Latest news with #9thCircuitCourt
Los Angeles Times
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court to decide if federal law bars transgender athletes from women's teams
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to weigh in on the growing controversy over transgender athletes and decide if federal law bars transgender girls from women's school sports teams. 'Biological boys should not compete on girls' athletics teams,' West Virginia's attorney general said in an appeal the court voted to hear. The appeal had the backing of 26 other Republican-led states as well as President Trump. In recent weeks, Trump threatened to cut off education funds to California because a transgender athlete participated in a women's track and field competition. Four years ago, West Virginia adopted its Save Women's Sports Act but the measure has been blocked as discriminatory by the 4th Circuit Court in 2-1 decision. Idaho filed a similar appeal after their laws were blocked by the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco. The court said it would hear that case together with the West Virginia case. At issue is the meaning of Title IX, the federal education law which has been credited with opening the door for the vast expansion of women's sports. Schools and colleges were told they must give girls equal opportunities in athletics by providing them with separate sports teams. In the past decade, however, states and their schools divided on the question of who can participate on the girls team. Is it only those who were girls at birth or can it also include those whose gender identity is female? West Virginia told the court its 'legislature concluded that biological boys should compete on boys' and co-ed teams but not girls' teams. This separation made sense, the legislature found, because of the 'inherent physical differences between biological males and biological females'.' California and most Democratic states allow transgender girls to compete in sports competitions for women. In 2013, the Legislature said a student 'shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and with his or her gender identity.' The Supreme Court had put off a decision on this issue while the divide among the states grew. Two years ago, the justices turned down a fast-track appeal from West Virginia's lawyers on a 7-2 vote and allowed a 12-year old transgender girl to run on the girls' cross country team. Becky Pepper-Jackson and her mother sued after the school principal said she was barred by the state's law from competing on the girls' teams at her middle school in Bridgeport, W. Va. She 'has lived as a girl in all aspects of her life for years and receives puberty-delaying treatment and estrogen hormone therapy, so has not experienced (and will not experience) endogenous puberty,' her mother said in support of their lawsuit. ACLU lawyers said then the court should stand aside. They said B.P.J. was eager to participate in sports but was 'too slow to compete in the track events' on the girls team. Last year, West Virginia tried again and urged the Supreme Court to review the 4th Circuit's decision and uphold its restrictions on transgender athletes. The state attorneys also said the would-be middle school athlete had become a track star. 'This spring, B.P.J. placed top three in every track event B.P.J. competed in, winning most. B.P.J. beat over 100 girls, displacing them over 250 times while denying multiple girls spots and medals in the conference championship. B.P.J. won the shot put by more than three feet while placing second in discus,' they told the court. Last year, the court opted to rule first in a Tennessee case to decide if states may prohibit puberty blockers, hormones and other medical treatments for young teens who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. On June 18, the court's conservative majority said state lawmakers had the authority to restrict medical treatments for adolescents who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria, noting the ongoing debate over the long-term risks and benefits. The ruling turned aside the contention that law reflected unconstitutional sex discrimination. On Thursday, the justices released their final orders list before their summer recess granting review of new cases to be heard in the fall. Included were the cases of West Virginia vs. BJP and Little vs. Hecox. In response to the appeals, ACLU lawyers accused the state of seeking to 'create a false sense of national emergency' based on a legal 'challenge by one transgender girl.' The lawsuit said the state measure was 'part of a concerted nationwide effort to target transgender youth for unequal treatment.' The suit contended the law violated Title IX and was unconstitutional because it discriminated against student athletes based on their gender identity. West Virginia's lawyers saw a threat to Title IX and women's sports. They said the rulings upholding transgender rights 'took a law designed to ensure meaningful competitive opportunities for women and girls—based on biological differences—and fashioned it into a lever for males to force their way onto girls' sports teams based on identity, destroying the very opportunities Title IX was meant to protect.'
