U.S. Federal Courts
Florida bathroom ban challenge, plaintiffs say its unconstitutional
A temporary restraining order (TRO) would allow use of public bathrooms for the National March to Protect Trans Youth in Orlando on October 7
ORLANDO, Fla. – Last week on Sept. 29 a group of trans and non-binary peopleĀ asked a federal courtĀ to declare Floridaās bathroom ban unconstitutional and to issue an order temporarily prohibiting authorities from enforcing it against them while they are in Florida in the coming weeks.
The temporary restraining order (TRO) would allow the plaintiffs to use public bathrooms that align with their gender as they travel to, participate in, and return from the National March to Protect Trans Youth in Orlando on October 7.Ā
An anticipated 1,000 people are marching in Orlando, Florida, in support of transgender youth and other marginalized communities on October 7, organizers stated.
Under Governor Ron DeSantis, Florida has been at the forefront of a national movement to legislate against trans rights. In May, DeSantis signedĀ four anti-trans and anti-queer legislation passed by the Florida Legislature including Florida Statute Ā§ 553.865.
This law, also known as the Bathroom Ban, prevents transgender, gender nonconforming, and certain kinds of intersex people from accessing a restroom in line with their gender because it defines sex as oneās anatomy and naturally occurring hormones at birth.Ā
The lead defendant named in the lawsuit is Andrew Bain, the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit in Florida. DeSantis appointed Bain last month to replace Monique Worrell, whom he removed, in part, because she signed a statement pledging not to prosecute people accused of transgender-related ācrimes.āĀ
A complaint, along with a motion for the TRO, filed on the plaintiffsā behalf by the Center for Constitutional Rights and Southern Legal Counsel says the ban forces trans, gender-nonconforming, and certain intersex people (TGNCI people) to use a bathroom inconsistent with their identities, risk arrest by using a bathroom consistent with their identities, or forego multi-stall restrooms in public facilities altogether.
All of these options are legally impermissible because they deny TGNCI people basic freedoms afforded others, according to the complaint.Ā
Ā āThe State of Florida believes it can eradicate the lives and identities of trans, gender nonconforming, intersex, and queer people through numerous pieces of legislation, including Fla. Stat. Ā§ 553.865, otherwise known as the bathroom ban, ” said Ā Zee Scout, a Bertha Justice Fellow and attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “But this law is an unconstitutional reaction to the growing acceptance of these communities. The state cannot erase viewpoints that it dislikes. It cannot force people to accept its idea of sex and gender. And it cannot demonize these communities by referring to them as ādemons,ā āmutants,ā and āimps.ā This lawsuit is a message that trans, intersex, and queer people nationwide will not tolerate this discriminatory behavior against their siblings in Florida or anywhere.ā
āThe bathroom ban is yet another unconstitutional and politically-motivated maneuver in the state of Floridaās relentless, multi-faceted attack on the rights, lives, and dignity of transgender Floridians,ā saidĀ Simone Chriss,Ā Director of the Transgender Rights Initiative at Southern Legal Counsel.Ā āSLC denounces the stateās weaponization of fear and misinformation to strip away the rights of TGNCI Floridians under the guise of protecting others, and we are honored to stand beside the brave plaintiffs and all others who plan to travel to Florida to speak out and stand up for trans rights on October 7th!ā
Related:
U.S. Federal Courts
Man sentenced for obstruction in murder of Black Trans woman
āPinckneyās obstructive actions delayed justice for Dime Doe and accountability for his co-defendant,ā said the FBI Columbia Field Office
COLUMBIA, SC – A South Carolina man was sentenced today to obstructing an investigation into the December 2019 murder of a transgender woman.
Xavier Pinckney, 24, was sentenced to 45 months in prison for providing false and misleading information to state authorities investigating the murder of Dime Doe. He previously pleaded guilty on Oct 26, 2023.
āThe defendantās sentence is part of our effort to fully seek justice and accountability following the tragic murder of a Black transgender woman,ā said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Departmentās Civil Rights Division. āThe message should be clear: The Justice Department will fully investigate and prosecute those who target the Black transgender community and that includes those who unlawfully obstruct investigations into these heinous crimes. We want the Black trans community to know that we stand with the LGBTQI+ community, we reject transphobic-fueled violence, and that we will seek justice for victims and their families.ā
āPinckneyās obstruction delayed our investigation and delayed justice for Dime Doe,ā said U.S. Attorney Adair F. Boroughs for the District of South Carolina. āFortunately, Pinckney confessed his lies and his role in the coverup of her murder. This sentence underscores that no one who stands in the way of justice will go unpunished.ā
āPinckneyās obstructive actions delayed justice for Dime Doe and accountability for his co-defendant,ā said Special Agent in Charge Steve Jensen of the FBI Columbia Field Office. āNo matter the obstacle, the FBI and our law enforcement partners are poised to defend the rights and protections of all citizens, and those who engage in criminal activity will be met with the full weight of our investigative and prosecutorial power.ā
According to court documents, Pinckney admitted that he concealed from the state authorities the use of his phone to call and text Doe the day of her murder, and he lied to state investigators about seeing his co-defendant, Daqua Ritter, on the morning of Doeās murder. Ritter wasĀ convicted of a hate crime,Ā firearms charge and obstruction of justice in a jury trial arising out of the Ritterās murder of Doe. Ritter was the first defendant to be found guilty by trial verdict for a hate crime motivated by gender identity under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
The FBI Columbia Field Office investigated the case, with the assistance of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Allendale County Sheriffās Office and Allendale Police Department.
