Latest news with #SixthCircuitCourtofAppeals
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court's Dobbs bombshell helped pave the way for this week's blow to trans rights
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming for minors. The 6-3 ruling is a major blow to transgender rights, including in the dozens of states with similar bans already enacted. To a striking degree, the majority's analysis— and the opinions of several concurring justices — relied on cases that restricted another right: the right to choose abortion. This week's holding shows how the fallout from the end of Roe v. Wade extends far beyond abortion. The case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, began in 2023 when three transgender teenagers, their parents and a Memphis physician argued that Tennessee's law constituted unconstitutional sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Biden administration eventually joined the suit and, in June 2023, the district court blocked the law from going into effect. Later that year, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The plaintiffs relied on a 2020 case called Bostock v. Clayton County, a 6-3 ruling which held that sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963 also encompassed sexual orientation and gender identity. In the majority opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court reasoned that there was no way for an employer to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity without accounting for a worker's sex too. In other words, gender identity discrimination always involved sex discrimination. The plaintiffs in Skrmetti argued that the same logic applied to their case. To rebut this, Tennessee pointed to Dobbs. In undoing a right to choose abortion, the Supreme Court rejected the determinations in Roe that the right to choose abortion was (as the Roe majority wrote) 'founded in the 14th Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action.' But the court also rejected the idea that abortion bans were fueled by sex discrimination, and thus violated the same amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. That latter finding figures prominently in Skrmetti. There were a variety of ways of arguing that abortion bans discriminate on the basis of sex: for example, pointing to the bans' frequent invocations of stereotypes and generalizations about motherhood. But in Dobbs, the court concluded that the discrimination argument was 'squarely foreclosed by our precedents' — in particular, the rarely cited, often-pilloried 1974 ruling Geduldig v. Aiello that ruled that discriminating on the basis of pregnancy didn't count as sex discrimination. States could regulate a 'medical procedure that only one sex can undergo,' the Dobbs majority concluded, unless there was evidence that the legislation was mere pretext for discriminatory animus. In ruling that Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care didn't involve sex discrimination either, the majority opinion didn't mention Dobbs directly (though concurring opinions by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito did). Nevertheless, the reasoning of Dobbs ran throughout the majority opinion as well. Even if transgender individuals were the only ones to seek out treatment for gender dysphoria, the court suggested, that didn't matter. 'A State does not trigger heightened constitutional scrutiny by regulating a medical procedure that only one sex can undergo,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, citing Geduldig but using the language from the Dobbs ruling. In addition to Dobbs, the majority also relied on a 2007 case called Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The federal statute prohibited a specific procedure, dilation and extraction, that the plaintiffs argued would be safer for some women (because it involved fewer passes with a sharp instrument). The high court upheld the law, however, because there was enough scientific uncertainty about the benefits of the procedure. That uncertainty, of course, was no accident: anti-abortion groups had not just fielded their own experts, but launched new organizations to establish that the procedure was unnecessary. In upholding bans on gender-affirming care, the Supreme Court in Skrmetti cited Gonzales v. Carhart to justify giving lawmakers 'wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty.' It's true that gender-affirming care is a rapidly developing area of study. But the court used that fact to give state legislatures a free pass. Tennessee's law is hardly nuanced: Violators can face penalties of $25,000 per treatment. Other states' bans include prison sentences of five or even 10 years. None of that sounds like lawmakers carefully weighing incoming evidence about a specific treatment. But the court could fall back on its abortion cases to let legislators do whatever they want. The message sent in the Skrmetti ruling reaches further than just the issue at hand, and not just because much of the majority's logic would shield bans on gender-affirming care for adults too. If legislators can convince the justices that they are regulating based on a medical procedure or medical condition, the court may simply wave away any concern about sex discrimination. This offers conservative lawmakers and activists a roadmap for circumventing protections against sex discrimination in other contexts. The Southern Baptist Convention recently endorsed overturning Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision recognizing same-sex couples' right to marry, which relies partly on the Equal Protection Clause. The conservative Christian legal movement despises Bostock. And the Dobbs and Geduldig rulings prove that the meaning of sex discrimination has already narrowed for women. The more these cases can be framed on turning on biological difference, the more likely the court will sign off on discriminatory laws. The court's ruling in Skrmetti shows how much the undoing of abortion rights will reverberate beyond Dobbs, changing how the Supreme Court understands sex discrimination and transforming what equality under the law means. This article was originally published on
