&w=3840&q=100)
After UPenn ban, US top court agrees to hear case on transgender athletes
According to a report by The New York Times, the two Supreme Court cases are expected to be heard in the upcoming term beginning in October, with rulings likely by mid-2026.
The court's decision to hear the cases—one from West Virginia and one from Idaho—comes amid a rapid acceleration of restrictions on transgender Americans, from sports to the military.
UPenn to restrict trans-athlete participation
Earlier this week, the University of Pennsylvania reached an agreement with the federal government to restrict transgender athlete participation in response to a civil rights investigation. The case centred around swimmer Lia Thomas, whose participation in NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) women's events ignited national controversy and scrutiny from the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.
The agreement was seen by critics as a significant rollback of transgender inclusion in collegiate sports.
Cases being reviewed by Supreme Court
The plaintiffs — Becky Pepper-Jackson in West Virginia and Lindsay Hecox in Idaho—are both transgender athletes challenging their states' laws as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
Pepper-Jackson, a high school student who began transitioning in elementary school and takes puberty blockers, was barred from joining her middle school girls' cross-country team after West Virginia passed a law prohibiting transgender girls from competing on female teams. Represented by the ACLU, she obtained a court order to compete and has since posted competitive results, including a top-three finish in the state discus championship.
In Idaho, college runner Lindsay Hecox challenged a 2020 law that bans transgender women and girls from female sports at public schools and universities. A lower court allowed her to continue participating at the club level. The state appealed to the Supreme Court with backing from the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom.
Justice Dept push for transgender ban in schools sports
Since 2020, 27 states have enacted laws restricting transgender athletes in girls' and women's school sports. In February, the Trump administration ordered a withdrawal of federal funding from schools that allow transgender girls to compete on female teams.
The US justice department has also signalled potential legal action against public schools that allow transgender athlete participation.
Meanwhile, organisations like the NCAA and the International Olympic Committee have attempted to introduce policy frameworks based on testosterone thresholds, though no national or international consensus has emerged.
These cases could be historic, as the Supreme Court has never before ruled on transgender participation in school sports.
Trump admin bans transgender military service
Federal actions have also targeted transgender individuals serving in the US military. US President Donald Trump signed an executive order within days of taking office to ban transgender military service. Although federal courts initially blocked the measure, the Supreme Court last month allowed its enforcement.
Since then, the defence department has issued guidance requiring all active-duty transgender service members to voluntarily self-identify by June 6 and reserve members by July 7, or face possible removal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
My case is an example of misuse of ED, says Shivakumar
Ramanagara: Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar has said that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was being misused for political purposes, and cited his own case as an example of such "abuse". Speaking to reporters in Kodihalli, Kanakapura on Monday, he said the Supreme Court's observations in the MUDA case, where it dismissed the ED's appeal, reflected a pattern of selective targeting. "My case itself is proof of the ED being misused politically. They filed a case against me, sent me to Tihar Jail, and eventually the case was dropped," he said. The Deputy CM urged the ED to introspect and examine whether it is succumbing to political pressure. Referring to the MUDA case, he said, "Once a 'B' report was submitted, there was no question of further appeal. That is probably why the Supreme Court made such observations." Shivakumar questioned why ED cases were being filed only against Congress leaders. "Why are there no ED cases against BJP leaders? Why are only Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Robert Vadra and other Congress leaders targeted? Has everyone who joined the BJP suddenly become pure? Isn't this the BJP's washing machine?" he asked. Shivakumar's remarks follow the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by the ED in the MUDA (Mysuru Urban Development Authority) land allotment case involving Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's wife Parvathi B M and Congress MLA Byrathi Suresh.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
IPS officer ordered to publish apology in newspapers, social media as SC finalises divorce
