![ACLU](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012694/origin.png)
ACLU, Lambda Legal Sue to Block Texas From Investigating Parents Who Support Their Transgender Kids
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Texas, and Lambda Legal today asked a Texas state court to block the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) from investigating parents who work with medical professionals to provide their adolescent children with medically necessary gender-affirming care.
The lawsuit names Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who recently issued a directive stating that providing gender-affirming care should be considered a form of child abuse. The suit also names DFPS Commissioner Jaime Masters and DFPS, as defendants. The lawsuit includes claims that these recent directives were issued without proper authority, in violation of the Texas Administrative Procedures Act, the separation of powers requirements of the Texas Constitution, and the constitutional rights of transgender youth and their parents.
"No family should have to fear being torn apart because they are supporting their trans child," said Adri Perez (they/them), policy and advocacy strategist at the ACLU of Texas. "A week before an election, Gov. Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a partisan political attack that isn't rooted in the needs of families, the evidence from doctors and the expertise from child welfare professionals. Families with trans kids in Texas have been under attack for too long. Gender-affirming health care saved my life, and other trans Texans should be able to access medically necessary, lifesaving care."
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of an employee of DFPS with a transgender child, her husband, and the teen herself. According to the complaint, this family has had an investigator already arrive at their house. The family has filed the lawsuit anonymously. Dr. Megan Mooney, a licensed psychologist who is considered a mandatory reporter under Texas law and cannot comply with the governor's directive without harming her clients and violating her ethical obligations, is also a plaintiff in the suit.
"For Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton, it seems the cruelty is the point," said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Paul Castillo (he/him). "They are joining a politically motivated misinformation campaign with no consideration of medical science and seem determined to criminalize parents seeking to care and provide for their kids, and medical professionals abiding by accepted standards of care for transgender youth. Gender-affirming care for the treatment of gender dysphoria is medically necessary care, full stop. Criminalizing that care and threatening to tear children from their families is unconscionable and terrifying, and cannot stand."
"Our youth, our communities, will not be used as political props," said Emmett Schelling (he/him), executive director of Transgender Education Network of Texas (TENT). "We will not allow for these continued efforts to restrict access to life-saving care and criminalize families based on patently false information. To Attorney General Paxton and Gov. Abbott, we will not continue to play a sadistic role in your political theater."
While doctors and medical organizations have been providing gender-affirming care to youth, including transgender youth, for decades, it has increasingly become a target of attacks from state lawmakers. After Arkansas became the first state to pass a ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth last year, a federal court blocked the law from being enforced. While dozens of states have proposed laws similar to what became law in Arkansas -- including some like Alabama that have proposed criminal penalties for providing gender-affirming care to youth -- Texas is the only state saying providing this lifesaving care could lead to a child being removed from their family and placed in the foster care system.
"These efforts to cut off and criminalize necessary health care for transgender minors are in direct conflict with the recommendations of medical professionals and have nothing to do with what's best for trans youth," said Chase Strangio (he/him), deputy director for trans justice with the ACLU LGBTQ & HIV Project. "They may be escalating, but these attacks are not new. Trans youth need you to take the fury you have over what's happening in Texas and share it with lawmakers in every state that is trying to make it harder for trans youth to survive."
A court could rule as soon as Tuesday. The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union Jon L. Stryker and Slobodan Randjelovic LGBTQ & HIV Project, the ACLU Women's Rights Project, the ACLU of Texas, Lambda Legal, and the law firm of Baker Botts LLP.
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666Why Bernie Sanders Is Thanking Elon Musk
The Vermont senator said Musk has done "an exceptional job of demonstrating a point that we have made for years—and that is the fact we live in an oligarchic society."
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday took the unusual step of applauding Elon Musk—but not for reasons that the Tesla CEO and world's richest man would likely find flattering.
In the wake of
reports indicating that Musk plans to inject $45 million per month into a new super PAC supporting former President Donald Trump's bid for another four years in the White House, Sanders (I-Vt.) thanked Musk for doing "an exceptional job of demonstrating a point that we have made for years—and that is the fact we live in an oligarchic society in which billionaires dominate not only our economic life and the information we consume, but our politics as well."
"And let me be clear. While the size of Musk's financial contribution is particularly egregious, he is not alone in attempting to buy this election to further his own needs," Sanders continued. "Other billionaires are also playing a significant role—in both political parties. Oh, I know... here goes Bernie Sanders again about Citizens United and the role of money in politics. I have no shortage of critics who accuse me of being boring and of hammering away at the same themes year after year after year."