Hindustan Times
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
What is 9th Circuit Court of Appeals? Order that reinstates Trump can keep National Guard in LA
On Thursday night, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted a lower court's order that would have required former President Donald Trump to return control of California National Guard troops to Governor Gavin Newsom. The 9th Circuit Court, based in San Francisco, is one of the most powerful federal appeals courts in the country. It covers nine western states, including California. The three-judge panel reviewing this case includes two Trump appointees and one appointed by President Biden. A full hearing is set for Tuesday. The decision followed a 36-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer earlier that day, who said Trump had overstepped his legal authority. Breyer wrote that Trump's move to federalise the Guard during protests over immigration raids was unlawful, saying the action 'violated the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' Breyer wrote. 'The evidence is overwhelming that protesters gathered to protest a single issue—the immigration raids.'
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court denies student's right to wear 'only two genders' T-shirt at school
The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a middle-school student's claim he had a free-speech right to wear a T-shirt stating there are "only two genders." Over two dissents, the justices let stand a ruling that said a school may enforce a dress code to protect students from "hate speech" or bullying. After three months of internal debate, the justices decided they would not take up another conservative, culture war challenge to progressive policies that protect LGBTQ+ youth. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed a 14-page dissent joined only by Justice Clarence Thomas. He said the case "presented an issue of great importance for our nation's youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech because it expresses a viewpoint the schools disfavor." Liam Morrison, a 7th grader from Massachusetts, said he was responding to his school's promotion of Pride Month when students were encouraged to wear rainbow colors and posters urged them to "rise up to protect trans and gender non-confirming students." Two years ago, he went to school wearing a black T-shirt that said "There are only two genders." Read more: Supreme Court splits 4-4, blocking first religious charter school in Oklahoma A teacher reported him to the principal who sent him home to change his shirt. A few weeks later, he returned with the word "censored" taped over the words "two genders" but was sent home again. The T-shirt dispute asked the Supreme Court to decide whether school officials may limit the free expression of some students to protect others from messages they may see as offensive or hurtful. In March, the court voted to hear a free-speech challenge to laws in California and 21 other states that forbid licensed counselors from using "conversion therapy" with minors. That case, like the one on school T-shirts, arose from appeals by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group. It has already won free-speech rulings that allowed a cake maker and a website designer to refuse to participate in same-sex weddings despite state laws that barred discrimination based on sexual orientation. On April 22, the court sounded ready to rule for religious parents in Montgomery County, Md., who seek the right to have their young elementary children "opt out" of the classroom use of a new 'LGBTQ-inclusive' storybooks. The T-shirt case came before the court shortly after President Trump's executive order declaring the U.S. government will "recognize two sexes, male and female," not "an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity." While the Supreme Court has yet to rule on T-shirts and the 1st Amendment, lower courts have upheld limits imposed by schools. In 2006, the 9th Circuit Court in a 2-1 decision upheld school officials at Poway High School in San Diego who barred a student from wearing a T-shirt that said "Homosexuality is shameful." The appeals court said students are free to speak on controversial matters, but they are not free to make "derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion and sexual orientation.' Other courts have ruled schools may prohibit a student from wearing a Confederate flag on a T-shirt. In the new case from Massachusetts, the boy's father said his son's T-shirt message was not "directed at any particular person" but dealt with a "hot political topic." In their defense, school officials pointed to their policy against "bullying" and a dress code that says "clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification." Lawyers for the ADF sued on the student's behalf and argued the school violated his rights under the 1st Amendment. They lost before a federal judge in Boston who ruled for school officials and said the T-shirt "invaded the rights of the other a safe and secure educational environment." The 1st Circuit Court agreed as well, noting that schools may limit free expression of students if they fear a particular message will cause a disruption or "poison the atmosphere" at school. Read more: Supreme Court will hear free-speech challenge to 'conversion therapy' bans in California, Colorado The Supreme Court's most famous ruling on student rights arose during the Vietnam War. In 1969, the Warren Court ruled for high school students who wore black arm bands as a protest. In Tinker vs. Des Moines, the court said students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, [they] must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint." The justices said then a symbolic protest should be permitted so long as it did not cause a "substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities." The attorneys for Liam Morrison contended he should win under that standard. "This case isn't about T-shirts. It's about public school telling a middle-schooler that he isn't allowed to express a view that it differs from their own," said David Cortman, an ADF attorney in the case of L.M vs. Town of Middleborough. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court denies student's right to wear ‘only two genders' T-shirt at school
