Latest news with #6thU.S.CircuitCourtofAppeals
Indianapolis Star
3 days ago
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
Supreme Court upholds ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Indiana among states affected
WASHINGTON − An ideologically divided Supreme Court on June 18 upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, a major setback for transgender Americans who have increasingly become targets of conservative states and the Trump administration. The court's six conservatives voted to uphold the ban and the three liberals dissented. The decision − one of the court's biggest this year − came about five years after the court ruled that transgender people, as well as gay and lesbian people, are protected by a landmark civil rights law barring sex discrimination in the workplace. But in this case, the court said that preventing minors from using puberty blockers and hormone therapy does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. "Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. The Biden administration and the Tennessee families that challenged the law argued it discriminated against transgender people because a teenager whose sex assigned at birth is male may be given testosterone to treat delayed puberty. But a teenager assigned female at birth who wants testosterone to treat gender dysphoria may not have it. Tennessee countered that the treatments have different risks and benefits when used by transgender youth, who need to be protected from life-altering consequences. After the case was argued in December, the Justice Department under President Donald Trump told the court it was no longer challenging Tennessee's law. Trump made opposition to transgender rights a central theme of his campaign. The issue, a major flashpoint in the culture wars, gained prominence with startling speed, despite the tiny – though increasing – fraction of Americans who are transgender. Since 2022, the number of states taking steps to limit access to gender-affirming care for minors grew from four to about half. States have also taken steps to restrict the bathrooms transgender students can use, what sports teams they can join. and whether they can change the sex designation on their birth certificates. When families with transgender children challenged bans on gender-affirming care, district courts largely sided with them and blocked enforcement. But three appeals courts upheld the laws, including the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A federal court let Indiana's ban on gender-affirming care for minors take effect in February 2024. The law, signed in 2023 by Gov. Eric Holcomb, bans doctors from performing gender reassignment surgery or prescribing medication, like puberty blockers or hormone therapy, to those under 18 years old. Physicians who provide these procedures in Indiana could face discipline by the state's medical licensing board. Supreme Court's Indiana impact: What Supreme Court case could mean for Indiana's ban on gender-affirming care for minors Tennessee's law was the first to reach the Supreme Court. During the December oral arguments, several of the conservative justices voiced support for taking a similar approach to what the court did when it overturned Roe v. Wade, finding there's no constitutional barrier to the issue at hand and leaving it up to state and federal legislatures to decide. 'My understanding is the Constitution leaves that question to the people's representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor,' Chief Justice John Roberts said during December's debate. The court's liberal justices had argued that the court can't ignore constitutional protections, particularly for the vulnerable. 'That's a question for the court,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said. Gender-affirming care for minors is supported by every major medical organization, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association. But the court's conservative justices focused more on the fact that some European countries have tightened restrictions on the treatments. England's National Health Service, for example, stopped prescribing the drugs outside of clinical trials after a review concluded more data is needed to help doctors and their patients make informed decisions.
USA Today
3 days ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court upholds state ban on transgender minors' use of puberty blockers, hormone therapy
Supreme Court upholds state ban on transgender minors' use of puberty blockers, hormone therapy Show Caption Hide Caption Families speak out for transgender youth at Supreme Court Families of transgender youth tells how their lives could change if Supreme Court bans gender-affirming care. WASHINGTON − An ideologically divided Supreme Court on June 18 upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, a major setback for transgender Americans who have increasingly become targets of conservative states and the Trump administration. The court's six conservatives voted to uphold the ban and the three liberals dissented. The decision − one of the court's biggest this year − came about five years after the court ruled that transgender people, as well as gay and lesbian people, are protected by a landmark civil rights law barring sex discrimination in the workplace. But in this case, the court said that preventing minors from using puberty blockers and hormone therapy does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. "Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. The Biden administration and the Tennessee families that challenged the law argued it discriminated against transgender people because a teenager whose sex assigned at birth is male may be given testosterone to treat delayed puberty. But a teenager assigned female at birth who wants