What is a woman? The UK Supreme Court ruling
On April 16th, the Supreme Court in London
ruled
unanimously that 'the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex'.
The ruling came in response to a legal dispute between the activist group For Women Scotland and the Scottish government over whether trans people with gender recognition certificates (GRC) identifying their gender as female were considered as having the sex of a woman.
For Women Scotland had argued that the sex-based protections in the Act should only apply to people born female and that sex is 'immutable biological state'.
The judgment, which ran to more than 80 pages, found that 'the concept of sex is binary' – there is a female and a male.
READ MORE
It went on to say that the legislation gives transgender people 'protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender'.
The judgment has come as a blow to the transgender community, particularly to transwomen who fear it will marginalise them further.
Irish Times London correspondent Mark Paul explains the ruling and its implications.
Presented by Bernice Harrison. Produced by Aideen Finnegan and John Casey.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Daily Star
a day ago
- Irish Daily Star
Donald Trump lists five terrifying next steps after Supreme Court victory
After a divided Supreme Court ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, Trump held a press conference to celebrate his 'win.' During the conference, Trump said that the 'win' opens the Supreme Court up to next steps including ending birthright citizenship outright, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, "freezing unnecessary funding," and no tax dollars for transgender surgeries. The decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump 's restrictions on birthright citizenship. The court issued decisions on Friday on the final six cases remaining on its docket for the summer, including emergency appeals related to Trump's agenda . Read More Related Articles Donald Trump dementia fears as 'catheter' spotted in his trousers Read More Related Articles Iran unleashes cyber attack on Trump's Truth Social as experts warn of chilling escalation Trump held a press conference on his SCOTUS 'win' as the court made a difficult decision on Birthright citizenship (Image: AP) "This decision," Trump began, "we can now promptly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous other priorities of the American people," he bragged at the press conference. "We have so many of them. I have a whole list. I'm not going to bore you, and I'm going to have Pam get up and say a few words, but there's really, she can talk as long as she wants because this is a very important decision," Trump further said." "This is a decision that covers a tremendous amount of territory, but I want to just thank again the Supreme Court for this ruling. It's a giant, it's a giant, and they should be very proud and our country should be very proud of the Supreme Court today," Trump continued before inviting Attorney General Pam Bondi on stage. Bondi said Americans are finally getting what they voted for . 'These lawless injunctions gave relief to everyone in the world instead of the parties before the court,' she said. The second-highest-ranking Justice Department official joined Bondi and Trump at the White House to praise the new limits on nationwide injunctions. SCOTUS now created a situation where Trump's birthright citizenship ban may go forward in some states (Image: AFP via Getty Images) Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche accused local district judges of issuing rulings 'contrary to the law just because they don't like' Trump's policies, adding that Justice Department lawyers have been working nonstop to fight such rulings. 'They should be doing the work that the president and this administration demands and has a right to demand and not fighting these local judges who don't make decisions based on the law,' Blanche said. The Supreme Court's decision on birthright citizenship is a victory for Trump, but the push to advance restrictions on birthright citizenship could put him on a collision course with mainstream public opinion. A January AP-NORC poll found that only about 3 in 10 U.S. adults were 'somewhat' or 'strongly' in favor of changing the Constitution so that children born in the U.S. are not automatically granted citizenship if their parents are born here illegally, while about half were 'somewhat' or 'strongly' opposed and about 2 in 10 were neutral.
