National
High court hears arguments in LGBT discrimination case
Student group wants to deny gays full participation
The issue of whether a religious student organization can deny full participation to LGBT people and maintain eligibility as an official group at a public university came before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.
The case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez came before the high court after the University of California in Hastings denied the Hastings Christian Fellowship status as an official student group on the grounds that it prohibits LGBT people from taking positions within group leadership.
In the 2004 academic year, the school affiliated itself with the Christian Legal Society, which has bylaws saying that officers must abstain from “acts of the sinful nature” that includes “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle,” including homosexual behavior.
Consequently, the group has no right to meet on campus, can’t communicate through the law school’s newsletter or weekly e-mail announcement, and can’t receive school funding. The Hastings Christian Fellowship contends the school’s decision violates the group’s First Amendment rights of association and free speech.
Arguing on behalf of the Christian group before the Supreme Court was Michael McConnell, a law professor at Stanford Law School and former judge for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He said that the non-discrimination policy at the law school infringes on the beliefs of chapter members and is a “front assault on freedom of association.”
“A public forum for speech must be open and inclusive, but participants in the argument must be entitled to their own voice,” McConnell said.
He said the policy at the law school would mean that an NAACP chapter would “have to allow a racist skinhead” to participate in board meetings to maintain eligibility as an official school group.
On the other side of the argument and representing the college was Gregory Garre, a partner at the D.C.-based office of Latham & Watkin and a former solicitor general for President George W. Bush.
Garre said the non-discrimination policy the school has in place is neutral and doesn’t target any particular viewpoint or make a distinction between religious and non-religious speech.
“The whole purpose of the policy is to stay out of the argument and have an all-comers policy,” he said.
Garre said similar non-discrimination policies are “not uncommon and reasonable policy” and in place at many colleges, including Georgetown University Law School.
Indicating that LGBT people may in fact be interested in the Hastings Christian Fellowship, Garre noted the record shows that an out lesbian took part in the group’s activities before the group affiliated itself with the national organization.
“The record shows she participated in the discussions,” he said. “The officer of the group said he enjoyed having her there.”
During oral arguments before the Supreme Court, justices volleyed questions at both attorneys on issues ranging from whether the non-discrimination was applied consistently to all college groups to the tradition of giving schools deference in non-discrimination policies.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia asked several questions about whether the school had been consistently applying its policy to all groups in at the college and whether the standards for the non-discrimination policy had morphed since the lawsuit began.
He said the current policy would allow Democrats to become leaders in a Republican group or allow atheists to conduct Bible classes in a Christian group.
Also expressing concern was Associate Justice Samuel Alito. He questioned whether current policy would enable vehemently anti-Muslim people to take over the leadership of a Muslim group at the school.
But Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dismissed the notion that the policy could allow for takeover of some groups, calling such ideas “hypotheticals about sabotage takeover that haven’t happened.” She noted that the law school’s current policy enables diversity.
“Hastings takes the position that it favors diversity not just among the groups, but within the groups,” Ginsburg said.
Also demonstrative some apparent sympathy for the school’s policy was Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who asked whether the policy actually prohibited the group from fulfilling in its mission or meant that the group was being “ostracized or excluded from the school.”
Following the oral arguments, Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center of Lesbian Rights, told DC Agenda the proceedings went “fantastically well” for the defendants, although he said predicting how justices will rule was difficult.
“They recognized that the policy that’s in front of the court is all-comers policy,” Minter said. “It was just very encouraging that a lot of justices understand that that is, under their existing doctrine, a viewpoint-neutral policy.”
A number of national organizations weighed in both sides of the issue, filing friend-of-the-court briefs with plaintiffs and defendants.
In a statement, Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, which filed a brief in support of the law school, said plaintiffs put forth arguments that are substantively ludicrous.
“No one is telling CLS that they can’t shut their doors to whomever they want,” Davidson said. “But they can’t do that if they expect university funds. It’s wrong of them to expect taxpayers and students to pick up the tab for engaging in discrimination against select Hastings’ students.”
Davidson called the lawsuit “another case of an anti-gay group claiming it deserves sympathy when its foot hurts due to kicking gay people in the head.”
