Federal Court Rules N. Carolina’s Anti-Trans “Bathroom Bill” Unconstitutional
In a huge blow to anti-LGBT conservatives across the country, a federal court has just ruled that North Carolina’s discriminatory anti-transgender “bathroom” law, HB 2, is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates Title IX of the Education Amendments to the Civil Rights Act.
HB 2 “directs all public schools, government agencies and public college campuses to require that multiple-occupancy bathrooms and changing facilities, such as locker rooms, be designated for use only by people based on their “biological sex” stated on their birth certificate,” specifically targeting transgender Americans from not using bathrooms that don’t correspond to their “biological sex,” thus mounting an existential refutation of the idea of gender fluidity and helping to propagate a dangerous myth that transgender Americans are simply pretending to have different genders in order to sexually assault women and children.
US District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder noted, “Ultimately, the record reflects what counsel for Governor [Pat] McCrory candidly speculates was the status quo ante in North Carolina in recent years: some transgender individuals have been quietly using bathrooms and other facilities that match their gender identity, without public awareness or incident. Accordingly, the court will enjoin UNC from enforcing Part I against the individual transgender Plaintiffs until the court reaches a final decision on the merits in this case.”
HB 2 has triggered a firestorm of condemnation around the country, prompting the NBA to move it’s All-Star game out of the state and a host of other business to pull their dollars from the state. Governor Pat McCrory has stubbornly stuck by his discriminatory laws, to the point where he’s in real danger of losing his seat – and many voters say it’s this hateful bills that’s hurting him. If this injunction stands, it will be a huge blow to right-wing religious anti-gay extremism and a decisive win for tolerance in the United States.
###
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/08/26/just-federal-court-rules-n-carolinas-anti-trans-bathroom-bill-unconstitutional/
_________________________________________________________________________
Federal Judge Blocks Portions of North Carolina’s Anti-LGBTQ Law
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder ruled on the legality of North Carolina’s HB2, a wide-reaching anti-LGBTQ law. The result is a partial success for HB2’s critics—especially with regard to HB2’s requirement that universities discriminate against transgender students and employees. But the ruling also suggests that Schroeder, a George W. Bush appointee, is skeptical of the plaintiffs’ broader claims about HB2’s unconstitutionality. The upshot is that HB2’s legal opponents have a fair amount to celebrate—and a lot more work to do.
Schroeder rendered a judgment on two central challenges to the North Carolina law: First, that it violates federal law; and second, that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Department of Education currently interprets Title IX’s ban on “sex discrimination” to encompass anti-trans discrimination, including the exclusion of trans people from the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity. Through this interpretation, the DOE has found that federally funded schools may not prevent trans people from using their preferred bathroom. Yet HB2 explicitly prevented trans people from using the bathroom at school unless they altered their birth certificate, which is impossible in some states.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has affirmed the legitimacy of the DOE’s interpretation of Title IX. As a district court judge within the 4th Circuit, Schroeder is bound by that determination. Thus, he adhered to it in his ruling, holding that HB2 cannot be used to prevent trans university students from using the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. This judgment is, in itself, a considerable victory against HB2. The law applied only to government buildings, and a huge proportion of government buildings are located on university campuses. Schroeder’s decision further solidifies the widespread sentiment that HB2 represented an unjustifiable interference into higher education.
But Schroeder’s ruling on the equal protection challenge was vastly more favorable to the state. Schroeder found, correctly, that HB2—which categorizes citizens based on their “biological sex”—constitutes sex discrimination, requiring intermediate scrutiny. He explains that this standard requires HB2 to be “substantially related to an important government interest,” or it violates the Equal Protection Clause. Schroeder concludes that “protection of bodily privacy is an important government interest,” satisfying the test’s first prong. He then writes that the question of whether HB2 is “substantially related” to that interest requires him to decide whether “sex” means “physiological differences between men and women” or “differences in gender identity.”
more
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/08/26/federal_judge_blocks_portions_of_hb2.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Dismayingly long ago now, I told our kids that good manners required one both to accept implicitly an individual's sexual identity as presented and to keep one's mind from probing too inquisitively under skirts and inside zippers. California, live and let live, and at that time that was pretty much most of it for that subject.
