Latest news with #Kacsmaryk
The Hill
19-06-2025
- Health
- The Hill
Texas district judge overturns Biden rule on expanded abortion privacy protections
A Texas federal judge late Wednesday overturned a Biden administration rule designed to keep prosecutors from getting the medical records of patients seeking legal abortions or gender-affirming care by boosting privacy protections for women's reproductive health information. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo ruled the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) acted unlawfully when it expanded the scope of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy law last April. Kacsmaryk wrote that the Biden administration 'invoked HIPAA as a shield against abortion-restrictive states.' He said the rule was written to protect 'politically preferred procedures' like abortion and gender transitions but that HIPAA doesn't give HHS the ability to 'distinguish between types of health information to accomplish political ends.' 'Thus, HHS lacks the authority to issue regulations that enact heightened protections for information about politically favored procedures,' he wrote. Such action should only be taken by Congress, he wrote, especially because the issues are of major political significance. 'The 2024 rule creates special rules for information about these politically favored procedures that implicate fundamental and hotly debated questions,' he wrote. The rule prohibits health care providers and insurers from giving information about a legal abortion to state law enforcement authorities who are seeking to punish someone in connection with that abortion. The 2024 rule came in the wake of concerns that patients who travel to clinics for legal abortion or reproductive care will eventually have their records sought following the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade. Late last year, Kacsmaryk temporarily blocked HHS from enforcing the rule against the Texas doctor who had brought the lawsuit. Carmen Purl, a Texas physician, sued to declare the rule 'arbitrary and capricious' and 'in excess of statutory authority,' in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Wednesday's decision blocks the rule nationwide. Kacsmaryk, who was appointed by President Trump in his first term, has become a go-to judge for blocking Biden-era rules nationwide. Texas has filed a separate lawsuit challenging the rule, which is pending in federal court in Lubbock. HHS in a court filing last month said the Trump administration is evaluating its position in this case.
Straits Times
19-06-2025
- Health
- Straits Times
US judge invalidates Biden rule protecting privacy for abortions
The rule prohibits healthcare providers and insurers from giving information about a legal abortion. PHOTO: AFP TEXAS - A federal judge on June 18 struck down a rule adopted by the administration of former President Joe Biden that strengthened privacy protections for women seeking abortions and patients who receive gender transition treatments. US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas, said the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) exceeded its powers and unlawfully limited states' ability to enforce their public health laws when it adopted the rule in 2024. The rule prohibits healthcare providers and insurers from giving information about a legal abortion to state law enforcement authorities who are seeking to punish someone in connection with that abortion. 'HHS lacked clear delegated authority to fashion special protections for medical information produced by politically favored medical procedures,' wrote Mr Kacsmaryk, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, a Republican, during his first term. Mr Kacsmaryk in December 2024 had blocked HHS from enforcing the rule against a Texas doctor who had brought the lawsuit, Ms Carmen Purl, pending the outcome of the case. June 18's decision blocks the rule nationwide. HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Ms Purl is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group. Mr Matt Bowman, senior counsel with the group, praised the decision in a statement, saying the 2024 rule 'would have weaponised laws about privacy that have nothing to do with abortion or gender identity'. The Biden administration issued the rule as part of its pledge to support access to reproductive healthcare after the conservative-majority US Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that made access to abortion a constitutional right nationwide. It came in response to efforts by authorities in some Republican-led states that ban abortion, including Texas, to restrict out-of-state travel for abortion. Texas has filed a separate lawsuit challenging the rule, which is pending in federal court in Lubbock, Texas. HHS in a court filing last month said agency leadership appointed by Mr Trump is evaluating its position in this case. Mr Biden, a Democrat, said in announcing the rule that no one should have their medical records 'used against them, their doctor, or their loved one just because they sought or received lawful reproductive health care'. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Chicago Tribune
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Federal judge strikes down workplace protections for transgender workers