USA Today
04-06-2025
- General
- USA Today
Trump nominees for judgeships face scrutiny of youth, lack of experience
Trump nominees for judgeships face scrutiny of youth, lack of experience Show Caption Hide Caption What we know now about the Trump administration and justice system Could the Trump administrations actions against lawyers and judges set a precedent? Here is what we know now. President Donald Trump has started appointing judges to the federal bench, and they're facing scrutiny from Democrats and outside observers who question whether they are too young or unqualified to take their positions. Whitney Hermandorfer, Trump's nominee for a seat on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, was the first to face the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 4. She's never been a judge, and said she has never tried a case to a jury verdict. "I am concerned about the striking brevity of your professional record," Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, told Hermandorfer. He said she only graduated from law school 10 years, ago, but the judge she is being recommended to replace had 31 years on the bench before her nomination. Coons pointed to a longtime standard from the American Bar Association that says federal judicial appointees should have at least 12 years of experience. While the association has long been involved in vetting judicial appointments, Attorney General Pam Bondi has said the association, which many conservatives criticize as too liberal, won't be involved. Trump's nominees are being named at a time when his administration is seeking to broadly expand executive power through the use of executive orders and strategic firings. They have conservative records on issues such as abortion and transgender rights, and could broadly tip the judiciary more toward his agenda. Of the five lawyers who were scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee for their confirmation hearings Wednesday, only one, Cristian Stevens, is a sitting judge. Hermandorfer specializes in appeals for the Tennessee attorney general. Joshua Devine and Maria Lanahan work for the Missouri attorney general, and Zachary Bluestone works for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Missouri. The liberal group Alliance for Justice opposes the nomination of Divine, for example, to be U.S. District Court judge for the eastern and western districts of Missouri. He's currently the solicitor general of Missouri, who earned his law degree in 2016. He's challenged former President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness programs, and defended restrictions on abortion and transgender health. The group also opposes Bluestone, who finished his law degree in 2016. Mike Davis, whose conservative Article III Project backs Trump's judicial nominees, told Reuters that Trump "doesn't need to appease the D.C. establishment with weak and timid judges." "He is picking bold and fearless judges," Davis said. During the hearing, Coons asked how she would handle a hypothetical situation in which U.S. Marshalls refused to implement her court order. "That would, as a probably junior appellate judge, be something that I would look to my colleagues and whatever governing rules or precedents would govern that situation," she said. But Republicans widely praised Hermandorfer's resume, which shows she clerked for Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Thomas Alito in their current roles, and worked Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who now sits on the high court, when he was an appeals court judge. Cruz, a Republican from Texas, joked that he would filibuster Hermandorfer's out of jealousy that she clerked for three Supreme Court justices, and Sen. Ashley Moody, a Republican from Florida, said youth can bring tenacity to the bench and efficiency to moving cases along. Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, signaled that the criticism about Hermandorfer's experience at the trial level wasn't relevant because she's up for an appeals court job. Instead, he asked her how many appellate cases she's handled. "I have litigated probably over 100 appellate cases," Hermandorfer answered. Contributing: Reuters
Axios
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Trump appoints Nashville-area attorney Whitney Hermandorfer to federal bench
President Trump nominated local attorney Whitney Hermandorfer to serve on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Why it matters: This is Trump's first judicial appointment of his new term. Her appointment was celebrated by Tennessee's top Republican elected officials. Zoom in: Hermandorfer serves as director of the strategic litigation unit for the Tennessee Attorney General's Office. She played basketball at Princeton, where she earned her undergrad, before earning her law degree at George Washington University. She earned prestigious clerkships for Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett. Before that, Hermandorfer graduated from Harpeth Hall. If confirmed, Hermandorfer would replace veteran appeals court Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch, who was appointed to the bench by former President Obama. What they're saying: Trump called Hermandorfer"a staunch defender of girl's and women's sports." Hermandorfer argued the lawsuit over federal sexual discrimination rules related to gender identity.
