Latest news with #LGBTQ-inclusive
Axios
3 days ago
- Politics
- Axios
Health care, citizenship and LGBTQ+ rights: Five Supreme Court cases to watch
As the Supreme Court justices prepare to retire their robes for recess, several key cases with massive implications for health care, citizenship and education have yet to be decided. Why it matters: The court has not yet weighed in on a case stemming from President Trump 's effort to redefine birthright citizenship and judges' power to check the president, among other key cases on gender-affirming care, LGBTQ+ materials in schools and health care access. Amid the early months of Trump's second term, lower court judges have erected a number of roadblocks to his administration's sweeping actions — many of which have ended up in the high court's hands. The big picture: The conservative-majority court is poised to release a flurry of opinions ahead of its summer recess. Nationwide injunctions for birthright citizenship One of the biggest cases before the Supreme Court concerns whether Trump can push forward with his attempt to rewrite birthright citizenship, a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1898. The case before the court is not over whether Trump's policy, which challenges the court's precedent on birthright citizenship protections, is constitutional. Rather, the justices heard May arguments over whether a single district court can freeze a whole federal policy. The Justice Department says no, arguing that courts' rulings should apply only to the parties before them. The court's conservative majority seemed inclined to rein in the orders that have disrupted Trump's agenda, Axios' Sam Baker reported. However, it seemed divided over the proper way to do it. The other side: Liberal Justice Elena Kagan questioned what would happen if the high court decided that lower courts couldn't freeze the citizenship policy nationwide — but then later deemed it illegal. In that time, thousands of children could be denied citizenship. Ultimately, Baker reported, questioning did not paint an especially clear image of how the court will likely rule. Gender-affirming care The highly anticipated decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti could have major repercussions for transgender youth nationwide. It questions whether Tennessee unconstitutionally banned gender-affirming care for minors, but its implications could stretch far past the Volunteer State's borders as the Trump administration and Republican politicians across the country pursue restrictions on trans rights. Since 2021, more than two dozen states have passed laws seeking to restrict youth access to gender-affirming care. Multiple leading medical groups support gender-affirming care for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, but the Supreme Court in December arguments appeared inclined not to overrule state bans. LGBTQ-themed books in schools The Supreme Court will decide whether parents can opt their children out of school curricula that involve LGBTQ+ storylines. Friction Point: The case stems from the addition of LGBTQ-inclusive children's books to a Maryland school district's curriculum. Parents in Montgomery County were initially offered an opt-out, but that policy was later changed. A group of parents sued, arguing their religious freedom was violated because they couldn't opt their children out. During oral arguments for the case, the court appeared likely to back the parents. Planned Parenthood and Medicaid access At the center of the first abortion-adjacent case since Trump's second term began is whether Medicaid patients can choose their provider for services. The case stemmed from South Carolina's push to block Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics from receiving funds through the state's Medicaid program. Medicaid funds can't generally cover abortions, but Planned Parenthood provides other medical services. The state is arguing that Medicaid enrollees don't have the right to sue a state to enforce their ability to see their preferred health provider. Zoom in: The decision will have implications for Medicaid enrollees' ability to freely choose their health provider for any service. But it would have a particularly acute impact for Planned Parenthood, since a large part of the providers' funding comes from Medicaid reimbursement. The Affordable Care Act's preventive services mandate The Supreme Court's decision over the Affordable Care Act's preventive services mandate will mark the culmination of years of legal battles. Context: The ACA requires most private health care plans to cover specific services that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which is made up of volunteer experts, recommends. That gives millions access to no-cost cancer screenings, vaccinations and more. A federal appeals court ruled that the task force is unconstitutionally imposing coverage requirements because its members aren't politically appointed. The federal government argues that the HHS secretary has appropriate oversight over the task force. If the court sides with companies challenging the requirement, private health care plans could charge beneficiaries co-pays or deductibles for services that were recommended after the ACA was signed, Axios' Maya Goldman reported.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