A federal judge in Texas struck down guidance from a government agency establishing protections against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Thursday determined that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission exceeded its statutory authority when the agency issued guidance to employers against deliberately using the wrong pronouns for an employee, refusing them access to bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity, and barring employees from wearing dress code-compliant clothing according to their gender identity because they may constitute forms of workplace harassment. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The EEOC, which enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws, had updated its guidance on workplace harassment in April of last year under President Joe Biden for the first time in 25 years. It followed a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that gay, lesbian and transgender people are protected from employment discrimination. Texas and the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, in August challenged the guidance, which the agency says serves as a tool for employers to assess compliance with anti-discrimination laws and is not legally binding. Kacsmaryk disagreed, writing that the guidance creates 'mandatory standards … from which legal consequences will necessarily flow if an employer fails to comply.' The decision marks the latest blow to workplace protections for transgender workers following President Donald Trump's Jan. 20 executive order declaring that the government would recognize only two 'immutable' sexes — male and female. Kacsmaryk, a 2017 Trump nominee, invalidated all portions of the EEOC guidance that defines 'sex' to include 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity,' along with an entire section addressing the subject. 'Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,' he wrote in the opinion. Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts commended the decision in an emailed statement: 'The Biden EEOC tried to compel businesses — and the American people — to deny basic biological truth. Today, thanks to the great state of Texas and the work of my Heritage colleagues, a federal judge said: not so fast.' He added: 'This ruling is more than a legal victory. It's a cultural one. It says no — you don't have to surrender common sense at the altar of leftist ideology. You don't have to pretend men are women.' Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also touted the victory against 'Biden's 'Pronoun Police' Rule' in a Friday press release, saying: 'The federal government has no right to force Texans to play along with delusions or ignore biological reality in our workplaces.' The National Women's Law Center, which filed an amicus brief in November in support of the harassment guidance, blasted the decision in an emailed statement. 'The district court's decision is an outrage and blatantly at odds with Supreme Court precedent,' said Liz Theran, senior director of litigation for education and workplace justice at NWLC. 'The EEOC's Harassment Guidance reminds employers and workers alike to do one simple thing that should cost no one anything: refrain from degrading others on the job based on their identity and who they love. This decision does not change the law, but it will make it harder for LGBTQIA+ workers to enforce their rights and experience a workplace free from harassment.' Kacsmaryk offered a more narrow interpretation of Bostock v. Clayton County, the landmark Supreme Court case that established discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ workers, saying in his decision that the Supreme Court 'firmly refused to expand the definition of 'sex' beyond the biological binary,' and found only that employers could not fire workers for being gay or transgender. Employment attorney Jonathan Segal, a partner at Duane Morris who advises companies on how best to comply with anti-discrimination laws, emphasized that legal minds may disagree on the scope of Bostock, and Kacsmaryk's decision is just one interpretation. 'If you assume that a transgender employee has no rights beyond not being fired for transgender status, you are likely construing their rights too narrowly under both federal and state law,' which would put employers in a risky position, Segal said. And regardless of whether explicit guidance is in place, employers still need to address gender identity conflicts in the workplace, according to Tiffany Stacy, an Ogletree Deakins attorney in San Antonio who defends employers against claims of workplace discrimination. 'From a management perspective, employers should be prepared to diffuse those situations,' Stacy said. The EEOC in fiscal year 2024 received more than 3,000 charges alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and 3,000-plus in 2023, according to the agency's website. The U.S. Department of Justice and the EEOC declined to comment on the outcome of the Texas case. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Trump appointee, voted against the harassment guidelines last year but has been unable to rescind or revise them after Trump fired two of the three Democratic commissioners, leaving the federal agency without the quorum needed to make major policy changes. But earlier this month, Trump tapped an assistant U.S. attorney in Florida, Brittany Panuccio, to fill one of the vacancies. If Panuccio is confirmed by the Senate, the EEOC would regain a quorum and establish a Republican majority 2-1, clearing the path to fully pivot the agency toward focusing on Trump's priorities. 'It is neither harassment nor discrimination for a business to draw distinctions between the sexes in providing single-sex bathrooms,' Lucas wrote in a statement expressing her dissent to that aspect of the guidelines. In her four-month tenure as Acting Chair, Lucas has overhauled the agency's interpretation of civil rights law, including abandoning seven of its own cases representing transgender workers alleging they have experienced discrimination, and instructing employees to sideline all new gender identity discrimination cases received by the agency.