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump announces Tennessee attorney as first judicial nomination of second term
President Donald Trump named a Tennessee woman as his first judicial nomination since returning to office for a second term. In a social media post late May 1, Trump announced Whitney Hermandorfer as his pick for the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Hermandorfer currently serves as director of the strategic litigation unit in Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti's office. The sixth circuit covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The court sits in Cincinnati, Ohio. Hermandorfer, if confirmed, will replace Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch, appointed by former President Barack Obama, who last year said she planned to take senior status, a form of semi-retirement for judges. In her time with the Tennessee Attorney General's Office, Hermandorfer worked to defend the state's near-total abortion ban and challenged the ban on discrimination against transgender students. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti posted about Hermandorfer's nomination on X, the site formerly known as Twitter, calling her leadership a high bar of excellence. "She has led not just teams of Tennessee attorneys but broad coalitions of states from across the country," Skrmetti wrote. "President Trump has selected a lawyer's lawyer for this important role. Whitney Hermandorfer's unwavering commitment to the rule of law, her exacting analytical rigor, and her unshakeable optimism will serve our country well. Hermandorfer, Skrmetti said, will have big shoes to fill. "Her service on the Sixth Circuit exemplifies the combination of intellect, integrity, and kindness I expect Whitney will herself bring to the Court," Skrmetti said of Stranch. "Both are proud Tennesseans and proud moms, and both are outstanding role models for young attorneys and aspiring judges." U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, added to the praise for Hermandorfer. "Throughout Whitney's esteemed career, she has demonstrated that she will be a fair-minded, principled jurist who will apply our nation's laws as they are written and protect the constitutional rights of all Americans," Blackburn said. "The President could not have selected a better individual to be his first judicial nomination this term, and I look forward to swiftly advancing Whitney's nomination through the Senate Judiciary Committee and onto the Senate floor to get her confirmed.' Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman applauded Hermandorfer's nomination. 'Whitney was one of the brilliant advocates behind our lawsuit to protect women's sports, and her ability to see around legal corners led to key victories all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court," Coleman said. 'While I know our colleague, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, will be sorry to lose Whitney's talent, Kentucky is eager to have her join our circuit bench. I'm proud to congratulate Whitney and her family, and we encourage the U.S. Senate to confirm her nomination.' This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: President Trump nominates Tennessee attorney as federal judge
USA Today
25-04-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Latest filing in Title IX lawsuit against Kentucky could have national consequences
Latest filing in Title IX lawsuit against Kentucky could have national consequences If the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decides to do away with the three-part test as the University of Kentucky's counsel wishes, it could spell disaster for the anti-discrimination law. Show Caption Hide Caption UK student speaks about lawsuit against college for violating Title IX University of Kentucky student Elizabeth Niblock is one of two students suing UK for violating Title IV rules. Morgan Watkins/Courier Journal, Louisville Courier Journal In the Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge Karen Caldwell ruled that the plaintiffs didn't prove there were enough female students at or admitted to UK "actually able to compete at a varsity level." Social justice in sports expert and Ithaca College professor Ellen Staurowsky, Ed.D., thinks this lawsuit against UK could have serious implications for the future of Title IX. A gender discrimination lawsuit against the University of Kentucky could have national implications after its latest filing was made to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday evening. Former UK students Ala Hassan and Lisa Niblock filed a federal lawsuit in 2019 alleging the school violated Title IX by not providing equal opportunities for women to participate in varsity sports. Last fall, U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell ruled in the Eastern District of Kentucky that the university was not in violation of the gender-equity law. Iowa-based attorney Lori Bullock filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February, and UK's lawyers submitted their appellee's brief Thursday, according to online court records. In an appellee's brief, the defendants are tasked with outlining why the lower court's decision should stand. They asserted that 46-year-old guidance handed down by the U.S. Department of Education regarding Title IX compliance, otherwise known as the three-part test, "is not entitled to judicial deference, contradicts the statutory text, and conflicts with the regulations, it should have no applicability to this case." Should the court decide the 1979 policy interpretation applies to this case, however, UK argues that it still complies with Title IX. If the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decides to throw out the three-part test, it could devastate the anti-discrimination law. "In this climate, I think these kinds of decisions, the potential impact of them is quite serious," Ellen Staurowsky, Ed.D., Ithaca College professor and social justice in sports expert, told The Courier Journal. "If we put that together with the reductions in workforce with the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education, the