But Mat Staver, a prominent social conservative and founder of the Liberty Counsel, said in a statement that the current policy jeopardizes First Amendment rights for the Christian group and potentially others.
“Of all places, one would think a public law school would respect the First Amendment,” he said. “The First Amendment is strong medicine to political correctness. If the government can drive out Christian viewpoints today, it can drive out any viewpoint tomorrow.”
A decision in the case is expected before the end of the current term for the Supreme Court in July.
National
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Delegates also voted for other LGBTQ-inclusive measures
The United Methodist Church on Wednesday removed a ban on gay clergy that was in place for more than 40 years, voting to also allow LGBTQ weddings and end prohibitions on the use of United Methodist funds to “promote acceptance of homosexuality.”
Overturning the policy forbidding the church from ordaining “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” effectively formalized a practice that had caused an estimated quarter of U.S. congregations to leave the church.
The New York Times notes additional votes “affirming L.G.B.T.Q. inclusion in the church are expected before the meeting adjourns on Friday.” Wednesday’s measures were passed overwhelmingly and without debate. Delegates met in Charlotte, N.C.
According to the church’s General Council on Finance and Administration, there were 5,424,175 members in the U.S. in 2022 with an estimated global membership approaching 10 million.
The Times notes that other matters of business last week included a “regionalization” plan, which gave autonomy to different regions such that they can establish their own rules on matters including issues of sexuality — about which international factions are likelier to have more conservative views.
Rev. Kipp Nelson of St. Johns’s on the Lake Methodist Church in Miami shared a statement praising the new developments:
“It is a glorious day in the United Methodist Church. As a worldwide denomination, we have now publicly proclaimed the boundless love of God and finally slung open the doors of our church so that all people, no matter their identities or orientations, may pursue the calling of their hearts.
“Truly, all are loved and belong here among us. I am honored to serve as a pastor in the United Methodist Church for such a time as this, for our future is bright and filled with hope. Praise be, praise be.”
Federal Government
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
New rules protect LGBTQ students from discrimination
Four Republicans state attorneys general have sued the Biden-Harris administration over the U.S. Department of Education’s new Title IX policies that were finalized April 19 and carry anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ students in public schools.
The lawsuit filed on Tuesday, which is led by the attorneys general of Kentucky and Tennessee, follows a pair of legal challenges from nine Republican states on Monday — all contesting the administration’s interpretation that sex-based discrimination under the statute also covers that which is based on the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The administration also rolled back Trump-era rules governing how schools must respond to allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely perceived as biased in favor of the interests of those who are accused.
“The U.S. Department of Education has no authority to let boys into girls’ locker rooms,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement. “In the decades since its adoption, Title IX has been universally understood to protect the privacy and safety of women in private spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms.”
“Florida is suing the Biden administration over its unlawful Title IX changes,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote on social media. “Biden is abusing his constitutional authority to push an ideological agenda that harms women and girls and conflicts with the truth.”
After announcing the finalization of the department’s new rules, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told reporters, “These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights.”
The new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, a question that is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.
LGBTQ and civil rights advocacy groups praised the changes. Lambda Legal issued a statement arguing the new rule “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” adding that it “appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity.”
Federal Government
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Ruling a response to N.C., W.Va. legal challenges
BY ERIN REED | The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that transgender people are a protected class and that Medicaid bans on trans care are unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the court ruled that discriminating based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is discrimination based on gender identity and sex. The ruling is in response to lower court challenges against state laws and policies in North Carolina and West Virginia that prevent trans people on state plans or Medicaid from obtaining coverage for gender-affirming care; those lower courts found such exclusions unconstitutional.
In issuing the final ruling, the 4th Circuit declared that trans exclusions were “obviously discriminatory” and were “in violation of the equal protection clause” of the Constitution, upholding lower court rulings that barred the discriminatory exclusions.
The 4th Circuit ruling focused on two cases in states within its jurisdiction: North Carolina and West Virginia. In North Carolina, trans state employees who rely on the State Health Plan were unable to use it to obtain gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria diagnoses.