Irish Daily Star
a day ago
- Irish Daily Star
Donald Trump handed alarming Supreme Court victory in quest to end birthright citizenship
The US Supreme Court has issued a ruling that will limit the ability of judges in lower courts to block President Donald Trump 's orders nationwide. In a 6-3 ruling on Friday, the court found that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions. The case stemmed from Trump's order to end the constitutional right of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. But the court's conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling. Read More Related Articles Karoline Leavitt reveals Trump has folded on trade deadline bluff Read More Related Articles Elon Musk 'fires key Tesla executive' as sales tank for fifth month in a row Supreme Court (Image: Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved) The court agreed with the Trump administration that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of only the parties before the court. Trump, who has complained about individual judges attempting to block his agenda, hailed the ruling as a huge victory. "GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process," he wrote on Truth Social. "Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ." Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent which denounced the ruling to limit injunctions as essentially allowing Trump to issue potentially unlawful orders. She added that birthright citizenship was guaranteed by the US Constitution. " As every conceivable source of law confirms, birthright citizenship is the law of the land," she said. "That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent." Since Trump took office in January, nationwide injunctions have been commonly used to block his orders. A Congressional Research Service report identified 25 cases between January and April in which a district court judge issued a nationwide injunction. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the ruling would end the "endless barrage" of nationwide injunctions against Trump. "This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend Trump's policies and his authority to implement them," she said. Democrats slammed the decision and vowed to "fight back" against it. "A right-wing Supreme Court majority let Trump rip away birthright citizenship, forcing individuals to file burdensome lawsuits to get it back. It's a vile betrayal of our Constitution. We must stand up, speak out, and fight back," Florida Democrat and House member Debbie Wasserman Schultz said.
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Irish Times
Trump hails ‘giant win' as supreme court rules on his birthright citizenship order
The US Supreme Court agreed on Friday to allow president Donald Trump to end birthright citizenship in some parts of the country, even as legal challenges to the constitutionality of the move proceed in other regions. The 6:3 decision, which was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and split along ideological lines, is a major victory for Mr Trump, and may allow the reshaping, even temporarily, of how citizenship is granted in the US. The order will not go into effect for 30 days, the justices said in their opinion, allowing its legality to be contested further. Mr Trump has hailed the ruling a 'giant win' and is due to hold a news conference at the White House shortly. READ MORE 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard,' he wrote in a post on Truth Social. The justices also did not address the underlying constitutionality of the president's order to curtail birthright citizenship, potentially leaving that issue for another day. The court's ruling appeared to upend the ability of single federal judges to freeze policies across the country, a powerful tool that has been used frequently in recent years to block policies instituted by Democratic and Republican administrations. Justices across the ideological spectrum had been critical of these so-called nationwide injunctions, arguing they encouraged judge-shopping and improperly circumvented the political process by allowing one judge to halt a policy nationwide. The surprise decision means that an executive order signed by Mr Trump ending the practice of extending citizenship to the children of unauthorised immigrants born in the US would be set to take effect in 30 days in the 28 states that have not challenged the measure. The details of how the policy would be implemented were not immediately clear. The ability of a single federal judge in one part of the country to pause a policy nationwide has been a major stumbling block for Mr Trump. These so-called nationwide injunctions are controversial judicial tools, and have prompted intense debate over their legality. Federal trial judges have consistently ruled against the Trump administration, stymieing efforts to withhold funds from schools with diversity programs, to relocate transgender women in federal prisons and to remove deportation protections from hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants. The case before the justices arose from an executive order signed by Mr Trump on January 20th, the first day of his second term, that appeared to upend the principle known as birthright citizenship, which has been part of the American constitution for more than 150 years. The announcement prompted immediate legal challenges from 22 Democratic-led states, immigrant advocacy organisations and pregnant women concerned their children might not automatically be granted citizenship. Within days, a federal judge in Seattle temporarily blocked the executive order. 'I've been on the bench for four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is,' the Seattle judge said, calling Mr Trump's order 'blatantly unconstitutional.' Federal judges in Maryland and Massachusetts also issued orders pausing the policy. All three judges extended their orders to the entire country, even to states that had not brought legal challenges. On March 13th, the Trump administration filed an emergency application asking the justices to weigh whether such nationwide injunctions were legal. The Supreme Court has never issued a ruling that squarely addresses nationwide injunctions. But justices across the ideological spectrum have expressed skepticism over them. In an unusual move, the justices announced that they would hear oral arguments on the emergency application. — The New York Times / Reuters