New York Post
16-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Federal judge strikes down workplace protections for transgender workers
A federal judge in Texas struck down guidance from a government agency establishing protections against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Thursday determined that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission exceeded its statutory authority when the agency issued guidance to employers against deliberately using the wrong pronouns for an employee, refusing them access to bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity, and barring employees from wearing dress code-compliant clothing according to their gender identity because they may constitute forms of workplace harassment. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Advertisement Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk struck down guidance from a government agency establishing protections against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation. AP The EEOC, which enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws, had updated its guidance on workplace harassment in April of last year under President Joe Biden for the first time in 25 years. It followed a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that gay, lesbian and transgender people are protected from employment discrimination. Advertisement Texas and the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, in August challenged the guidance, which the agency says serves as a tool for employers to assess compliance with anti-discrimination laws and is not legally binding. Kacsmaryk disagreed, writing that the guidance creates 'mandatory standards … from which legal consequences will necessarily flow if an employer fails to comply.' The decision marks the latest blow to workplace protections for transgender workers following President Donald Trump's Jan. 20 executive order declaring that the government would recognize only two 'immutable' sexes — male and female. Kacsmaryk, a 2017 Trump nominee, invalidated all portions of the EEOC guidance that defines 'sex' to include 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity,' along with an entire section addressing the subject. Advertisement This follows the 2020 Supreme Court ruling that gay, lesbian, and transgender people are protected from employment discrimination. Bloomberg via Getty Images 'Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,' he wrote in the opinion. Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts commended the decision in an emailed statement: 'The Biden EEOC tried to compel businesses — and the American people — to deny basic biological truth. Today, thanks to the great state of Texas and the work of my Heritage colleagues, a federal judge said: not so fast.' He added: 'This ruling is more than a legal victory. It's a cultural one. It says no — you don't have to surrender common sense at the altar of leftist ideology. You don't have to pretend men are women.' Advertisement Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also touted the victory against 'Biden's 'Pronoun Police' Rule' in a Friday press release, saying: 'The federal government has no right to force Texans to play along with delusions or ignore biological reality in our workplaces.' The National Women's Law Center, which filed an amicus brief in November in support of the harassment guidance, blasted the decision in an emailed statement. 'The district court's decision is an outrage and blatantly at odds with Supreme Court precedent,' said Liz Theran, senior director of litigation for education and workplace justice at NWLC. 'The EEOC's Harassment Guidance reminds employers and workers alike to do one simple thing that should cost no one anything: refrain from degrading others on the job based on their identity and who they love. This decision does not change the law, but it will make it harder for LGBTQIA+ workers to enforce their rights and experience a workplace free from harassment.' Kacsmaryk offered a more narrow interpretation of Bostock v. Clayton County, the landmark Supreme Court case that established discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ workers, saying in his decision that the Supreme Court 'firmly refused to expand the definition of 'sex' beyond the biological binary,' and found only that employers could not fire workers for being gay or transgender. Employment attorney Jonathan Segal, a partner at Duane Morris who advises companies on how best to comply with anti-discrimination laws, emphasized that legal minds may disagree on the scope of Bostock, and Kacsmaryk's decision is just one interpretation. 'If you assume that a transgender employee has no rights beyond not being fired for transgender status, you are likely construing their rights too narrowly under both federal and state law,' which would put employers in a risky position, Segal said. Advertisement And regardless of whether explicit guidance is in place, employers still need to address gender identity conflicts in the workplace, according to Tiffany Stacy, an Ogletree Deakins attorney in San Antonio who defends employers against claims of workplace discrimination. 'From a management perspective, employers should be prepared to diffuse those situations,' Stacy said. The EEOC in fiscal year 2024 received more than 3,000 charges alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and 3,000-plus in 2023, according to the agency's website.
