Connect with us

National

Court affirms ruling against pro-LGBT Louisiana executive order

Published

on

Bilal Ahmed

An appeals court has upheld a ruling against a pro-LGBT Louisiana executive order.

A state appeals court in Louisiana has affirmed Gov. John Bel Edwards’ executive order barring anti-LGBT discrimination in the state government and among state contractors is unconstitutional.

In a nine-page decision issued Wednesday, Judge Toni Higginbotham of the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal for the Second District concludes the executive order violates separation of power and is an overreach of the governor’s authority.

“The governor’s executive order in this case goes beyond a mere policy statement or directive to fulfill law, because there is no current state or federal law specifically outlining anti-discrimination laws concerning and/or defining sexual orientation or gender identity,” Higginbotham writes.

The order affirms a decision issued by Judge Todd Hernandez of the 19th Judicial District Court in December as the result of a dispute between Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican, and the Democratic governor.

“Having found the governor’s executive order invalid, we conclude that the district court did not err in permanently enjoining the mandatory adoption of the executive order,” the order says.

The decision also vacates the lower court ruling’s on the dispute of constitutional powers between the governor and the attorney general because, without than the issues raised by the executive order, no factual dispute exists and any ruling would constitute an advisory opinion.

The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second District, located in Baton Rouge, consists of 12 judges, each of whom serve on the bench as a result of popular election, not appointment. The case was before a three-judge panel consisting of Higginbotham, Judge Guy Holdridge and Judge Allison Hopkins Penzato.

In a written note at bottom of the first page of the decision, Holdridge indicates he “concurs in the result” of the decision, but suggests he finds other implications.

Edwards signed the executive order in July 2016. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of several categories — including sexual orientation and gender identity — in state agencies in terms of services, employment and purchases of contracts and for state contractors in terms of employment. The component related to purchases of contracts and contractors had an exemption for churches and religious organizations.

In a statement after the decision, Edwards said his office “will thoroughly review the ruling before determining our next steps.”

“I have said repeatedly that discrimination is not a Louisiana value, and this decision does not change my conviction that hiring decisions in state government should be based on merit alone,” Edwards said. “Discrimination in state government and by state contractors is wrong, makes us weaker, and is bad for business and economic development.”

Edwards pointed to President Trump’s decision to keep in place an Obama-era executive order barring anti-LGBT workplace discrimination among federal contractors as evidence the state order is lawful.

“Even President Trump agrees, as he has kept in place a federal executive order which is virtually identical to the order I put in place,” Edwards said. “I went a step further and provided an exemption for certain religious organizations.”

Claiming victory, Landry said the court ruling “affirms a notion of basic civics that the legislature makes the law, not the governor.”

“We do not live under a king in Louisiana; we have a governor, an independent attorney general, an elected legislature, and a court system who are all involved in the governing of our state,” Landry said. “I applaud the professionalism and attention of the Court of Appeal in these matters.”

No state law in Louisiana protects LGBT people from discrimination in Louisiana. Now that Landry has succeeded in enjoining enforcement of executive order, LGBT people will have rely on other resources to seek recourse from discrimination, which may include local civil rights law and other non-discrimination policies. Federal law against sex discrimination, which increasingly has been interpreted to apply to LGBT people, still holds in Louisiana.

Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill also commended the court for ruling against Bel Edwards’ executive order in a statement.

“This dispute was always about separation of powers and executive overreach,” Murrill said. “The governor tried to make it something else and, in doing so, deflected that basic issue. Our position has been consistent – expanding the law to create new protected classes requires legislative action.”

 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports

27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.

In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.

The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.

“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.

He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”

“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”

Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”

Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House

University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

Published

on

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon (Screen capture: C-SPAN)

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”

The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.

“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”

Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”

Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”

Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.

Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.

The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.

Continue Reading

New York

Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade

One of the victims remains in critical condition

Published

on

The Stonewall National Memorial in New York on June 19, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.

According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.

The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.

The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.

In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.

The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.

New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.

“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”

Continue Reading

Popular