U.S. Federal Courts
4th U.S. Circuit Court: Gender identity is a protected characteristic
The court ruled that gender identity is a protected characteristic & Medicaid bans on treatments for gender dysphoria are unconstitutional
By Erin Reed | RICHMOND, Va. – The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of AppealsĀ ruled MondayĀ that transgender people are a protected class and that Medicaid bans on transgender care are unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the court ruled that discriminating based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is discrimination based on gender identity and sex. The ruling is in response to lower court challenges against state laws and policies inĀ North CarolinaĀ andĀ West VirginiaĀ that prevent transgender people on state plans or Medicaid from obtaining coverage for gender-affirming care; those lower courts found such exclusions unconstitutional.
In issuing the final ruling, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that transgender exclusions were “obviously discriminatory” and were “in violation of the equal protection clause” of the U.S. Constitution, upholding lower court rulings that barred the discriminatory exclusions.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling focused on two cases in states within its jurisdiction: North Carolina and West Virginia. In North Carolina, transgender state employees who rely on the State Health Plan were unable to use it to obtain gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria diagnoses.
In West Virginia, a similar exclusion applied to those on the stateās Medicaid plan for surgeries related to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Both exclusions were overturned by lower courts, and both states appealed to the 4th Circuit.
Attorneys for the states had argued that the policies were not discriminatory because the exclusions for gender affirming care āapply to everyone, not just transgender people.ā The majority of the court, however, struck down such a claim, pointing to several other cases where such arguments break down, such as same-sex marriage bans āapplying to straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people equally,ā even though straight people would be entirely unaffected by such bans.
Other cases cited included literacy tests, a tax on wearing kippot for Jewish people, and interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.
See this portion of the court analysis here:
Of particular note in the majority opinion was a section onĀ Geduldig v. AielloĀ that seemed laser-targeted toward an eventual Supreme Court decision on discriminatory policies targeting transgender people.Ā Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 ruling, determined that pregnancy discriminationĀ is not inherently sex discrimination because it does not “classify on sex,”Ā but rather, on pregnancy status.
Using similar arguments, the states claimed that gender affirming care exclusions did not classify or discriminate based on transgender status or sex, but rather, on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and treatments to alleviate that dysphoria.
The majority was unconvinced, ruling, āgender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.ā In doing so, the majority cited several cases, many from after Geduldig was decided.
Notably, Geduldig was cited in both the 6th and 11th Circuit decisions upholding gender affirming care bans in a handful of states.
The court also pointed to the potentially ridiculous conclusions that strict readings of what counts as proxy discrimination could lead to, such as if legislators attempted to use āXX chromosomesā and āXY chromosomesā to get around sex discrimination policies:
Importantly, the court also rebutted recent arguments that Bostock applies only to “limited Title VII claims involving employers who fired” LGBTQ+ employees, and not to Title IX, which the Affordable Care Actās anti-discrimination mandate references. The majority stated that this is not the case, and that there is “nothing in Bostock to suggest the holding was that narrow.”
Ultimately, the court ruled that the exclusions on transgender care violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court also ruled that the West Virginia Medicaid Program violates the Medicaid Act and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of anti-trans expert testimony for lacking relevant expertise. West Virginia and North Carolina must end transgender care exclusions in line with earlier district court decisions.
The decision will likely have nationwide impacts on court cases in other districts. The case had become a major battleground for transgender rights, with dozens of states filing amicus briefs in favor or against the protection of the equal process rights of transgender people. Twenty-one Republican states filed an amicus brief in favor of denying transgender people anti-discrimination protections in healthcare, and 17 Democratic states joined an amicus brief in support of the healthcare rights of transgender individuals.
Many Republican states are defending anti-trans laws that discriminate against transgender people by banning or limiting gender-affirming care. These laws could come under threat if the legal rationale used in this decision is adopted by other circuits. In the 4th Circuitās jurisdiction,Ā West Virginia and North CarolinaĀ already have gender-affirming care bans for transgender youth in place, andĀ South Carolina may consider a similar bill this week.
The decision could potentially be used as precedent to challenge all of those laws in the near future and to deter South Carolinaās bill from passing into law.
The decision is the latest in a web of legal battles concerning transgender people. Earlier this month, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also reversed a sports ban in West Virginia, ruling that Title IX protects transgender student athletes. However, theĀ U.S. Supreme Court recently narrowedĀ a victory for transgender healthcare from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and allowed Idaho to continue enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for everyone except the two plaintiffs in the case.