In West Virginia, a similar exclusion applied to those on the state’s Medicaid plan for surgeries related to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Both exclusions were overturned by lower courts, and both states appealed to the 4th Circuit.
Attorneys for the states had argued that the policies were not discriminatory because the exclusions for gender affirming care “apply to everyone, not just transgender people.” The majority of the court, however, struck down such a claim, pointing to several other cases where such arguments break down, such as same-sex marriage bans “applying to straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people equally,” even though straight people would be entirely unaffected by such bans.
Other cases cited included literacy tests, a tax on wearing kippot for Jewish people, and interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.
See this portion of the court analysis here:
Of particular note in the majority opinion was a section on Geduldig v. Aiello that seemed laser-targeted toward an eventual U.S. Supreme Court decision on discriminatory policies targeting trans people. Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 ruling, determined that pregnancy discrimination is not inherently sex discrimination because it does not “classify on sex,” but rather, on pregnancy status.
Using similar arguments, the states claimed that gender affirming care exclusions did not classify or discriminate based on trans status or sex, but rather, on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and treatments to alleviate that dysphoria.
The majority was unconvinced, ruling, “gender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.” In doing so, the majority cited several cases, many from after Geduldig was decided.
Notably, Geduldig was cited in both the 6th and 11th Circuit decisions upholding gender affirming care bans in a handful of states.
The court also pointed to the potentially ridiculous conclusions that strict readings of what counts as proxy discrimination could lead to, such as if legislators attempted to use “XX chromosomes” and “XY chromosomes” to get around sex discrimination policies:
Importantly, the court also rebutted recent arguments that Bostock applies only to “limited Title VII claims involving employers who fired” LGBTQ employees, and not to Title IX, which the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination mandate references. The majority stated that this is not the case, and that there is “nothing in Bostock to suggest the holding was that narrow.”
Ultimately, the court ruled that the exclusions on trans care violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The court also ruled that the West Virginia Medicaid Program violates the Medicaid Act and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of anti-trans expert testimony for lacking relevant expertise. West Virginia and North Carolina must end trans care exclusions in line with earlier district court decisions.
The decision will likely have nationwide impacts on court cases in other districts. The case had become a major battleground for trans rights, with dozens of states filing amicus briefs in favor or against the protection of the equal process rights of trans people. Twenty-one Republican states filed an amicus brief in favor of denying trans people anti-discrimination protections in healthcare, and 17 Democratic states joined an amicus brief in support of the healthcare rights of trans individuals.
Many Republican states are defending anti-trans laws that discriminate against trans people by banning or limiting gender-affirming care. These laws could come under threat if the legal rationale used in this decision is adopted by other circuits. In the 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction, West Virginia and North Carolina already have gender-affirming care bans for trans youth in place, and South Carolina may consider a similar bill this week.
The decision could potentially be used as precedent to challenge all of those laws in the near future and to deter South Carolina’s bill from passing into law.
The decision is the latest in a web of legal battles concerning trans people. Earlier this month, the 4th Circuit also reversed a sports ban in West Virginia, ruling that Title IX protects trans student athletes. However, the Supreme Court recently narrowed a victory for trans healthcare from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and allowed Idaho to continue enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for everyone except the two plaintiffs in the case.
Importantly, that decision was not about the constitutionality of gender-affirming care, but the limits of temporary injunctions in the early stages of a constitutional challenge to discriminatory state laws. It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately hear cases on this topic in the near future.
Celebrating the victory, Lambda Legal Counsel and Health Care Strategist Omar Gonzalez-Pagan said in a posted statement, “The court’s decision sends a clear message that gender-affirming care is critical medical care for transgender people and that denying it is harmful and unlawful … We hope this decision makes it clear to policy makers across the country that health care decisions belong to patients, their families, and their doctors, not to politicians.”
****************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
Blade Summer Kickoff Party returns to Rehoboth
Andy Cohen coming to D.C.
Want to dance for a good cause?
Calendar: May 3-9
Brittney Griner considered suicide in Russian prison
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
Pride season has begun
