Latest news with #equalprotection
New York Times
03-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Supreme Court will hear cases challenging state bans on transgender athletes
The Supreme Court will hear two cases challenging state laws banning transgender athletes from women's and girls' sports, the court announced Thursday. One of the cases, West Virginia v. B.P.J., involves a 2021 state law banning transgender athletes from girls' public school sports teams. The other case, Little v. Hecox, challenges a similar 2020 law in Idaho. Advertisement In both cases, transgender students sued their respective states, arguing that the bans violate 14th Amendment guarantees of equal protection under the law and Title IX, which bans sex-based discrimination in education. In West Virginia, middle school student Becky Pepper-Jackson sought to run cross-country and track. In Idaho, Lindsay Hecox wanted to join the track team at Boise State University. Both students won injunctions and appeals that allowed them to compete, including in 2023, when the Supreme Court upheld a preliminary injunction allowing Pepper-Jackson to compete while the appeals continued. Now, the Supreme Court will hear the cases. The decision could have sweeping ramifications for more than two dozen states that have similar laws restricting transgender people's participation in sports. The Trump Administration has targeted universities across the country for allowing transgender athletes to compete, saying their competing violates Title IX. In June, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to uphold a Tennessee law banning some medical care for transgender youth, with the three liberal justices in dissent. The decision protects similar legislation in more than 20 states. In May, the Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump's ban on transgender people in the military to go into effect while appeals continue. The Court will hear the case in its next term, which begins in October, but has not yet set a date for the hearing.
Washington Post
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
The Supreme Court puts off restoring the Voting Rights Act's shine
Sixty years ago this summer, Congress enacted the nation-transforming Voting Rights Act. Soon, however, Congress and a deferential Supreme Court, by reverse alchemy, turned the gold of the VRA into the lead of today's racial distribution of representation. Last Friday, the Supreme Court delayed, pending reargument next term, deciding a case that could reverse the VRA's tarnishment. On the final day of the 2024-2025 term, the court issued 404 pages of decisions, concurrences and dissents in six cases. Singularly important, however, were the six pages of Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent from the court's decision not to decide the case concerning the patent racial gerrymandering in Louisiana's redistricting map. Thomas cites the 'intractable' conflict between the VRA as the court has construed it as a guarantee of the rights of groups, and the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws for persons. 'Intractable'? No, insoluble. Approximately one-third of Louisianans are Black. After the 2020 Census, the legislature produced a congressional map with only one 'majority-minority' district. In a complex process of litigation, the state, accepting the court-created principle of racial proportionality, created a second Black-majority district. The state simultaneously engaged in political gerrymandering to protect the seats of three senior Republican members of Congress. The result was unlovely. The proposed 6th District resembles a 250-mile-long python uncoiling from northwest to southeast Louisiana to 'scoop up' (Thomas's tart phrase) enough Black voters, and exclude enough White ones, to be slightly more than 50 percent Black. Obviously, race predominated in producing this affront to the VRA's original intent. This is today's judicial morass concerning redistricting: Race-consciousness is mandatory; race as 'predominant' is forbidden. The path to this conundrum is explained in 'Deconstructing the Republic,' the invaluable 2008 book by Anthony A. Peacock of Utah State University: The original VRA was written to guarantee ballot access. But as subsequently construed by the court and amended by Congress, it confers group rights to 'effective' representation. This entitlement to a portion of political power is determined by racial calculations. The court began and Congress joined the process of conferring on a few minorities (Black, Hispanic, Native American) a group right to elect their preferred representatives, with members of the group presumptively choosing to think as a group rather than as individuals. Classical liberalism holds that although individuals are divided by opinions and passions, they can be united by shared interests. The uniting is the business of politics. But, Peacock says, the ideology of multiculturalism changed politics by making race and ethnicity preeminent — and inevitably divisive — legal categories. This deconstructed the nation into an archipelago of racial and ethnic constituencies. This development was congruent with the credo of 20th-century 'behavioral' social science: People do not act freely; they behave predictably because they are conditioned by group membership. By freezing certain racial constituencies into law, the VRA, as (mis)construed and amended, now implicitly endorses a degraded theory of representation: Elected representatives of a government-preferred minority should mechanically serve any desire of the cohesive group. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, enacted to end the cognizance of race in law, has been bent to opposite purposes. The Voting Rights Act, enacted to eliminate acts of invidious discrimination, has been twisted to engineer racial balance in political processes by taking legal cognizance of, and thereby encouraging, racial as opposed to citizenship identities. Judicial decisions have held that illegal 'vote dilution' (a phrase not in the 1965 VRA) exists when government-approved minorities could not elect candidates of their 'choice,' which was presumed to be defined racially. The creation of minority-majority electoral districts, drawn to preserve or create racially homogenous enclaves, supposedly serves electoral fairness, defined as facilitating minority office-holding. The VRA became an instrument for turning race and ethnicity into legally determinative categories for claims to proportional allocations of political power. Doing so, today's VRA encourages a group conflict model of American politics. And the Founders' Constitution for freely thinking individuals becomes a Constitution for thinking-alike victims of a perpetual past. In a 2003 case concerning race-based university admissions, the court affirmed a 'diversity' exception to the laws of equal protection. An 'effective representation' exception has been discovered in the VRA, although nothing in its 1965 text or legislative history authorized or required this. The court has somewhat corrected its 2003 higher-education mistake. Next term, it should jettison most of its misbegotten VRA jurisprudence. By affirming the equal protection clause's supremacy over the court's torturous misconstruing of it, and Congress's pernicious amending of it, the court can restore the VRA's golden gleam.