Importantly, that decision was not about the constitutionality of gender-affirming care, but the limits of temporary injunctions in the early stages of a constitutional challenge to discriminatory state laws. It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately hear cases on this topic in the near future.
Celebrating the victory, Lambda Legal Counsel and Health Care Strategist Omar Gonzalez-PaganĀ said in a posted statement, āThe courtās decision sends a clear message that gender-affirming care is critical medical care for transgender people and that denying it is harmful and unlawfulā¦We hope this decision makes it clear to policy makers across the country that health care decisions belong to patients, their families, and their doctors, not to politicians.āĀ
****************************************************************************
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 articleĀ was first publishedĀ atĀ Erin In The MorningĀ and is republished with permission.
U.S. Federal Courts
Okla. trans bathroom law appealed after federal judge dismisses it
One of the defendants was state Superintendent Ryan Walters, the most vocal advocate of outlawing school bathroom use by gender identity
ByĀ Nuria Martinez-KeelĀ | OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. – A lawsuit challenging an Oklahoma law affecting transgender studentsā use of school restrooms has been appealed after being dismissed in Oklahoma City federal court.
The families of three transgender students sued the Oklahoma State Department of Education in 2022 to overturn Senate Bill 615, which they said is unconstitutional and a Title IX violation.
SB 615 required school restrooms to be used according to a personās biological sex, not their gender identity. A single-occupant restroom also must be available as an alternative.
On Friday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma appealed U.S. District Judge Jodi W. Dishmanās decision to throw out the lawsuit. Last month, Dishman fully dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.
The dismissal was āmildly surprisingā because it means the judge didnāt just disagree, but found the plaintiffsā claims to be meritless, said Devraat Awasthi, an ACLU legal fellow working on the case.
The ACLU of Oklahoma has appealed Dishmanās decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
āSB 615 is a law that elevates the privacy and safety interest of cisgender students above those of transgender and nonbinary students, and that violates the Constitutionās promise of equality under the law,ā Awasthi said. āThatās a promise that all Oklahomans care about, and I think that we are vindicating that important commitment by bringing this appeal.ā
Dishman ruled in favor of the state Attorney Generalās Office, who contended treatment based on gender identity doesnāt amount to sex discrimination under Title IX.
The three plaintiffs donāt present a danger to fellow students, the judge wrote in her court order, but she decided striking down the law could create a safety issue.
āIf the Court adopted Plaintiffsā position, any biological male could claim to be transgender and then be allowed to use the same restroom or changing area as girls,ā Dishman wrote. āThis is a major safety concern.
āHowever, if Plaintiffsā arguments were adopted, it would put school officials in the position of either having to conduct a subjective analysis of the sincerity of an individualās gender identity or merely take their word for it.ā
The Attorney Generalās Office declined to comment on the case.
One of the defendants was state Superintendent Ryan Walters, the head of the state Education Department. He has been one of the most vocal advocates of outlawing school bathroom use by gender identity, saying it puts female students at risk.
āThe (U.S.) District Court was correct in recognizing the real physiological differences between men and women, and the real interest of parents in protecting their kids,ā Walters said in a statement. āOklahomans strongly oppose the radical left trying to force young girls to share bathrooms with boys, and I will always fight to protect our students.ā
Walters also has been a supporter of Oklahoma laws that prohibit gender-affirming medical care for minors and that block transgender girls from playing in womenās sports. He pursued new rules at the Education Department to prevent students from retroactively changing prior school records to match their gender identity.
Laws like these embolden bullies and put transgender students at risk, Awasthi said.
He pointed to the death of Nex Benedict, a nonbinary student from Owasso who had reported bullying. A medical examinerās report found Benedict, 16, died by suicide on Feb. 8, a day after the student was in a fight in a school restroom.
āI think an important facet of laws like this in general is it gives cover to bullies and to bigots in our society because it makes them think their kind of discriminatory intent is supported by the state,ā Awasthi said. āIt kind of gives almost permission for that kind of horrible treatment to occur in our public schools.ā
Walters called this argument around Benedictās death a āgrotesquely distorted radical, progressive, Democrat narrativeā in a Fox News opinion piece he published on Thursday. Waltersā editorial repeatedly referred to Benedict as a girl, despite the Benedict family having said this is an inaccurate description of who the student was.
About a dozen other states had passed similar bathroom bills by the time Oklahomaās governor signed SB 615 into law. Legal challenges have succeeded in overturning similar legislation elsewhere in the country.
The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand two rulings from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that affirmed studentsā rights to use the restroom that matches their gender identity.
New rules the U.S. Department of Education introduced on Friday include gender identity protections in Title IX.
A co-author of SB 615, Rep. Kevin West, R-Moore, said several Oklahoma lawmakers worked on the billās language to āgive that safety and that security to the kids.ā He said the legislationās authors chose not to borrow bill language from other states.