LGBTQ+ inclusion in mainstream movies reaches 3-year low, study finds
LGBTQ+ representation in mainstream media keeps plummeting year-over-year, and a new study from GLAAD shows concerning results when evaluating the queer-inclusive projects — from Hollywood's top 10 studio distributors — released in the 2024 calendar year. Sign up for the to keep up with what's new in LGBTQ+ culture and entertainment — delivered three times a week straight (well…) to your inbox! GLAAD's 13th annual Studio Responsibility Index study took into consideration the top 10 studio distributors in Hollywood, as well as their "subsidiary distribution labels and majority-owned streaming services." For context, this list includes A24, Amazon, Apple TV+, Lionsgate, NBCUniversal, Netflix, Paramount Global, Sony Pictures Entertainment, The Walt Disney Company, and Warner Bros. Discovery. The GLAAD study outlines alarming statistics regarding studio films released in 2024. Of note, LGBTQ-inclusive movies now only account for 23.6 percent of all releases from major Hollywood studios in 2024. This is a three-year low that follows 27.3 percent in 2023 and a record-high 28.5 percent in 2022. The report also includes findings such as: Only two films (less than 1 percent of all films tracked) featured transgender characters, and both included either harmful stereotypes or inauthentic characters of color made up just 36 percent of all LGBTQ characters, down from 46 percent in 2023 — the lowest since 2019.A24 was the only studio to receive a "Good" rating, releasing the highest percentage of LGBTQ-inclusive films and breaking its own box office record in the process. 2024 films that passed the Vito Russo Test developed by GLAAD — a set of criteria used to analyze how LGBTQ+ characters are included in a film — include Love Lies Bleeding, Problemista, Mean Girls (2024), Queer, My Old Ass, and Drive-Away Dolls, to name a few. GLAAD President & CEO, Sarah Kate Ellis, wrote in a statement: "This year's findings are a wake-up call to the industry. At a time when LGBTQ people are facing unprecedented attacks in politics and news media, film must be a space for visibility and truth. Representation isn't about checking a box — it's about whose stories get told, whose lives are valued, and creating worlds that mirror our own society today. When done authentically, LGBTQ representation builds audience and buzz, while humanizing LGBTQ people as those in power are actively working to take away our humanity." Overall, GLAAD reports that the "10 distributors tracked in this study released 250 films in 2024." Only 59 films — within that total of 250 releases — contain an LGBTQ+ character. Keep scrolling to discover how each of the top 10 Hollywood studios were rated in this new GLAAD study. Editor's note: All information below provided by GLAAD. Studios listed in alphabetical order. Total films: 16 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 9 Percentage: 56 percent Rating: "Good" Total films: 25 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 8 Percentage: 32 percent Rating: "Fair" Total films: 4 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 1 Percentage: 25 percent Rating: "Insufficient" Total films: 44 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 8 Percentage: 18 percent Rating: "Poor" Total films: 25 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 4 Percentage: 16 percent Rating: "Fair" Total films: 49 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 14 Percentage: 29 percent Rating: "Poor" Total films: 16 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 3 Percentage: 19 percent Rating: "Insufficient" Total films: 33 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 4 Percentage: 12 percent Rating: "Insufficient" Total films: 23 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 5 Percentage: 22 percent Rating: "Poor" Total films: 15 LGBTQ-inclusive films: 3 Percentage: 20 percent Rating: "Insufficient"
Newsweek
03-06-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