Yahoo
22-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
‘Just wrong': Oregon advocates say SCOTUS decision targets transgender youth
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – Oregon groups and lawmakers are responding to a Supreme Court ruling made Wednesday that restricts access to gender-affirming care for minors. The , along with three families and a physician, who claimed a Tennessee law violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. Travis Decker, accused of murdering 3 daughters, may have changed appearance: Here's how The found the law does not discriminate against transgender youth based on their sex and is constitutional. It will effectively protect Republican-led state governments that are rolling back protections for transgender people from any future legal challenges. U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) said the 'life-altering decision lays out the playbook for extremist politicians to continue their crusade against trans people and further exclude them from daily life.' Meanwhile, to call the ruling a 'landmark victory for Tennessee in defense of America's children.' BLM warns of 'aggressive' mountain goats along Oregon river According to the Oregon Nurses Association, puberty blockers and hormone therapy is 'endorsed by every major medical organization in the U.S.' and has shown to significantly reduce depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts among transgender youth. 'ONA believes that all young people deserve access to medically necessary care, free from political interference,' their statement read. 'Today's decision is not based on science, public health, or the well-being of children; it is rooted in ideology, and it places vulnerable youth at serious risk.' Basic Rights Oregon called the ruling 'a devastating outcome for transgender people, our families and our medical providers.' However, Oregon law still protects access to gender-affirming care on a state level. 'Gender affirming care is still legal in Oregon, and Oregon law prohibits discrimination against people based on their gender identity or sex, including from healthcare providers,' ACLU litigation manager Eri Andriola said. The decision comes as local activists campaign for an Equal Rights for All ballot measure in 2026. As proposed, the ERA would guarantee equal rights 'regardless of one's sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation' and create certain protections in the Oregon Constitution. These protections include the right to abortion, contraception and IVF, transgender health care, and same-gender marriage. Oregon lawmakers consider strengthening National Guard oversight Sen. Merkley's full statement can be read below: 'Access to medically-necessary care for trans youth saves lives, and the U.S. Supreme Court's callous decision puts trans youth and their families at risk. 'MAGA extremists across the nation will not stop at banning medically-necessary gender-affirming care for trans youth. The Court's life-altering decision lays out the playbook for extremist politicians to continue their crusade against trans people and further exclude them from daily life. And this is just the beginning—this decision opens the floodgates for MAGA extremists in state legislatures and Congress to ban medically-necessary care, from gender-affirming care to abortion access. 'This is just wrong—everyone should have access to the care they need, when they need it. No exceptions. 'Let's get politicians out of the exam room. We will continue to fight these divisive policies in communities nationwide to fully realize the vision of America as a land of freedom and equality for all, and I won't rest until my Equality Act is signed into law to deliver on this fundamental promise.' Stay with KOIN 6 News as we continue to follow this story. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Bloomberg
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Supreme Court Upholds Curbs on Care for Transgender Minors
By Updated on Save A divided US Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that outlaws certain controversial medical treatments for transgender children, preserving similar measures in two dozen states and dealing a fresh blow to LGBTQ rights. Voting 6-3 along ideological lines, the justices ruled that the Tennessee law comports with the Constitution's equal protection guarantee, rejecting arguments by families and former President Joe Biden's administration.
Associated Press
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
What's left for the Supreme Court to decide? 21 cases, including state bans on transgender care
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military. Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