"They're probably right. I am repetitious, but that’s because the problems we care about are only getting worse," he added. "Let's be clear. It has never made sense to me, then or now, that a tiny clique of people should have incredible wealth and power while most people have none."
"While people like Elon Musk try to buy elections for Donald Trump, people who work for low wages, have no health insurance, can't afford prescription drugs, and can't find affordable housing are giving up on politics."
Citing unnamed sources, The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg reported earlier this week that Musk has pledged to donate $45 million per month to America PAC, whose founding donors include ultra-rich tech investors who are part of Musk's social circle. The New York Timesseparately reported that "one leader of America PAC told a friend that the group expected to have a major donor who would make donations in four batches, adding up to as much as $160 million over the course of the campaign."
The Journal and Bloomberg stories—which Musk denied with a meme that included the words "fake gnus"—followed reports that Musk had already given the super PAC a substantial sum of money despite his March declaration that he is "not donating money to either candidate for U.S. president."
Musk formally endorsed Trump on X—the social media platform Musk owns—following an assassination attempt against the former president this past weekend in Pennsylvania. Conspiracy theories about the attempt on Trump's life proliferated rapidly on X, with the help of Musk himself.
The Tesla CEO's name
did not appear on America PAC's disclosure filings for June, which could mean that he donated to the PAC earlier this month.
Musk, who is worth over $250 billion, is one of more than a dozen billionaires supporting Trump and his newly chosen running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio). Axios and the Times reported Tuesday that Musk personally lobbied Trump to make Vance his vice presidential pick.
Musk and other U.S. billionaires got $1 trillion richer during Trump's first four years in office, gains fueled by massive tax cuts he signed into law in 2017.
Why are billionaires like Peter Thiel, Rupert Murdoch, Stephen Schwartzman, and the owner of this website rallying behind Trump?
Yes, the tax cuts. But there's more.
The more Trump tears down democracy, the safer the oligarchy becomes.
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) July 16, 2024
Sanders wrote in his email Tuesday that Musk's influence on the 2024 election could be particularly pronounced given his ownership of X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.
Musk, Sanders wrote, has used the platform "to amplify the voices of conspiracy theorists who deny the results of the last election and spread the dangerous idea that Democrats want to allow mass, undocumented migration to the country to replace, electorally, the votes of white people."
"The reality is that while people like Elon Musk try to buy elections for Donald Trump, people who work for low wages, have no health insurance, can't afford prescription drugs, and can't find affordable housing are giving up on politics," the senator continued. "They see the rich getting richer as they use their wealth to buy influence, and wonder whether anyone in Washington even knows what is going on in their lives."
Sanders argued that to end the pernicious political influence of Musk and other billionaires, it is essential to elect candidates who support overturning Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that spawned the super PACs now playing a massive role in the nation's elections.
"It is an issue that should concern all Americans—regardless of their political point of view—who wish to live under a government that represents all of the people and not just a handful of powerful special interests," Sanders wrote. "Taking action is not just good politics, it is also good policy. Because the truth is, campaign finance reform is the most important issue facing us today, because it impacts all the others."
Biden Belatedly Embraces Supreme Court Reforms as Right-Wing Justices Wreak Havoc
The president is reportedly planning to endorse term limits for Supreme Court justices—but not adding seats to the bench.
In the wake of rulings that have significantly weakened the regulatory authority of federal agencies, backed the criminalization of homelessness, and granted U.S. presidents sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution, President Joe Biden is reportedly preparing to endorse reforms that would establish term limits and a binding code of ethics for the nation's Supreme Court justices—changes that progressive advocates and many Democratic lawmakers have backed for years.
The Washington Postreported late Tuesday that Biden is "finalizing plans" to embrace the proposals "in the coming weeks" as the November presidential election against GOP nominee Donald Trump looms. Trump appointed half of the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority during his first four years in the White House, paving the way for the overturning of Roe v. Wade and other hugely consequential decisions.
Biden told members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus—some of the most vocal advocates of substantial court reforms—during a call this past weekend that he was "about to come out with a major initiative on limiting the court," according to a transcript obtained by the Post.