āI think that might have helped some in it being able to stand up (in court) because we had so many different eyes on it and so many people working on it,ā West said.
******************************************************************************************
Nuria Martinez-Keel covers education for Oklahoma Voice. She worked in newspapers for six years, more than four of which she spent at The Oklahoman covering education and courts. Nuria is an Oklahoma State University graduate.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was previously published by the Oklahoma Voice and is republished with permission.
Oklahoma Voice provides independent, nonpartisan reporting that holds officials accountable and elevates the voices of those too often sidelined by the political process.
Weāre part ofĀ States Newsroom, the nationās largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
U.S. Federal Courts
Appeals court strikes down West Virginia trans athlete ban
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey vowed to defend the ban and said he is ādeeply disappointedā in the decision
ByĀ Lori KerseyĀ | RICHMOND, Va. – The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down West Virginiaās ban on transgender athletes, finding the law violates transgender studentsā rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution and Title IX, a federal civil rights law prohibiting discrimination based on sex in education programs.
The case, B.P.J. vs. the West Virginia Board of Education, was filed in May 2021 on behalf of Becky Pepper-Jackson, a 13-year-old transgender middle school student and track athlete who would be barred from participating if the ban is upheld. Pepper-Jackson is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia and Lambda Legal.
In April 2021, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice signed into law a bill prohibiting transgender women and girls in the state from participating in sports that align with their gender identity. The U.S. Court of Appeals in February 2023 blocked the state from removing Pepper-Jackson from her schoolās track and field team as legal advocates appealed a lower courtās ruling upholding the ban.
In Tuesdayās ruling, Judge Toby Heytens wrote that offering Pepper-Jackson the āchoiceā between not participating in sports and participating only on boys teams is not a real choice.
āThe defendants cannot expect that B.P.J. will countermand her social transition, her medical treatment, and all the work she has done with her schools, teachers, and coaches for nearly half her life by introducing herself to teammates, coaches, and even opponents as a boy,ā the judge wrote.
āBy participating on boys teams, B.P.J. would be sharing the field with boys who are larger, stronger, and faster than her because of the elevated levels of circulating testosterone she lacks,ā he wrote. āThe Act thus exposes B.P.J. to the very harms Title IX is meant to prevent by effectively āexclud[ing]ā her from āparticipation inā all non-coed sports entirely.ā
In a statement Tuesday, Joshua Block, senior staff attorney for the ACLUās LGBTQ & HIV Project, called the courtās ruling āa tremendous victory for our client, transgender West Virginians, and the freedom of all youth to play as who they are.ā
āIt also continues a string of federal courts ruling against bans on the participation of transgender athletes and in favor of their equal participation as the gender they know themselves to be,ā Block wrote. āThis case is fundamentally about the equality of transgender youth in our schools and our communities and weāre thankful the Fourth Circuit agreed.ā
āWe hope todayās ruling sends a message of hope to the trans youth of West Virginia,ā Aubrey Sparks, legal director of the ACLU of West Virginia, said in the statement. āAnd a message of warning to politicians who continue to dehumanize this vulnerable population.ā
West Virginia is one of 21 states that have banned transgender student-athletes over the last three years, according to the ACLU.
In a statement Tuesday, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey vowed to defend the ban and said he is ādeeply disappointedā in the decision.
āThe Save Womenās Sports Act is āconstitutionally permissibleā and the law complies with Title IX,ā Morrisey said. āI will keep fighting to safeguard Title IX. We must keep working to protect womenās sports so that womenās safety is secured and girls have a truly fair playing field. We know the law is correct and will use every available tool to defend it.ā
******************************************************************************************
Lori Kersey is a reporter with a decade of experience reporting in West Virginia. She covers state government for West Virginia Watch.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was previously published by the West Virginia Watch and is republished with permission.
Nonprofit, nonpartisan, independent journalism not hidden behind a paywall. Mountaineers are always free, and so is West Virginia Watch.
West Virginia Watch is part ofĀ States Newsroom, the nationās largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
U.S. Federal Courts
U.S. Supreme Court allows Idaho to enforce gender care ban
SCOTUS sides with state to allow enforcement of gender-affirming care ban for youth. Poe v. Labrador lawsuit remains ongoing.
ByĀ Mia Maldonado | WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed Idaho to enforce House Bill 71, a law banning Idaho youth from receiving gender-affirming care medications and surgeries.
In an opinion issued Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the state of Idahoās request to stay the preliminary injunction, which blocked the law from taking effect. This means the preliminary injunction now only applies to the plaintiffs involved in Poe v. Labrador ā a lawsuit brought on by the families of two transgender teens in Idaho who seek gender-affirming care.
Mondayās U.S. Supreme Court decision enforces the gender-affirming care ban for all other transgender youth in Idaho as the lawsuit remains ongoing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Idaho, both of whom represent the plaintiffs, said in a press release Monday that the ruling ādoes not touch upon the constitutionalityā of House Bill 71. The groups called Mondayās ruling an āawful resultā for transgender Idaho youth and their families.