What Happened to All the Corporate Pride Logos?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. In a notable shift from recent years, a number of blue-chip corporations and sports organizations are quietly scaling back their public-facing support for LGBTQ+ Pride Month in 2025. About 39 percent of corporate executives say their companies are reducing public Pride efforts this year, according to a recent survey from Gravity Research. That includes less frequent use of rainbow-themed logos, fewer social media posts and scaled-back sponsorships of Pride events. The Context The change comes as brands grapple with political pressure and the fallout from past controversies, including 2023's high-profile backlash against Bud Light and Target for LGBTQ-inclusive campaigns. This pivot coincides with the Trump administration's scrutiny over both federal and private sector DEI programs. Multiple federal agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), have reportedly threatened investigations into corporate diversity practices. What To Know The muted corporate response this year marks a break from recent traditions. BMW, for example, updated its logo across its global social media footprint last June to reflect Pride Month, even going so far as to defend the decision when a user on X questioned why the rainbow flag was conspicuously absent on its Middle East corporate logos. This is an established practice at the BMW Group, which also takes into consideration market-specific legal regulations and country-specific cultural aspects (4/4) — BMW (@BMW) June 1, 2024 But in 2025, the German carmaker has not repeated the gesture, according to a Newsweek analysis of the company's public-facing social media accounts. Cisco, the Silicon Valley tech giant, also skipped updating its logo this year after incorporating the rainbow flag into its logo as recently as 2024. BMW's Facebook page in 2025 versus 2024. BMW's Facebook page in 2025 versus 2024. Facebook Cisco's Facebook page in 2025 versus 2024. Cisco's Facebook page in 2025 versus 2024. Cisco Newsweek reached out to both Cisco and BMW for comment. The NFL, too, has seen reduced visibility: Only four teams—the Minnesota Vikings, Detroit Lions, Buffalo Bills and Los Angeles Chargers—have changed their logos to mark Pride this June. Most others have remained silent, a departure from the broader participation seen in prior years. According to the ML Football account on X, 12 NFL teams haven't posted about Pride Month: the Baltimore Ravens, Cincinnati Bengals, Cleveland Browns, Pittsburgh Steelers, Kansas City Chiefs, New York Jets, New Orleans Saints, Tennessee Titans, Las Vegas Raiders, Indianapolis Colts, Seattle Seahawks and Dallas Cowboys. Recent public backlash to corporate Pride campaigns has cast a long shadow. Bud Light's partnership with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney spurred boycotts, political outrage and a significant loss of revenue for parent company AB Inbev. Bud Light even lost its long-held position as America's top-selling beer in May 2023, when it was overtaken by Modelo. Target removed Pride merchandise from stores after staff received threats based on viral social media posts. This year, the retailer is limiting Pride products to select stores, with the full collection only available online. Bank of America is also among the brands that appears to have abandoned much of their Pride marketing following the 2023 backlash, dropping the hashtag #BofAPride for the second consecutive year. The campaign had run uninterrupted from 2018 to 2023. Longtime corporate sponsors are also backing away from public Pride involvement. NYC Pride lost support from Nissan and PepsiCo, while San Francisco Pride saw Comcast, Anheuser-Busch and Diageo withdraw sponsorships. Even defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton dropped its DEI division and abandoned its WorldPride 2025 commitment, despite the global event behind held in its backyard of Washington, D.C. this year. The decisions reflects a broader cultural and political shift, with many executives citing the Trump administration's hostile stance toward diversity programs and transgender rights as a core reason for retreating. In January, shortly after Trump's return to the White House, the State Department enacted a "one flag policy," banning U.S. embassies and overseas missions from flying pride or Black Lives Matter flags. What People Are Saying Jeff Melnyk, founding partner at the corporate consulting firm Within People, on LinkedIn Pulse: "Pride was started as a riot by people shouting for change," he wrote. "Before our flag becomes part of your logo, consider what you are really standing for." Sarah Kate Ellis, president of advocacy group GLAAD, to CNN: "I do see there's pivoting happening (for Pride Month). What I don't see is corporates walking away from the LGBTQ community." What Happens Next A number of events and celebrations will take place in the U.S. during Pride Month. The annual WorldPride event is ongoing in D.C., and pride marches and parades will take place in cities including New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago in the weeks ahead. Those events are expected to have fewer high-profile corporate sponsors than in past years. In New York, the organization behind NYC Pride reported a $750,000 budget shortfall after some sponsors scaled back or ended their support of the annual festivities.
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.