But Biden has been facing and resisting pressure to back transformative changes to the high court for years, and it's far from clear that the reforms he's planning to put forth—which would require congressional approval—will satisfy campaigners or members of his party who are calling for high court expansion and other bold changes.
The president, who is facing calls to drop his reelection campaign, has consistently opposed Supreme Court expansion, which is backed by 75% of Democratic voters. The New York Timesreported Tuesday that Biden's forthcoming proposal will likely not back high court expansion.
Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said in a statement late Tuesday that "elected officials are catching up to the growing consensus among the American people that it is time for court reform."
Term limits for Supreme Court justices are broadly popular with the U.S. public, according to new polling from Data for Progress. Nearly 75% of voters across party lines support ending lifetime terms on the high court, the group found.
The specifics of Biden's plan are unclear. Legislation introduced by House Democrats would impose 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices.
"The Supreme Court should be the gold standard for judicial ethics, but right now, nothing could be further from the truth," Eldridge said Tuesday. "That's why a supermajority of Americans support legislation to enact Supreme Court term limits and a binding code of ethics. It is time for our leaders to listen to the American people and take action to address the growing crisis on our nation's highest court."
"We urge President Biden to support the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act and the TERM Act, which would establish term limits for current and future justices," he added.
Even in the aftermath of rulings that have directly undercut his agenda—such as the high court's decision last year to block his student debt cancellation plan—Biden has dismissed more ambitious proposals to overhaul the Supreme Court, including adding more justices to the bench.
"If we start the process of trying to expand the court, we're going to politicize it maybe forever in a way that is not healthy, that you can't get back," Biden said last June, ignoring the reality that the high court has already been packed by Republicans.
Elie Mystal, The Nation's justice correspondent, argued Tuesday that term limits and other proposed court reforms are doomed to fail "if you don't expand the court."
"The only way to get term limits is to appoint a majority of justices who think term limits are constitutional," Mystal wrote. "And right now, I don't even know if there are three justices who think they're constitutional, much less the necessary five."
"So, again, the constitutional way to bring the Supreme Court to heel," he added, "is to expand it, then pass your ethics bills and term limit bills, which will then be upheld by the newly expanded court."
'Stunning Abdication': Appeals Court Dismisses Biden Genocide Complicity Case
"We turned to the law to help stop the horror, and the court chose to do nothing," said one plaintiff in the case. "We are beyond disappointed."
Palestine defenders on Tuesday decried a U.S. federal appellate panel's dismissal of a case brought by Palestinians accusing senior Biden administration officials of failing to prevent and complicity in Israeli genocide in Gaza.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirmed a lower court's dismissal of the lawsuit against President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, which was led by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on behalf of several Palestinian groups and individuals.
During a Tuesday interview on Democracy Now!, CCR attorney Katherine Gallagher—who represented plaintiffs in the case—said its dismissal "essentially gives the blank check to carry out any kind of conduct that the executive wants in times of genocide, in times of war."
Gallagher's interview followed a Monday statement in which she referred to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting the president "absolute immunity" for "official acts."
"On the heels of Trump v. United States, this stunning abdication of the court's role to serve as a check on the executive even in the face of its support for genocide should set off alarm bells for all," she said.
The lawsuit—originally filed in November in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland—sought to stop the Biden administration from aiding Israel's bombardment of Gaza. U.S. weapons have played a critical role in Israel's war, which Palestinian and international agencies say has killed, wounded, or left missing more than 137,500 Gazans.
While the court found that "the current treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military may plausibly constitute a genocide in violation of international law," it dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds in late January. The 9th Circuit subsequently granted an expedited appeal in the case, which was heard in June.
"This decision is mind-boggling and, frankly, scary," plaintiff Waeil Elbhassi said in a statement Monday. "It is just unfathomable, while we count our dead, witness the total obliteration of Gaza—aided by our own government."
"As the death toll keeps rising and we see nonstop images of carnage during this livestreamed genocide, the court washes its hands of our case," Elbhassi added. "We turned to the law to help stop the horror, and the court chose to do nothing. We are beyond disappointed. We have no choice but to continue to fight for our people. Our very existence is at stake."
Israel's conduct in Gaza—including alleged forced starvation that has fueled deadly famine in parts of the besieged strip—is under investigation by the International Court of Justice in a genocide case brought by South Africa.
Additionally, International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan has applied for warrants to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders for crimes including extermination allegedly committed on and after October 7.