Letters: Legal aid's vital role in ensuring justice; a resounding Easter message
Letters to the Editor
An appropriate legal test
I have just finished Charlotte Grimshaw's unsettling The Mirror Book. I admire Charlotte for her courage and tenacity. One of her messages is that we need to actively defend institutions from being undermined by those with totalitarian or populist tendencies. I then turned to the leading
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
US Supreme Court agrees to review bans on transgender athletes
By John Fritze and Devan Cole , CNN The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to decide whether states may ban transgender students from playing on sports teams that align with their gender identity. Photo:via CNN Newsource The US Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether states may ban transgender students from playing on sports teams that align with their gender identity, revisiting the issue of LGBTQ rights in a blockbuster case just days after upholding a ban on some health care for trans youth. The decision puts the issue of transgender rights on the Supreme Court's docket for the second year in a row and is by far the most significant matter the justices have agreed to hear in the term that will begin in October. The cases, one from West Virginia and the other from Idaho, involve transgender athletes who at least initially competed in track and field and cross country. The West Virginia case was filed by a then-middle school student who told the Supreme Court she was "devastated at the prospect" of not being able to compete after the state passed a law banning trans women athletes' participation in public school sports. The court's decision landed as transgender advocates are still reeling from the 6-3 ruling in US v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee's ban on trans youth from accessing puberty blockers and hormone therapy. Though the state law also bars surgeries, they were not at issue in the high court's case. But that decision was limited to questions of whether the state had the power to regulate medical treatments for minors, leaving unresolved challenges to other anti-trans laws. The justices agreed to review two cases challenging sports bans in Idaho and West Virginia. The court didn't act on a third appeal over a similar ban in Arizona and will likely hold that case until it decides the other two, probably by early next summer. The American Civil Liberties Union, which is part of the legal team representing the athletes in the cases, said school athletic programs should be accessible to everyone regardless of a student's sex or transgender status. "Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth," said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project. "We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play." West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey, a Republican, said that the state is "confident the Supreme Court will uphold the Save Women's Sports Act because it complies with the US Constitution and complies with Title IX." The Supreme Court will review the case at a time when Republican-led states and President Donald Trump have pushed for policies to curtail transgender rights. Trump ran for reelection in part on a campaign to push "transgender insanity" out of public schools, mocking Democratic candidate Kamala Harris in advertising for supporting "they/them," the pronouns used by some transgender and nonbinary people. But even before that, states had passed laws banning transgender girls from playing on girls' sports teams. Roughly half of US states have enacted such laws. The Trump administration has actively supported policies that bar transgender athletes from competing on teams that match their gender identity. On Wednesday, the federal government released US$175 million in previously frozen federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania after the school agreed to block transgender athletes from female sports teams and erase the records set by swimmer Lia Thomas. In West Virginia, former Gov. Jim Justice, a Republican, signed the "Save Women's Sports Act" in 2021, banning transgender women and girls from participating on public school sports teams consistent with their gender identity. Becky Pepper-Jackson, a rising sixth grader at the time, who was "looking forward to trying out for the girls' cross-country team," filed a lawsuit alleging that the ban violated federal law and the Constitution. The Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that West Virginia's ban violated Pepper-Jackson's rights under Title IX, a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex at schools that receive federal aid. The court also revived her constitutional challenge of the law. "Her family, teachers, and classmates have all known B.P.J. as a girl for several years, and - beginning in elementary school - she has participated only on girls athletic teams," US Circuit Judge Toby Heytens, who was nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden, wrote for the court. "Given these facts, offering B.P.J. a 'choice' between not participating in sports and participating only on boys teams is no real choice at all." Most of the appeals on the issue of transgender athletes question whether such bans are permitted under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The West Virginia case was different in that it also raised the question of whether such bans violated Title IX. The Supreme Court often prefers to settle a dispute under a law, rather than the Constitution, if it has the option because such a ruling technically allows Congress to change the law in response to the decision. West Virginia appealed to the Supreme Court last year, arguing that the appeal court decision "renders sex-separated sports an illusion." "Schools will need to separate sports teams based on self-identification and personal choices that have nothing to do with athletic performance," the state said. West Virginia initially brought the case to the Supreme Court last year on an emergency basis, seeking to enforce the law against Pepper-Jackson while the underlying legal challenge played out. In an unsigned order, the court declined that request. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted it. In Idaho, Republican Gov. Brad Little signed the state's sports ban in 2020, the first of its kind in the nation. Lindsay Hecox, then a freshman at Boise State University, sued days later, saying that she intended to try out for the women's track and cross-country teams and alleging that the law violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. A federal district court blocked the law's enforcement against Hecox months later and the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision last year. Idaho appealed to the Supreme Court in July. "Idaho's women and girls deserve an equal playing field," said Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, a Republican. "For too long, activists have worked to sideline women and girls in their own sports." But Sasha Buchert, senior attorney and director of the Non-Binary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal, stressed the importance of team sports for all students. Lambda Legal is part of the team representing Pepper-Jackson in the West Virginia case. "Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers," Buchert said. "Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits." - CNN
Scoop
6 days ago
- Scoop
Majority Of Youth MPs Back Call To Lower The Voting Age
For the second consecutive Youth Parliament, a majority of Youth MPs from across the political spectrum have signed an open letter calling for the voting age to be lowered to 16. A cross-party group of Youth MPs endorsed the letter that calls on Parliament to listen to youth voices and take action on an issue that has seen growing momentum both legally, politically and internationally, with the UK parliament poised to introduce legislation later this year. 'Youth Parliament is supposed to be a celebration of youth voice and civic engagement. It is a recognition from Parliament that we are capable of debating complex issues,' says Thomas Brocherie, 17, a Make It 16 Co-Director and 2025 Youth MP for Lan Pham. 'But it's deeply ironic that many of us will not have the right to vote in this year's local election, or even next year's general election, despite being invited to stand up for our communities on a national stage.' Sam Allan, Make It 16 spokesperson and 2025 Youth MP for Hamish Campbell, adds: ' We have been invited to share powerful lived experiences about what it means to be a young New Zealander. We have been loud and clear on climate change, youth homelessness, mental health and our education system. Unfortunately, politicians have still not caught up.' Youth Parliament was originally established in 1994 to commemorate the 20th anniversary of lowering the voting age to 18. In the spirit of that kaupapa, the Make It 16 campaign was founded during Youth Parliament in 2019 and has consistently advocated for voting rights to be extended to 16- and 17-year-olds. This is now the third consecutive Youth Parliament where young people have challenged the government of the day to listen and act on the aspirations of rangatahi. Since then, Make It 16 has won a Supreme Court case declaring the current voting age of 18 as unjustified age discrimination and has gathered widespread public, legal, and political support. But despite a Bill being introduced in Parliament in 2022, it was later axed by the National-ACT-NZ First government in early 2024 before any of the submissions made on the Bill could even be read. 'We have been invited to take part in Youth Parliament, to share our bold vision for tackling Aotearoa's biggest challenges, but at the end of the day, our voices are still being sidelined when it comes to the decisions that will disproportionately affect us in the future. It's time we were a real part of the decision-making table', says Lincoln Jones, Make It 16 Spokesperson and 2025 Youth MP for Willie Jackson. Currently 63 (and counting) Youth MPs have signed the 2025 open letter, joining the legacy of their predecessors from 2022 and 2019. Notes Open Letter:
RNZ News
7 days ago
- RNZ News
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
By Andrew Chung , Reuters The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Photo: AFP / KAYLA BARTKOWSKI The US Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in the ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on US soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognises, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognised that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as US citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. - Reuters