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a middle-school student's claim he had a free-speech right to wear a T-shirt stating there are 'only two genders.' Over two dissents, the justices let stand a ruling that said a school may enforce a dress code to protect students from 'hate speech' or bullying. After three months of internal debate, the justices decided they would not take up another conservative, culture war challenge to progressive policies that protect LGBTQ+ youth. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed a 14-page dissent joined only by Justice Clarence Thomas. He said the case 'presented an issue of great importance for our nation's youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech because it expresses a viewpoint the schools disfavor.' Liam Morrison, a 7th grader from Massachusetts, said he was responding to his school's promotion of Pride Month when students were encouraged to wear rainbow colors and posters urged them to 'rise up to protect trans and gender non-confirming students.' Two years ago, he went to school wearing a black T-shirt that said 'There are only two genders.' A teacher reported him to the principal who sent him home to change his shirt. A few weeks later, he returned with the word 'censored' taped over the words 'two genders' but was sent home again. The T-shirt dispute asked the Supreme Court to decide whether school officials may limit the free expression of some students to protect others from messages they may see as offensive or hurtful. In March, the court voted to hear a free-speech challenge to laws in California and 21 other states that forbid licensed counselors from using 'conversion therapy' with minors. That case, like the one on school T-shirts, arose from appeals by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group. It has already won free-speech rulings that allowed a cake maker and a website designer to refuse to participate in same-sex weddings despite state laws that barred discrimination based on sexual orientation. On April 22, the court sounded ready to rule for religious parents in Montgomery County, Md., who seek the right to have their young elementary children 'opt out' of the classroom use of a new 'LGBTQ-inclusive' storybooks. The T-shirt case came before the court shortly after President Trump's executive order declaring the U.S. government will 'recognize two sexes, male and female,' not 'an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity.' While the Supreme Court has yet to rule on T-shirts and the 1st Amendment, lower courts have upheld limits imposed by schools. In 2006, the 9th Circuit Court in a 2-1 decision upheld school officials at Poway High School in San Diego who barred a student from wearing a T-shirt that said 'Homosexuality is shameful.' The appeals court said students are free to speak on controversial matters, but they are not free to make 'derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion and sexual orientation.' Other courts have ruled schools may prohibit a student from wearing a Confederate flag on a T-shirt. In the new case from Massachusetts, the boy's father said his son's T-shirt message was not 'directed at any particular person' but dealt with a 'hot political topic.' In their defense, school officials pointed to their policy against 'bullying' and a dress code that says 'clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification.' Lawyers for the ADF sued on the student's behalf and argued the school violated his rights under the 1st Amendment. They lost before a federal judge in Boston who ruled for school officials and said the T-shirt 'invaded the rights of the other a safe and secure educational environment.' The 1st Circuit Court agreed as well, noting that schools may limit free expression of students if they fear a particular message will cause a disruption or 'poison the atmosphere' at school. The Supreme Court's most famous ruling on student rights arose during the Vietnam War. In 1969, the Warren Court ruled for high school students who wore black arm bands as a protest. In Tinker vs. Des Moines, the court said students do not 'shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, [they] must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.' The justices said then a symbolic protest should be permitted so long as it did not cause a 'substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.' The attorneys for Liam Morrison contended he should win under that standard. 'This case isn't about T-shirts. It's about public school telling a middle-schooler that he isn't allowed to express a view that it differs from their own,' said David Cortman, an ADF attorney in the case of L.M vs. Town of Middleborough.
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Yahoo
New Hampshire woman facing drug charges after child overdoses on fentanyl
A New Hampshire woman is facing drug charges in connection with an investigation into a fentanyl overdose involving a child, authorities announced over the weekend. Karrie McMurray, 45, of Nashua, is slated to be arraigned later this month in Nashua's 9th Circuit Court on charges of possesion of a Class B drug and four counts of dealing in or possessing a prescription drug, according to the Nashua Police Department. Officers responding to a home in the city on June 27, 2024, found an unconscious juvenile who had overdosed on Fentanyl, police said. The child regained consciousness after receiving life-saving measures at the scene and was taken to a local hospital. Police didn't mention if McMurray is related to the child. McMurray was released on $250 cash bail. Anyone with information on the incident is urged to contact Nashua police at 603-589-1665. This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available. Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