āTodayās ruling allows the state to shut down the care that thousands of families rely on while sowing further confusion and disruption,ā the organizations said in the press release. āNonetheless, todayās result only leaves us all the more determined to defeat this law in the courts entirely, making Idaho a safer state to raise every family.ā
Idaho Attorney General RaĆŗl Labrador in a press release said the state has a duty to protect and support all children, and that he is proud of the stateās legal stance.
āThose suffering from gender dysphoria deserve love, support and medical care rooted in biological reality,ā Labrador said. āDenying the basic truth that boys and girls are biologically different hurts our kids. No one has the right to harm children, and Iām grateful that we, as the state, have the power ā and duty ā to protect them.ā
Recap of Idahoās House Bill 71, and what led to SCOTUS opinion
Mondayās Supreme Court decision traces back to when House Bill 71 was signed into law in April 2023.
The law makes it a felony punishable for up to 10 years for doctors to provide surgeries, puberty-blockers and hormones to transgender people under the age of 18. However, gender-affirming surgeries are not and were not performed among Idaho adults or youth before the bill was signed into law, the Idaho Capital Sun previously reported.
One month after it was signed into law, the families of two transgender teens sued the state in a lawsuit alleging the bill violates the 14th Amendmentās guarantee of equal protection under the law.
In late December, just days before the law was set to take effect in the New Year, District of Idaho Judge B. Lynn Winmill blocked the law from taking effect under a preliminary injunction. In his decision, he said he found the families likely to succeed in their challenge.
The state of Idaho responded by appealing the district courtās preliminary injunction decision to the Ninth Circuit, to which the Ninth Circuit denied. The state of Idaho argued the court should at least enforce the ban for everyone except for the plaintiffs.
After the Ninth Circuitās denial, the Idaho Attorney Generalās Office in February sent an emergency motion to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Idaho Press reported. Mondayās U.S. Supreme Court decision agrees with the stateās request to enforce its ban on transgender health care for minors, except for the two plaintiffs.
******************************************************************************************
Mia Maldonado joined the Idaho Capital Sun after working as a breaking news reporter at the Idaho Statesman covering stories related to crime, education, growth and politics. She previously interned at the Idaho Capital Sun through the Voces Internship of Idaho, an equity-driven program for young Latinos to work in Idaho news. Born and raised in Coeur d’Alene, Mia moved to the Treasure Valley for college where she graduated from the College of Idaho with a bachelor’s degree in Spanish and international political economy.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding piece was previously published by the Idaho Capital Sun and is republished with permission.
The Idaho Capital Sun is the Gem Stateās newest nonprofit news organization delivering accountability journalism on state politics, health care, tax policy, the environment and more.
Weāre part ofĀ States Newsroom, the nationās largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal appeals court hears oral arguments in SAFE Act appeal
As of last November, similar laws had been enacted inĀ 22 states, and legal challenges have been mounted in several of them
ByĀ Debra Chandler LandisĀ | SAINT LOUIS, Mo. – Federal appeals court judges here on Thursday heard legal counsel for the national ACLU and the U.S. Department of Justice argue that transgender minors have a constitutional right to gender-affirming care, while Arkansasā deputy solicitor general said a state law prohibiting such care was in the best interest of youth and not discriminatory.
At issue is the 2021 Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act, which bans physicians from providing gender transition treatments like hormones, puberty blockers and sex reassignment surgeries to individuals under age 18.
Four Arkansas families and two physicians, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, challenged the SAFE Act in federal court, where U.S. District Judge James Moody struck down the law in June 2023, saying, among other things, that the SAFE Act discriminated against transgender people and violated the U.S. Constitutionās First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin appealed that decision in July 2023 to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The state has argued there is no scientific evidence that children benefit from gender-affirming care and that the consequences can be harmful and often permanent for them.
Asked by the appeals judges whether the state law would ban health care providers from prescribing testosterone for conditions other than gender-affirming care treatment, Dylan Jacobs, Arkansas deputy solicitor general, said, āThe statute does not prohibit that. The legislature wasnāt saying it has problems with testosterone.ā
Regarding the district courtās ruling to strike down the ban on transgender care in Arkansas, Jacobs said āthere are certainly risks, including sterilizationā in the treatment, and noted it was not up to the district court to impose its own policy judgments.
ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, deputy director for the organizationās LGBTQ & HIV Project, told the appeals court Thursday they should uphold Moodyās ruling, noting, in part, that the state law undermines constitutional guarantees of equal protection and āsupplants the judgment of parents and their abilities to determine medical care.ā
Griffin has said his office āis fighting to protect our stateās children from dangerous medical experimentation. Moody, in his 80-page ruling striking the Arkansas law, affirmed the testimony of medical experts who said in their testimony for the plaintiffs that gender-affirming care is safe for minors.
