US Supreme Court to weigh transgender athlete bans
More than two dozen US states have passed laws in recent years barring athletes who were assigned male at birth from taking part in girls or women's sports.
The conservative-dominated Supreme Court's decision to hear the case comes two weeks after it upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical treatment for transgender minors.
The Supreme Court has also recently backed a move by President Donald Trump, who campaigned on the issue of transgender athletes, to have transgender troops dismissed from the military.
Trump issued an executive order in February aimed at banning transgender athletes from girls and women's sports.
"From now on women's sports will be only for women," Trump said. "With this executive order the war on women's sports is over."
The executive order allows federal agencies to deny funding to schools that allow transgender athletes to compete on girls or women's teams.
In a high-profile case, the University of Pennsylvania agreed this week to ban transgender athletes from its women's sports teams, settling a federal civil rights case stemming from the furor around swimmer Lia Thomas.
The Department of Education said that UPenn had entered into a resolution agreement vowing to comply with Title IX, the federal law which prohibits sex-based discrimination in any educational program.
It follows an investigation by the department's Office for Civil Rights which found the university had violated Title IX by allowing transgender swimmer Thomas to compete in women's competitions.
Thomas became a lightning rod around the debate over transgender athletes in women's sport after competing in female collegiate competitions in 2022.
She had earlier swam on UPenn's men's team while undergoing hormone replacement therapy.
Critics and some fellow swimmers said she should not have been allowed to compete against women due to an unfair physiological advantage.
The Idaho case accepted by the Supreme Court stems from the Republican-led state's "Fairness in Women's Sports Act."
It was challenged by an athlete at an Idaho university and lower courts ruled that it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
The West Virginia case was challenged by a middle school student who was not allowed to compete for the girls' track team. An appeals court ruled that the ban was a violation of Title IX.
The Supreme Court will hear the case during the term beginning in October and issue a ruling next year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
France 24
2 hours ago
- France 24
Macron threatens retaliatory measures against Iran over detained French couple
00:18 03/07/2025 'Islamic regime uses ordinary citizens and civilians as a bargaining tool for their own interests' Middle East 03/07/2025 Netanyahu vows to uproot Hamas as ceasefire proposals discussed 03/07/2025 Tributes pour in for Diogo Jota after Liverpool star killed in car crash 03/07/2025 Trump close to victory on flagship 'Big Beautiful' tax bill 03/07/2025 Israel orders evacuation of West Bank's Tulkarem 03/07/2025 A 'tsunami of need' feared as US House close to final vote on Trump tax bill 03/07/2025 French diplomat visits detainees held in Iran in first 'proof of life' since Israeli strikes 03/07/2025 Sean 'Diddy' Combs denied bail after prostitution conviction 03/07/2025 Ukraine scrambling for clarity as US downplays halt to arms shipments
Euronews
3 hours ago
- Euronews
What is in Trump's tax and spending bill that will soon become law?
Republicans muscled President Donald Trump's tax and spending cut bill through the House on Thursday, the final step necessary to get the proposal to his desk by the GOP's self-imposed deadline of 4th July. At nearly 900 pages, the legislation is a sprawling collection of tax breaks, spending cuts and other Republican priorities, including new money for national defence and deportations. Democrats united against the legislation, but were powerless to stop it as long as Republicans stayed united. The Senate passed the bill, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tiebreaking vote. The House passed an earlier iteration of the bill in May with just one vote to spare. It passed the final version with a 218 to 214 split. Here's the latest on what's in the bill and when some of its provisions go into effect. GOP bill includes reductions for businesses and new tax breaks Republicans say the bill is crucial because there would be a massive tax increase after December when tax breaks from Trump's first term expire. The legislation contains about $4.5 trillion (€3.8tn) in tax cuts. The existing tax rates and brackets would become permanent under the bill, solidifying the tax cuts approved in Trump's first term. It would temporarily add new tax deductions on tip, overtime and auto loans. There's also a $6,000 deduction for older adults who earn no more than $75,000 a year (€63,000), which is a nod to his pledge to end taxes on Social Security benefits. It would boost the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200 (€1,900). Millions of families at lower income levels would not get the full credit. A cap on state and local deductions, called SALT, would quadruple to $40,000 (€34,000) for five years. It's a provision important to New York and other high tax states, though the House wanted it to last for 10 years. There are scores of business-related tax cuts, including allowing firms to immediately write off 100% of the cost of equipment and research. Proponents say this will boost economic growth. The wealthiest households would see a $12,000 (€10,000) increase from the legislation, and the bill would cost the poorest people $1,600 (€1,400) a year, mainly due to reductions in Medicaid and food aid, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House's version. Legislation funds the border wall and deportations The bill would provide some $350 billion (€300bn) for Trump's border and national security agenda, including for the US-Mexico border wall and for 100,000 migrant detention facility beds, as he aims to fulfill his promise of the largest mass deportation operation in US history. Money would go for hiring 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, with $10,000 (€8,500) signing bonuses and a surge of Border Patrol officers, as well. The goal is to deport some 1 million people per year. To help pay for it, immigrants would face various new fees, including when seeking asylum protections. For the Pentagon, the bill would provide billions for ship building, munitions systems, and quality of life measures for servicemen and women, as well as $25bn (€21bn) for the development of the Golden Dome missile defence system. The Defence Department would have $1bn for border security. Medicaid, SNAP face deep cuts To help partly offset the lost tax revenue and new spending, Republicans aim to cut back on Medicaid and food assistance for people below the poverty line. Republicans argue they are trying to rightsize the safety net programs for the population they were initially designed to serve, mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children, and root out what they describe as waste, fraud and abuse. The package includes new 80-hour-a-month work requirements for many adults receiving Medicaid and food stamps, including older people up to age 65. Parents of children 14 and older would have to meet the program's work requirements. There's also a proposed new $35 co-payment that can be charged to patients using Medicaid services. More than 71 million people rely on Medicaid, which expanded under Obama's Affordable Care Act, and 40 million use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Most already work, according to analysts. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law and 3 million more would not qualify for food stamps, also known as SNAP benefits. Republicans are looking to have states pick up some of the cost for SNAP benefits. Currently, the federal government funds all benefit costs. Under the bill, states beginning in 2028 will be required to contribute a set percentage of those costs if their payment error rate exceeds 6%. Payment errors include both underpayments and overpayments. 'Big beautiful' bill slashes clean energy tax credits Republicans are proposing to dramatically roll back tax breaks designed to boost clean energy projects fuelled by renewable sources such as energy and wind. The tax breaks were a central component of President Joe Biden's 2022 landmark bill focused on addressing climate change and lowering health care costs. Democratic Senator for Oregon Ron Wyden went so far as to call the GOP provisions a 'death sentence for America's wind and solar industries and an inevitable hike in utility bills'. A tax break for people who buy new or used electric vehicles would expire on 30 September of this year, instead of at the end of 2032 under current law. Meanwhile, a tax credit for the production of critical materials will be expanded to include metallurgical coal used in steelmaking. Bill reduces a gun tax and restricts Medicaid access for abortion providers A number of extra provisions reflect other GOP priorities. The bill creates a new children's savings program, called Trump Accounts, with a potential $1,000 (€850) deposit from the Treasury. The Senate provided $40million (€34mn) to establish Trump's long-sought 'National Garden of American Heroes'. There's a new excise tax on university endowments and a new tax on remittances, or transfers of money that people in the US send abroad. A $200 (€170) tax on gun silencers and short-barrelled rifles and shotguns was eliminated. One provision bars for one year Medicaid payments to family planning providers that provide abortions, namely Planned Parenthood. Additionally, a provision would increase the nation's debt limit, by $5tn (€4.2tn), to allow continued borrowing to pay already accrued bills. State AI regulations cut from bill after a GOP uproar The Senate overwhelmingly revolted against a proposal meant to deter states from regulating artificial intelligence. Republican governors across the country asked for the moratorium to be removed and the Senate voted to do so with a resounding 99-1 vote. A provision was thrown in at the final hours that will provide $10bn annually to rural hospitals for five years, or $50bn in total (€42bn). The Senate bill had originally provided $25bn for the program, but that number was upped to win over holdout GOP senators and a coalition of House Republicans warning that reduced Medicaid provider taxes would hurt rural hospitals. The amended bill also stripped out a new tax on wind and solar projects that use a certain percentage of components from China. Final price tag: GOP bill could add $3.3tn to deficit Altogether, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill would increase federal deficits over the next 10 years by nearly $3.3tn (€2.8tn) from 2025 to 2034. An increase in public debt would likely make government borrowing more expensive as investors may view Treasuries as a riskier proposition. Senate Republicans nonetheless reject the projections by proposing a unique strategy of not counting the existing tax breaks as a new cost because those breaks are already 'current policy'. Republican senators say the Senate Budget Committee chairman has the authority to set the baseline for the preferred approach. Under the alternative Senate GOP view, the bill would reduce deficits by almost half a trillion dollars over the coming decade, the CBO said. Democrats say this is 'magic math' that obscures the true costs of the tax breaks. Some non-partisan groups worried about the country's fiscal trajectory are siding with Democrats in that regard. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Senate Republicans were employing an 'accounting gimmick that would make Enron executives blush".
Euronews
5 hours ago
- Euronews
US agencies altered health datasets in ‘gender ideology' crackdown
The Trump administration quietly altered massive US health datasets to remove any mention of gender, according to a new analysis. Scientists around the world rely on health data from US government agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But since President Donald Trump took office in January, these agencies have been altering data labels, mostly without disclosure, according to the investigation published in The Lancet, a leading medical journal. The authors argue that the 'hidden' changes could cast doubt on the integrity of American science. The database edits 'might be politically motivated and [are] not transparent,' Dr Aaron Kesselheim, a professor at Harvard Medical School, and Janet Freilich, a law professor at Boston University, said in the paper. Their analysis included 232 US health datasets that were edited from late January to late March, covering veterans' health care use, global tobacco consumption, stroke deaths, nutrition, exercise, and obesity. It did not include datasets that are updated on a regular basis. About half of these datasets were 'substantially altered' during the two-month period, but only 15 acknowledged that changes had been made, the study found. The parts of the datasets meant for these disclosures remained empty as of early May, the researchers said. In most of the edited datasets – 106 of them – the word 'gender' was swapped out for 'sex'. US agencies have not confirmed or explained the changes, but Freilich and Kesselheim suspect they were made to comply with a Trump order to remove 'messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology'. The executive order, issued on Trump's first day in office, said it aimed to restore 'biological truth' to US agencies, and set a national policy 'to recognise two sexes, male and female,' they said. It was part of a flurry of activity to clamp down on LGBTQ protections. Some data was initially removed from federal websites, but was largely restored due to a court order. The Lancet analysis indicates that not all changes were reversed. It is not clear if the actual numbers were altered, or only the labels about gender or sex. But Freilich and Kesselheim said the distinction is important because some people will respond to surveys differently based on each term. That can undermine the quality of the data and lead researchers to draw inaccurate conclusions, they said. They described the undisclosed changes as a 'crisis' that could make US data 'untrustworthy and unusable'. They called on governments elsewhere in the world to invest in other data sources.
