SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
lambda legal
US Supreme Court to Consider Tennessee's Ban on Care for Trans Youth
"It's crucial to recognize that for trans youth and their families, this isn't about politics—it's about the fundamental freedom to access vital, lifesaving healthcare," said one advocate.
Jun 24, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to Tennessee's March 2023 ban on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth—a development that LGBTQ+ rights advocates sought but which has them worried given the six right-wing justices.
The Biden administration along with the national and state ACLU, Lambda Legal, and the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP asked the justices to review the Tennessee ban after a September decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed it to stay in effect.
The justices granted certiorari in seven cases for the term beginning this fall, including United States v. Skrmetti, the administration's challenge to the Tennessee ban. Law Dork's Chris Geidner noted that they rejected local challenges to that law and a similar one in Kentucky, "which also raised a parental rights due process claim."
"These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country."
Still, rights advocates cautiously welcomed the news and called on the justices to apply precedents including the Supreme Court's 2020 Bostock v. Clayton Countyruling that it is illegal for employers to discriminate against a worker because of transgender status and sexual orientation. That majority opinion was written by right-wing Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the four left-leaning members of the court at that time. Now, there are just three liberal justices.
"This court has historically rejected efforts to uphold discriminatory laws, and without similar action here, these punitive, categorical bans on the provision of gender-affirming care will continue to wreak havoc on the lives of transgender youth and their families," Lambda Legal senior counsel Tara Borelli said Monday. "We are grateful that transgender youth and their families will have their day in the highest court, and we will not stop fighting to ensure access to this lifesaving, medically necessary care."
While 15 states plus Washington, D.C. have enacted shield laws protecting access to gender-affirming healthcare, over two dozen states have banned some or all of such care for trans youth, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Medical professionals and rights advocates across the country have warned that these bans endanger the lives of trans people.
"The future of countless transgender youth in this and future generations rests on this court adhering to the facts, the Constitution, and its own modern precedent," said Chase Strangio, deputy director for Transgender Justice at the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, in a statement after the justices agreed to take the case.
"These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law," Strangio continued. "They are the result of an openly political effort to wage war on a marginalized group and our most fundamental freedoms."
Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee, stressed that "Tennesseans deserve the freedom to live their lives as their authentic selves without government interference, yet every day this law remains in place, it inflicts further pain and injustice on trans youth and their families."
"As politicians continue to fuel divisions for their own political gain, it's crucial to recognize that for trans youth and their families, this isn't about politics—it's about the fundamental freedom to access vital, lifesaving healthcare," the attorney added.
For now, the Tennessee ban remains in effect—and since its passage last year, the Campaign for Southern Equality has supported families of transgender youth through the Southern Trans Youth Emergency Project.
"This is a high-stakes moment for transgender youth and their families, and we're glad that trans youth and their families will have their day in court to make the case that the bans are unconstitutional, interfere with private medical decisions, and severely harm families," Allison Scott, the campaign's director of impact and innovation, said Monday. "Everyone who needs gender-affirming care should be able to access it affordably, and close to home, and our team will never stop working to make that happen."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Blocks Iowa Book Ban, 'Don't Say LGBTQ' Law
"We deserve to be able to express ourselves safely at school and we deserve to see ourselves in media at school, especially in books," said an eighth grade student who joined one of the lawsuits.
Dec 29, 2023
A U.S. federal judge on Friday blocked key parts of what critics called a "sweeping Iowa law that seeks to silence LGBTQ+ students, erase any recognition of LGBTQ+ people from public schools, and bans books with sexual or LGBTQ+ content."
Judge Stephen Locher determined that none of the plaintiffs in a pair of cases filed against Senate File 496 has standing to challenge the provision requiring school districts to notify parents if a child seeks an accommodation relating to gender identity, including the use of pronouns that does not match registration records.
However, Locher issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a ban on any book containing "descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act"—except for the Bible—in all public school classrooms and libraries, and a prohibition on "any program, curriculum, test, survey, questionnaire, promotion, or instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation" in kindergarten through sixth grade.
"This decision sends a strong message to the state that efforts to ban books based on LGBTQ+ content, or target speech that sends a message of inclusion to Iowa LGBTQ+ students cannot stand."
The law—part of a national wave of GOP-led book bans and other policies targeting LGBTQ+ youth—was passed by the Iowa Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds this spring. The Associated Pressnoted Friday that it "was set to take effect January 1 but already had resulted in the removal of hundreds of books from Iowa schools."
The two lawsuits against S.F. 496 were filed last month. The Iowa State Education Association, Penguin Random House, and some popular authors partnered for one of the cases. The ACLU of Iowa, Lambda Legal, and the law firm Jenner & Block also sued on behalf of Iowa Safe Schools and several students and their families—including Berry Stevens, an eighth grader from West Des Moines.
"I've known since I was in third grade that I am a part of the LGBTQIA+ community," said Stevens—whose mother, Rev. Brigit Stevens, is also a plaintiff in the case—when the suit was launched in November. "In sixth grade, I first changed my name and started using they/them pronouns because I knew I wasn't a boy or a girl. I'm just a person. This is a concept that a lot of adults have trouble understanding."
The younger Stevens explained that "I am participating in this lawsuit because this new law hurts all kinds of kids and it hurts many of my friends. We deserve to be able to express ourselves safely at school and we deserve to see ourselves in media at school, especially in books. This law is trying to shut us down and make us be quiet and not openly discuss our lives, who we like, or who we truly are."