The State of Arkansas, Moody wrote, āfailed to prove that its interests in the safety of Arkansas adolescents from gender transitioning procedures or the medical communityās ethical decline are compelling, genuine, or even rational.ā
In 2021, a letter from the American Medical Association to the National Governors Association referenced the Arkansas SAFE Act and said, in part: āArkansas recently enacted SAFE Act and similar bills pending in several other states would insert the government into clinical decision-making and force physicians to disregard clinical guidelines.ā
Gender-affirming care for minors, the AMA said, āmust be sensitive to the childās clinical situation, nurture the childās short and long-term development, and balance the need to preserve the childās opportunity to make important life choices autonomously in the future.ā
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals did not indicate when it might rule on the Arkansas law.
As of last November, similar laws had been enacted inĀ 22 states, and legal challenges have been mounted in several of them. The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet taken up any of those cases.
******************************************************************************************
Debra Chandler Landis is a freelance journalist and retired University of Illinois Springfield college media adviser. She currently lives in St. Louis.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was previously published by The Arkansas Advocate and is republished with permission.
The Arkansas Advocate is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization dedicated to tough, fair daily reporting and investigative journalism that holds public officials accountable and focuses on the relationship between the lives of Arkansans and public policy. This service is free to readers and other news outlets.
Weāre part ofĀ States Newsroom, the nationās largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge tosses a NY county’s suit defending trans sports ban
Bills banning trans youth from participating in sports already have passed in 24 states, although some have been blocked by active lawsuits
BROOKLYN, N.Y. ā A U.S. District CourtĀ judge ruled Friday against a pre-emptive lawsuit from Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman fighting off an attempt by New York Attorney General Letitia James to litigate his transphobic executive order barring the county’s Department of Parks, Recreation, and Museums from issuing permits to any womenās or girlsā sports team with transgender players.
āThis decision is a tremendous victory for justice and the rule of law, but our work here is not done,ā said Alexis Richards, a spokesperson for the Attorney General. āItās past time for Nassau County to rescind this [executive] order and treat all our communities with the basic respect and dignity they deserve.ā
Earlier this month 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 Blakemanās request for a temporary restraining order against the Attorney General.
In that ruling Judge Choudhury wrote that the Long Island county āfalls far short of meeting the high bar for securing the extraordinary relief,āĀ the Associated Press reported.
Among other things, Choudhury said the county failed to ādemonstrate irreparable harm,ā which she said was a ācritical prerequisiteā for such an order.
The ruling, however, doesnāt address the legality of the countyās ban or Jamesā request that the lawsuit be dismissed. Those issues will be decided at a later date,Ā the Associated Press noted.
Reacting to today’s ruling in a statement released to the media Blakeman said: āWe vehemently disagree with the decision and will appeal.ā
On March 1st, Attorney General James 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.
āThe 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,ā the Attorney General wrote. āThis executive order is transphobic and blatantly illegal. Nassau County must immediately rescind the order, or we will not hesitate to take decisive legal action.ā
Last month the Nassau County Executive announced he was filing a lawsuit over the Attorney Generalās actions.
Last month on March 11, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) filed a separate lawsuit against the Nassau County Executive. The lawsuit argues that the policy violates New Yorkās Human Rights Law and Civil Rights Law, which explicitly prohibit discrimination based on gender identity following passage of New Yorkās Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA).Ā Ā
āTrans people who play sports need support and affirmation, not to be a political target. Nassau Countyās cynical attempt to shut them out of public spaces is a blatant violation of our stateās civil and human rights laws. It also speaks to growing, nationwide attacks against LGBTQ+ rights, and we wonāt stand for this hatred here in New York,āĀ said Gabriella Larios, staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union. āAs promised the day this executive order was issued, weāre taking action so that the courts relegate this harmful, transphobic policy to the dustbin of history, where it belongs.āĀ
The ban will remain in effect as the litigation proceeds or it is enjoined by a judge.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge tosses suit against Calif. trans sanctuary state law
The law provides legal protections for families who come to Calif. to obtain gender-affirming care that is inaccessible where they live
SACRAMENTO, Calif. ā A judge of theĀ United States District Court for the Eastern DistrictĀ of California dismissed a second amended complaint challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 107 (SB 107), also referred to as Californiaās Transgender Sanctuary State Law.
In the dismissal without leave to amend, the court dismissed the lawsuit on Article III standing grounds, finding that the plaintiff failed to allege that SB 107 injured them in any way, and failed to allege any facts showing that SB 107 forced the plaintiff to divert staff time and resources.
SB 107 protects children and families seeking gender affirming care, as well as their health care providers, from bigoted anti-trans laws in other states that criminalize medically necessary health care that is legal in California.Ā
The Transgender Sanctuary State Law provides legal protections for families who come to California to obtain gender-affirming care that is inaccessible where they live, as well as doctors and staff providing such care in California. It implements various safeguards against the enforcement of other statesā laws that would penalize people for obtaining medically necessary care that is legal in California.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a statement following the U.S. District Courtās order granting the California Department of Justiceās motion to dismiss the second amended complaint challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 107 (SB 107).