emphasis that's being made on speeding up reviews, the Trump administration is talking that language. ... "So the potential implications of this are big." Bullock did not immediately respond to request for comment. UK spokesperson Jay Blanton said the university would "let the brief speak for itself." Under the Department of Education's three-part test, a school can be in compliance with the participation aspects of Title IX in any one of the following ways: — The number of male and female athletes is substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or — The institution has a history and continuing practice of expanding participation opportunities responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex; or — The institution is fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex. UK's legal counsel tried multiple times during the lower court proceedings to have the three-part test thrown out. Lawyers most recently cited a Supreme Court ruling from June between Loper Bright Enterprises and Raimondo, which is also cited in Thursday's brief. The decision made in favor of Loper Bright overturned a 40-year precedent known as 'the Chevron doctrine' directing courts to defer to government agency interpretations of "ambiguous" laws. Caldwell declined to discard the three-part test in the Eastern District of Kentucky but ultimately ruled in UK's favor. It is unclear whether the Loper Bright case can be applied to the Department of Education and the Office of Civil Rights' guidance on Title IX. Staurowsky told The Courier Journal that "the question would be did (the Department of Education and Office for Civil Rights) exceed its authority in issuing the regulations as they are. I'm not sure how this is going to play out." It is also unclear whether a judge would be receptive to a precedent set after this particular lawsuit was filed in 2019. In the Eastern District of Kentucky, Caldwell ruled that UK did not meet two parts of the three-part test used to measure participation opportunities in accordance with a 1979 interpretation of Title IX. Caldwell wrote in her ruling that the plaintiffs had proven UK 'does not provide females (sic) students with intercollegiate varsity participation opportunities in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollment.' Women made up 58.9% of UK's enrollment during the 2023-24 academic year. But less than 51% of UK's varsity athletes participate in women's sports, according to the school's most recent NCAA financial report. Caldwell also found UK didn't prove 'either a history or a continuing practice of program expansion that is demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of its female students," nor did it "present evidence of a plan of program expansion pursuant to which the committee regularly reviews multiple measures of developing interest and ability, like those reviewed for [STUNT], to expand its varsity participation opportunities for females.' Ultimately, though, Caldwell ruled that the plaintiffs did not prove there were enough female students at or admitted to UK who are "actually able to compete at a varsity level in a sport and that there are enough of them to form a team.' She also wrote that the plaintiffs could not prove UK failed to address unmet student interest in the sports they argued it should add: women's lacrosse, field hockey and/or equestrian. Regarding student ability, Caldwell wrote that "neither the club lacrosse nor field hockey club teams has won any championships or otherwise obtained recognition for the skill level of the team or its individual players.' The equestrian team has won accolades at the club level (including a national championship in 2008), but most of the club's team members 'fall below the skill level required for a varsity team," Caldwell wrote. Staurowsky has been following this case for a while. It raises fundamental questions about what Title IX compliance looks like half a century after the law's passage in 1972. Staurowsky believes the plaintiffs effectively laid out how UK failed each prong of the three-part test — by a concerningly wide margin — in their initial complaint and appellee's brief two months ago. Regarding the assertion from UK (which it doubled down on in its latest filing) and Caldwell that club participation alone doesn't translate to a full varsity team, Staurowsky said 'no kidding.' The standard, Staurowsky told The Courier Journal, isn't supposed to be 'plaintiffs deliver a varsity sport, and then we say, 'You can have it.'' The standard, she added, is meant to focus on whether an institution is engaging in sex discrimination. Most Division I programs, regardless of sport, don't recruit their campus anyway, instead looking nationwide (if not internationally) for talent. 'This determination that somehow the plaintiffs hadn't met the burden of demonstrating whether or not they had enough viable candidates,' Staurowsky said, 'I think the logic of that really, really should be challenged. And its potential impact would be considerable.' If the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals judge decides to do away with the three-part test, it could spell disaster for the anti-discrimination law. The three-part test has been used to evaluate Title IX compliance for nearly 50 years. Without it, Title IX could be rendered ineffective. This comes while Title IX is seemingly under siege by various entities and government officials. The Trump administration recently announced its 'Special Investigations Team' to speed up the process of Title IX investigations on the heels of halving the U.S. Department of Education's staff and laying off at least 43% of the Office for Civil Rights. For years, politicians have used transgender women to fearmonger in the name of 'protecting' women's sports. And even as the NCAA seeks congressional intervention with NIL and revenue sharing, Staurowsky said, the governing body uses Title IX as a smokescreen to avoid labeling athletes as 'employees.' 'These large pieces have slowly been getting put into place,' Staurowsky said, 'in very damaging ways.' Reach college sports enterprise reporter Payton Titus at ptitus@ and follow her on X @petitus25.