testosterone to treat gender dysphoria may not have it. Tennessee countered that the treatments have different risks and benefits when used by transgender youth, who need to be protected from life-altering consequences. After the case was argued in December, the Justice Department under President Donald Trump told the court it was no longer challenging Tennessee's law. Trump made opposition to transgender rights a central theme of his campaign. The issue, a major flashpoint in the culture wars, gained prominence with startling speed, despite the tiny – though increasing – fraction of Americans who are transgender. Since 2022, the number of states taking steps to limit access to gender-affirming care for minors grew from four to about half. States have also taken steps to restrict the bathrooms transgender students can use, what sports teams they can join. and whether they can change the sex designation on their birth certificates. When families with transgender children challenged bans on gender-affirming care, district courts largely sided with them and blocked enforcement. But three appeals courts upheld the laws, including the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Tennessee's law was the first to reach the Supreme Court. During the December oral arguments, several of the conservative justices voiced support for taking a similar approach to what the court did when it overturned Roe v. Wade, finding there's no constitutional barrier to the issue at hand and leaving it up to state and federal legislatures to decide. 'My understanding is the Constitution leaves that question to the people's representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor,' Chief Justice John Roberts said during December's debate. The court's liberal justices had argued that the court can't ignore constitutional protections, particularly for the vulnerable. 'That's a question for the court,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said. Gender-affirming care for minors is supported by every major medical organization, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association. But the court's conservative justices focused more on the fact that some European countries have tightened restrictions on the treatments. England's National Health Service, for example, stopped prescribing the drugs outside of clinical trials after a review concluded more data is needed to help doctors and their patients make informed decisions. The case is U.S. v. Skrmetti.
NBC News
3 days ago
- Health
- NBC News
Supreme Court upholds Tennessee ban on transgender youth medical care
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee law restricting gender transition care for minors, delivering a major blow to transgender rights. The 6-3 ruling is likely to have a broad impact as 24 other states have already enacted laws similar to the one in Tennessee, which bars gender transition surgery, puberty blockers and hormone therapy. Those laws now look set to survive similar legal challenges. The ruling does not affect states that do not have such bans, meaning care in those states will still be available. The court in an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that the Tennessee law does not constitute a form of sex discrimination that would violate the Constitution's 14th Amendment. Trans rights activists have also warned that a ruling allowing bans on care for trans minors could pave the way for similar restrictions aimed at adults. The legal challenge was brought by the administration of former President Joe Biden as well as transgender teens and their families. The ruling does not definitely resolve all legal issues relating to the state bans as it did not address a separate argument under the 14th Amendment that the laws violate the right of parents to make health care decisions for their children. Upon taking office in January, President Donald Trump has set about unwinding Biden policies that sought to bolster transgender rights. Among other things, he signed an executive order seeking to restrict gender-affirming care for teens nationwide A judge quickly blocked it. Trump has also imposed new restrictions on transgender people serving in the military. Enacted in 2023, the Tennessee law is among a wave of similar measures taken by states imposing restrictions on gender transition treatments. In defending its ban, the state's lawyers pointed to similar measures taken in other countries, including in Europe. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti emphasized in court papers the evolving debate over how best to treat minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, the clinical term given to the distress people can experience when their gender identities are in conflict with the genders assigned to them at birth. Major medical organizations say gender-affirming treatments are an effective way to treat gender dysphoria. The challengers argued that the law is a form of sex discrimination that violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause because the treatments at issue in the case — puberty blockers and hormone therapy — can be used in other situations. The case marks the most significant ruling on transgender rights since the court in 2020, to the surprise of many, ruled that federal employment protections extend to gender identity as well as sexual orientation. The dispute reached the Supreme Court after the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2023 rejected challenges to the Tennessee law and a similar measure in Kentucky. A district court judge had blocked parts of the law, while concluding that plaintiffs did not have legal standing to challenge the surgery ban. That provision of the law was not at issue before the Supreme Court.
USA Today
06-06-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination.