āNo one should ever be marginalized for seeking the care they need,āĀ said Bonta. āThe courtās decision is a major win for transgender children and their families in California and across the U.S. amidst a growing assault on LGBTQ+ rights nationwide. My office stands ready to defend SB 107 to ensure transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals obtain the care that empowers them to lead healthier, happier lives.ā
āTransgender people just want to live their lives authentically and in peace, and California is defending their right to do so,ā saidĀ the law’s author, state Senator Scott Wiener.Ā āThis ruling shows once again that trans people are living authentically in California without any of the negative impacts on those around them of which right-wing zealots accuse them. Californiaās leadership is united in defending transgender people, and LGBTQ people generally, from the vicious attacks they face in other states. I thank Attorney General Bonta and his team for their incredible work securing this major civil rights victory.ā
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge rules Florida trans teacher can use ‘Ms.’ in classroom
āOnce again, the State of Florida has a First Amendment problem. It has occurred so frequently of late, you can set your clock by it”
By Erin Reed | TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – In Florida, a federal judge ruled that a transgender woman teacher no longer has to be referred to as āMr.ā or āteacherā in the classroom, citing first amendment protections.
Instead, she can use āMs.ā and female pronouns. This decision follows the passage ofĀ HB1069Ā in Florida, which mandated that teachers could not use pronouns that ādo not correspond to his or her sex.ā
U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker enjoined the state from enforcing the law against her, stating, āThe State of Florida has not justified this grave restraint, and so the United States Constitution does not tolerate it. Ours is a Union of individuals, celebrating ourselves and singing ourselves and being ourselves without apology.ā
The plaintiff, Ms. Wood, a teacher at a Florida high school, has been known as āMs. Woodā for four years. She regularly would write her name, title, and pronouns on the whiteboard and used these pronouns with students, faculty, and staff, as well as in her personal life. In evaluating Ms. Woodās usage of her name, title, and pronouns, the judge determined that āThe freedom to use the title āMs.ā and to share her preferred pronouns at school is essential to her basic humanity.ā
Ms. Woodās ability to use her preferred title and pronouns was threatened following the passage of House Bill 1069. Enacted into law in 2023, House Bill 1069 prohibits all employees and contractors of public K-12 educational institutions from using their preferred personal titles or pronouns if those ādo not correspond to their sex.ā
After the law’s enactment, administrators informed Ms. Wood that she had to remove her pronouns and title from display and could not correct students who referred to her as āMr.ā or āhim.ā
The judge commenced his ruling with a scathing critique of the state, writing, āOnce again, the State of Florida has a First Amendment problem. It has occurred so frequently of late, some might say you can set your clock by itā¦ The question before this Court is whether the First Amendment allows the State to dictate, without limitation, how public-school teachers refer to themselves when communicating with students. The answer is a thunderous āno.āā
The judge ultimately determined that prohibiting Ms. Wood from using her pronouns or title constituted an unconstitutional violation of her freedom of speech, deeming it a form of viewpoint discrimination.
In his decision, he refuted several arguments presented by the state, including the claim that Ms. Wood using āMs.ā could āimpede her job duties.ā He found this assertion to be unfounded, noting instead that as a teacher, Ms. Wood’s students achieved test scores higher than the district average.
Additionally, the state argued that Ms. Woodās identity itself was at odds with the stateās teachings on gender and sexuality, and thus she could be barred. This argument, based on a novel legal theory, was found by the judge to be entirely unsupported by court precedent.
This case is not the only recent legal action addressing this topic. Two weeks prior, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that repeated and intentional misgendering could constitute a hostile work environment. Similarly, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that teachers do not have the religious right to misgender transgender students. While the Florida case did not grant Ms. Wood an injunction on the basis of a hostile work environment, it does not preclude the possibility that it might recognize she experienced such an environment in addition to the First Amendment violation identified by the judge when the case is fully heard.
It is important to note that although defendants are barred from enforcing the law against Ms. Wood, the injunction is currently limited only to the teacher. However, should other teachers be threatened with retaliation under similar circumstances, it is likely they would also prevail. Similarly, this case will likely be cited in other attempts to bar transgender students and teachers from using their pronouns in school settings nationwide.
****************************************************************************
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 articleĀ was first publishedĀ atĀ Erin In The MorningĀ and is republished with permission.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge: NY AG can continue legal action on anti-trans order
U.S. District Court Judge Choudhury denied Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman’s request for a temporary restraining order
BROOKLYN, N.Y. – A U.S. District Court judge ruled Thursday that New York Attorney General Letitia James can continue to take legal action against Nassau County over a transphobic executive order barring the Nassau County Department of Parks, Recreation, and Museums from issuing permits to any womenās or girlsā sports team with transgender players.
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 Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman’s request for a temporary restraining order against the Attorney General.