"I know what it's like to be bullied and harassed because of being in the LGBTQIA+ community. I wish my school would do something to actually prevent bullying before it happens, not just tell kids it's wrong after the fact," they added. "But because of this law, I feel like the school is too worried about getting in trouble with the state if they try to speak out. This law gets in the way of educators trying to make a safer, more inclusive space for all students."
Another plaintiff, high school senior Puck Carlson of Iowa City, said that "like it or not, sex and sexuality are parts of the teenage experience. Refusing to provide adolescents with information about it means they'll seek out their own information—from the Internet, or from others, in ways that are significantly less safe than books reviewed by teachers or librarians."
"Removing books that discuss queer topics or people from our schools tells our queer students that they do not belong there, that their existence is shameful. I am not shameful," they added. "School is one of the main places that children read, and being able to access literature in which you can see yourself can be instrumental to a student's discovery of themselves—it certainly was to me."
In response to the judge blocking Iowa's book ban and "don't say LGBTQ" provisions, Lambda Legal senior attorney Nathan Maxwell said that "we are glad our clients, Iowa families, and students will be able to continue the school year free from the harms caused by these parts of this unconstitutional law."
"This decision sends a strong message to the state that efforts to ban books based on LGBTQ+ content, or target speech that sends a message of inclusion to Iowa LGBTQ+ students cannot stand," Maxwell added. "Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Iowa will continue our fight to ensure Iowa schools are safe for LGBTQ+ students."
Keep ReadingShow Less
AOC Calls Biden Reversal on Protections for Trans Athletes a 'Disgrace'
"Absolutely no reason for the Biden administration to do this," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. "It is indefensible and embarrassing."
Apr 07, 2023
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday was among the progressives denouncing the Biden administration's newly proposed rules for transgender student athletes, which critics said would open the door to discrimination at all age levels despite the U.S. Department of Education's statement that "categorically" banning trans athletes from teams that align with their gender identity would be illegal under the rule.
Elementary age students would generally be permitted to play on sports teams according to their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth, but universities and K-12 schools would be given "flexibility to develop team eligibility criteria that serve important educational objectives, such as ensuring fairness in competition or preventing sports-related injury," according to the Education Department.
"Considerations may be different for competitive high school and college teams," which would be given discretion to limit participation of transgender students, the department said.
Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called the proposed policy, a reversal of an executive order President Joe Biden signed on his first day in office in 2021, "indefensible and embarrassing," and urged the administration to promptly "walk this back."
\u201cAbsolutely no reason for the Biden admin to do this. It is indefensible and embarrassing.\n\nThe admin can still walk this back, and they should. It\u2019s a disgrace\u201d— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) 1680824478
Biden's earlier order said that under the U.S. Constitution children "should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports," noting that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation at schools that receive federal funding.
"To put it mildly, this is extraordinarily disappointing and a total reversal from a position the Biden administration has taken since Day One," said Slate journalist Mark Joseph Stern.
Some advocacy groups applauded the administration for prohibiting blanket bans on transgender athletes, with GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) saying the rule "affirms the importance of giving transgender students the chance to play sports."
"The proposed rule prohibits the kind of categorical bans adopted in too many states that are hurting transgender students and that send a dangerous message to all students," said Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD.
But Lambda Legal, which represented a transgender girl who the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday should be permitted to play on her school's girls' cross country and track team for the time being, raised concerns that the so-called "flexibility" given to schools under the law would not "properly eliminate the discrimination that transgender students experience due to the pervasive bias and ignorance about who they are."
"These students must have full and equal chances to participate because participation in athletics provides many long-term benefits for young people, including important health benefits, and chances to develop leadership skills, discipline, and self-confidence," said Sasha Buchert, senior attorney at Lambda Legal. "Given the importance of the opportunity to participate in athletics to students' educational experience, we look forward to submitting comments and working with the administration to further remove those remaining bigotry-based barriers to full and equal participation by transgender youth."
Buchert toldThe New York Times that anti-transgender lawmakers "would absolutely seek to apply this across the board... whether we are talking about a 6-year-old playing soccer or someone playing varsity volleyball"—a fear that Florida Education Commissioner Manny Diaz confirmed as he told the newspaper, "This won't fly in Florida. We will never allow boys to play in girls' sports."
Emma Grasso Levine, Title IX policy and program manager for the Know Your IX project at Advocates for Youth, called on the Biden administration to ensure that, following a 30-day public comment period, "the final version of this Title IX regulation goes farther to eliminate discriminatory practices in schools."
"In alignment with Title IX's promise, it is the responsibility of the Biden administration to eliminate all transphobic, discriminatory barriers that are currently taking root in school policies," said Levine.
Alejandra Caraballo of the Harvard Law Cyberlaw Clinic said the proposed policy "is worse than [the Biden administration] doing nothing" about transgender sports bans.
\u201cThis is worse than doing nothing, it's spreading thin already extremely limited time by trans folks to have to deal with this bullshit. They are helping the anti-trans side and legitamizing their transphobic talking points.\u201d— Alejandra Caraballo (@Alejandra Caraballo) 1680813951
The policy was proposed as at least 20 states have passed laws barring transgender students from playing on sports teams according to their gender identity, and right-wing lawmakers across the nation are seeking to bar transgender youths and adults from accessing gender-affirming healthcare, which medical experts say significantly reduces depression and suicidal ideation in transgender people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular