Ricigliano also noted that Blakeman could not act without corresponding action by the Nassau County Legislature. It includes representatives from each of the county’s 19 districts.

Reacting Blakeman responded in a statement, saying, “Lack of courage from a Judge who didn’t want to decide the case on its merits. Unfortunately, girls and women are hurt by the Court.”

“We are gratified the court has struck down a harmful policy that belongs in the dustbin of history,” said Gabriella Larios, staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “The ruling deals a serious blow to County Executive Blakeman’s attempt to score cheap political points by peddling harmful stereotypes about transgender women and girls. We will continue to ensure that the attacks against LGBTQ+ rights that are sweeping the nation will not stand in New York.”  

“Today’s decision is a victory for those who believe that transgender people have the right to participate in sports just like everyone else. It sends a strong message that transphobic discrimination cannot stand,” said Curly Fry, president of Long Island Roller Rebels. “As a league welcoming trans women and committed to providing a safe space for everyone to be their full selves, County Executive Blakeman’s order tried to punish us just because we believe in inclusion and stand against transphobia. Trans people belong everywhere including in sports, and they will not be erased.” 

In early April, U.S. District Court Judge Nusrat Choudhury, who is on the bench of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, denied Blakeman’s request for a temporary restraining order against New York Attorney General Letitia James.

On March 1st, the New York State Attorney General sent a order of cease and desist to Blakeman demanding that the Republican Nassau County Executive rescind his February 22 directive within five days or else face additional legal actions. 

“The law is perfectly clear: you cannot discriminate against a person because of their gender identity or expression. We have no room for hate or bigotry in New York,” the Attorney General wrote. “This executive order is transphobic and blatantly illegal. Nassau County must immediately rescind the order, or we will not hesitate to take decisive legal action.” 

The Nassau County Executive then announced he was filing a lawsuit over the Attorney General’s actions.