Boston Globe
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Federal judge strikes down workplace protections for transgender workers
The EEOC, which enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws, had updated its guidance on workplace harassment in April of last year under President Joe Biden for the first time in 25 years. It followed a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that gay, lesbian and transgender people are protected from employment discrimination. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Texas and the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, in August challenged the guidance, which the agency says serves as a tool for employers to assess compliance with anti-discrimination laws and is not legally binding. Kacsmaryk disagreed, writing that the guidance creates 'mandatory standards ... from which legal consequences will necessarily flow if an employer fails to comply.' Advertisement The decision marks the latest blow to workplace protections for transgender workers following President Donald Trump's Jan. 20 executive order declaring that the government would recognize only two 'immutable' sexes — male and female. Advertisement Kacsmaryk, a 2017 Trump nominee, invalidated all portions of the EEOC guidance that defines 'sex' to include 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity,' along with an entire section addressing the subject. 'Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,' he wrote in the opinion. Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts commended the decision in an emailed statement: 'The Biden EEOC tried to compel businesses — and the American people — to deny basic biological truth. Today, thanks to the great state of Texas and the work of my Heritage colleagues, a federal judge said: not so fast.' He added: 'This ruling is more than a legal victory. It's a cultural one. It says no — you don't have to surrender common sense at the altar of leftist ideology. You don't have to pretend men are women." Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also touted the victory against 'Biden's 'Pronoun Police' Rule" in a Friday press release, saying: 'The federal government has no right to force Texans to play along with delusions or ignore biological reality in our workplaces.' The National Women's Law Center, which filed an amicus brief in November in support of the harassment guidance, blasted the decision in an emailed statement. 'The district court's decision is an outrage and blatantly at odds with Supreme Court precedent,' said Liz Theran, senior director of litigation for education and workplace justice at NWLC. 'The EEOC's Harassment Guidance reminds employers and workers alike to do one simple thing that should cost no one anything: refrain from degrading others on the job based on their identity and who they love. This decision does not change the law, but it will make it harder for LGBTQIA+ workers to enforce their rights and experience a workplace free from harassment.' Advertisement Kacsmaryk offered a more narrow interpretation of Bostock v. Clayton County, the landmark Supreme Court case that established discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ workers, saying in his decision that the Supreme Court 'firmly refused to expand the definition of 'sex' beyond the biological binary,' and found only that employers could not fire workers for being gay or transgender. Employment attorney Jonathan Segal, a partner at Duane Morris who advises companies on how best to comply with anti-discrimination laws, emphasized that legal minds may disagree on the scope of Bostock, and Kacsmaryk's decision is just one interpretation. 'If you assume that a transgender employee has no rights beyond not being fired for transgender status, you are likely construing their rights too narrowly under both federal and state law,' which would put employers in a risky position, Segal said. And regardless of whether explicit guidance is in place, employers still need to address gender identity conflicts in the workplace, according to Tiffany Stacy, an Ogletree Deakins attorney in San Antonio who defends employers against claims of workplace discrimination. 'From a management perspective, employers should be prepared to diffuse those situations,' Stacy said. The EEOC in fiscal year 2024 received more than 3,000 charges alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and 3,000-plus in 2023, according to the agency's website. The U.S. Department of Justice and the EEOC declined to comment on the outcome of the Texas case. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Trump appointee, voted against the harassment guidelines last year but has been unable to rescind or revise them after Trump fired two of the three Democratic commissioners, leaving the federal agency without the quorum needed to make major policy changes. Advertisement But earlier this month, Trump tapped an assistant U.S. attorney in Florida, Brittany Panuccio, to fill one of the vacancies. If Panuccio is confirmed by the Senate, the EEOC would regain a quorum and establish a Republican majority 2-1, clearing the path to fully pivot the agency toward focusing on Trump's priorities. 'It is neither harassment nor discrimination for a business to draw distinctions between the sexes in providing single-sex bathrooms,' Lucas wrote in a statement expressing her dissent to that aspect of the guidelines. In her four-month tenure as Acting Chair, Lucas has overhauled the agency's interpretation of civil rights law, including abandoning seven of its own cases representing transgender workers alleging they have experienced discrimination, and instructing employees to sideline all new gender identity discrimination cases received by the agency.