In his ruling Judge Choudhury wrote that the Long Island county āfalls far short of meeting the high bar for securing the extraordinary relief,ā the Associated Press reported.
Among other things, Choudhury said the county failed to ādemonstrate irreparable harm,ā which she said was a ācritical prerequisiteā for such an order.
The ruling, however, doesnāt address the legality of the countyās ban or Jamesā request that the lawsuit be dismissed. Those issues will be decided at a later date, the Associated Press noted.
On March 1st, Attorney General James 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.
āThe 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,ā the Attorney General wrote. āThis executive order is transphobic and blatantly illegal. Nassau County must immediately rescind the order, or we will not hesitate to take decisive legal action.ā
Last month the Nassau County Executive announced he was filing a lawsuit over the Attorney General’s actions.
In his filing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the Nassau County Executive argues that New York State Human Rights Law does not extend to transgender people. The suit also cites the 14th Amendment claiming the ācease and desistā letter issued by the Attorney General violates the U.S. Constitutionās āequal protectionā clause, which is enshrined in the 14th Amendment.
According to the Office of the Attorney General: āUnder New York law, it is illegal to discriminate against an individual based on their sex or gender identity or expression. In addition to violating basic civil and human rights, the executive order will impose undue increased scrutiny on womenās and girlsā teams and leagues and will also subject all athletes on womenās and girlsā sports teams to intrusive and invasive questioning and other verification requirements.ā
Blakeman told reporters: āWe donāt want 6-foot, 210-pound males competing against women and girls who are not that big, theyāre not that strong. Thatās an unfair competition. Itās dangerous. And we also donāt want biological males in the same locker rooms as biological females.ā
When pressed by journalists Blakeman could not cite an instance of a transgender athlete trying to play on a female team in the Long Island county, instead referencing controversy other transgender athletes in other states and āinterestā from constituents. He has insisted he is being proactive to prevent it from happening, WNBC 4 News reported.
āWeāre taking action now because itās happening around the country and we donāt want it to happen here,ā he said. He argued the Attorney Generalās actions to force him to rescind his order denies ābiological femalesā right to equal opportunities in athleticsā as well as their āright to a safe playing fieldā by exposing them to increased risk of injury if theyāre forced to compete against transgender women.
In a press release the Jamesā office noted: The executive order forces sports teams and leagues to make an unfair and unnecessary choice: openly discriminate against transgender women and girls in violation of state law, or find somewhere else to play. The executive order applies to more than 100 venues, including general playing fields in parks, baseball, football, and soccer fields, basketball and tennis courts, indoor and outdoor swimming pools, and ice rinks. This discriminatory order will not only impact Nassau County-based teams and leagues but will also undoubtedly deter teams from other counties from participating in Nassau County games and sporting events.
David Kilmnick, PhD, a leading advocate within New Yorkās LGBTQ+ communities and the founder and President/CEO of the New York LGBT Network referred to Blakemanās executive order as ājust a complete waste of time and a political stunt.ā In an interview with WNBC 4 Kilmnick called Blakemanās actions illegal and dangerous. āWe need to get real here: The bullying that is taking place is on trans youth.ā
At a news conference carried live by Fox News Channel on March 18, Caitlyn Jenner at Blakeman’s request flew from her home in Malibu, Calif. to join with him and other elected Republican leaders to speak in support of his February executive order banning trans athletes at more than 100 county-owned facilities. āTrans women are competing against women, taking valuable opportunities for the long-protected class under Title IX and causing physical harm,ā said Jenner without providing supportive evidence of her claim. Jenner said the ban would defeat āthe woke agenda.ā
Her comments drew praise from former NCAA swimmer and paid shill Riley Gaines, who represents the Independent Womenās Forum and has also worked with the failed presidential campaign of Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida on his anti-trans athlete platform.
āIf the left wants to fight this battle on this hill, itās a losing battle,ā said Jenner. āWe will win the battle.ā She claimed she spoke on behalf of women and girls, contradicting her past statements in support of trans girls competing according to their gender identity and despite the fact she herself still competes in womenās sports.
-
Los Angeles1 day ago
LA’s lost an iconic entertainment reporter, Sam Rubin dies at 64
-
California4 days ago
Rick Zbur nominates Nancy Sutley for Latino Spirit Awards honoree
-
Utah4 days ago
Utah Auditor slams Legislature for making him “Bathroom Monitor”Ā
-
Russia4 days ago
Vladimir Putin takes oath, begins fifth term as Russia’s president
-
Online Culture2 days ago
Online safe spaces for queer youth increasingly at risk
-
Florida4 days ago
Florida sues over new regulations protecting gender-affirming care
-
South Carolina2 days ago
SC governor to sign bill banning HRT for trans youth into law
-
Nevada4 days ago
75-year-old parolee charged in alleged Las Vegas hate crime
-
Middle East3 days ago
Tel Aviv’s annual Pride parade cancelled
-
San Francisco3 days ago
Fremont, California man convicted in Grindr robbery & assault