Settling a deeply contested marital dispute, the Supreme Court Tuesday granted divorce to a couple and directed that the wife, who is an IPS officer, to issue an 'an unconditional apology to the husband and his family' and have it published it newspapers and on social media as part of the settlement. The couple, an IPS officer and Delhi-based businessman, had married in 2015 and separated in 2018. The woman became an IPS officer in 2022, three years after she separated from her husband and moved to her hometown in Uttar Pradesh. According to the terms of the court-mandated settlement, the woman did not seek alimony or maintenance and instead offered to transfer property owned by her parents to her estranged husband. These properties — three pieces of land in Aligarh — will be transferred by the officer's mother who owns them through a gift deed. 'As a result of the cases filed by the wife, the husband remained in jail for a period of 109 days and his father for 103 days and the entire family suffered physical and mental trauma and harassment. What they have suffered cannot be resituated or compensated in any manner,' the top court said, directing the IPS officer, and her parents to tender an unconditional apology to the husband and his family members which shall be published in the national edition of the renowned one English and one Hindi newspaper. 'Such apology shall also be published and circulated on all social media platforms,' the SC said in its order. The apex court also granted primary custody of the child to the mother and visitation rights to the father. The SC further granted police protection to the husband and his family, cautioning the IPS officer to 'never use her position and power as an IPS officer or any other position that she may hold in future,' to cause 'any bodily or mental injury to the husband and his family, in any manner whatsoever.' A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih also added that 'the apology is made to bring about amicable closure to the protracted legal battle and associated emotional and mental stress. It is without prejudice to/for either party. It shall not ever be used against (her),' the apex court said. Under Article 142 of the Constitution, which gives the SC power to do complete justice, the court directly grants divorce for irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The top court was hearing two transfer petitions filed by the couple. While the wife had filed cases in UP, the husband had filed cases in Delhi's Rohini court. Goel had sought divorce and did not seek either alimony or maintenance. The husband, in turn, had sought custody of their eight-year-old daughter. The marital dispute soon turned into a litany of cases against each other. While the wife alleged domestic violence, rape, and made income tax complaints, the husband alleged defamation and even challenged the IPS candidature of the wife.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Can SC fix timeline for President, governor nod to bills? Centre, states' view sought
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Monday swiftly entertained President Droupadi Murmu's reference questioning SC's power and jurisdiction to fix timelines for the President and governors in granting, declining or withholding assent to bills passed by assemblies while brushing aside 'maintainability' objections by Tamil Nadu and Kerala. A bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar issued notice to the Union and state govts on the presidential reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution which seeks the SC's opinion on the correctness of the April 8 judgment of an SC bench led by Justice J B Pardiwala granting deemed assent to Tamil Nadu bills using the SC's exclusive powers under Art 142. The bench said it would post preliminary hearing on July 29 to fix a schedule for detailed hearing on issues raised by the President. Senior advocate K K Venugopal, for Kerala, and P Wilson raised the issue of maintainability of the reference. The bench said all questions raised in the reference were open for consideration. However, it said it would hear all parties on the issue of maintainability and asked Wilson not to raise it repeatedly. The bench said attorney general R Venkataramani would assist the court while solicitor general Tushar Mehta would represent the Union govt. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Many Filipinos don't know about this! Read More Undo On the opposite side were senior advocates Kapil Sibal, A M Singhvi, Gopal Subramanium and Rakesh Dwivedi. TOI was the first to report on May 15 about the President sending a reference to the SC for its opinion on the contentious issue of judiciary stepping into the domain of the executive, especially when the Constitution gave no power to the SC to grant deemed assent on behalf of the governor to bills. The reference had said Articles 200 and 201, applicable to governors and the President respectively, 'does not stipulate any timeframe or procedure' to be followed by them while considering grant or refusal of assent to a bill passed by an assembly. 'The exercise of constitutional discretion by the governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, respectively, are essentially governed by polycentric considerations, including federalism, uniformity of laws, integrity and security of the nation, doctrine of separation of powers,' the reference had said. Article 200 mandates the governor, on presentation of a bill passed by an assembly, to grant assent or 'as soon as possible' return the bill, excluding money bills, for reconsideration by the House. And when the reconsidered bill is presented to the governor, he 'shall not withhold assent', the provision says. However, when a governor reserves a bill for consideration of the President, she under Article 201 is mandated to declare whether she assents to the bill or withholds it. If she directs the governor to return the bill for reconsideration of the House, then upon reconsideration within six months, it 'shall be presented again to the President for assent'. It does not fix any timeline for the President. Critical of the SC using its Article 142 powers to rule that the 10 bills pending with the TN governor were deemed to have been assented to, the President had said, 'The concept of a deemed assent of the President and the governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the powers of the President and the governor.'