There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination. | Opinion This Supreme Court ruling makes it clear that the laws on discrimination apply to everybody equally. Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court sides with straight woman in 'reverse discrimination' case The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision after siding with a woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. Scripps News There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. There is just discrimination. It doesn't matter if someone is White or Black, straight or gay, male or female. It only matters if they've been discriminated against. On June 5, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision removing barriers for members of majority groups to file anti-discrimination suits. In this case, Marlean Ames, a straight woman, filed a suit against her employer, which she said denied a promotion in favor of a gay woman, and later demoted her in favor of a gay man filling her role. The news media covering this decision has widely referred to it as a 'reverse discrimination' case, but that shows their understanding of discrimination is wrong. The unanimous decision from the court in this case is correct and offers valuable lessons for how the left needs to rethink its group politics. Reverse discrimination isn't a thing. There is only discrimination. The ruling overturns a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that placed a heightened burden upon a plaintiff who is a member of a "majority group" in discrimination cases, requiring that the plaintiff shows 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' Essentially, the lower court established different criteria for determining whether a single person had a valid discrimination case against an employer, compared with a person who was part of the majority. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional, sending the case back to a lower court. Opinion: Trump abandons his most impressive presidential legacy ‒ conservative judges Different rules based on different groups is precisely the kind of discrimination that American law prohibits. This is the spirit of all of American anti-discrimination law, including the relevant statute in this case, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents employment discrimination based on all sorts of characteristics. The only test in cases of discrimination should be if you prove you were discriminated against due to an immutable characteristic. If yes, you have a case. If not, you don't. There is no need to consider whether somebody is even a part of a minority group, or even how their discrimination plays into any sort of broader civil rights struggle. In this case, because the plaintiff was straight, the lower court added an additional burden for her to prove discrimination than if a gay person had filed an identical suit. Title VII provides far more detail on how one proves discrimination than my haphazard framework, but the spirit is the same in that there is no mention of one's group status being a determining factor. 'As a textual matter, Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,' writes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for the unanimous decision. This case is a promising step, but legal neutrality on characteristics is not a consensus In the decision at issue, the court reached consensus, with all nine justices signing on to Justice Jackson's opinion. While unanimous decisions are not uncommon, what is interesting about this case is that the liberal justices have signed on to an approach typically favored by conservatives. Justice Clarence Thomas has long advocated for constitutional colorblindness, and the reality is that American law treats all characteristics equally in its application of laws. Opinion: Vance is doing his best to help Trump tear down the Supreme Court This very issue divided the nation's highest court into its respective ideological leanings just two years ago, when Students for Fair Admissions won against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, resulting in affirmative action admissions practices being outlawed nationwide. In that very decision, Justice Jackson authored a fiery dissent against the colorblind approach of the majority opinion. While that case deals with race and this one deals with sexual orientation, any protected characteristic should be viewed the same. Decisions like these make Justice Jackson's jurisprudence all the more frustrating. The same principles that demand neutrality of the law in some areas are suddenly thrown out the window when it comes to affirmative action. I hope that the recent case is a genuine change of heart from Justice Jackson and the other liberal justices, but I fear that this case is just another puzzling inconsistency from the court's junior justice. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court revives straight woman's reverse discrimination claim
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday revived a woman's claim that she was discriminated against at work because she is straight. The unanimous ruling could make it easier in some parts of the country for people belonging to majority groups to bring such 'reverse discrimination' claims. It overturns precedent in some lower courts that says someone from a majority group has to meet a higher bar than someone from a minority group for a case to move forward. Marlean Ames sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace, after a lesbian woman obtained a promotion she had applied for. She was later demoted, and her old position was taken by a gay man. Writing for the court, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the test had no basis in the text of Title VII or cases that have interpreted it. "We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs," she wrote. The ruling means Ames' case will return to lower courts and edges closer toward a trial or settlement. "We're of course pleased that this is the end of quite a long journey for Ms. Ames," said Xiao Wang, one of her lawyers. "This was a major legal hurdle in front of her. This is something she is incredibly pleased about." Ames has worked at the department since 2004, but the dispute arose after she began reporting to a lesbian woman in 2017. She was denied the promotion she sought two years later and demoted soon after that. She was at work on Thursday when the Supreme Court ruled. The state says Ames was demoted because new leadership in the agency wanted to restructure its operations to focus on sexual violence in the juvenile corrections system. Ames had led a program aimed at combating rape in prison but was seen as difficult to work with, according to the state's court papers. Officials involved in making those decisions are straight, the state has pointed out. Lower courts, including the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled for the state agency. Ames then turned to the Supreme Court. This article was originally published on
