MÁ Currás, J Klüger, J Wessels – European Human Rights Law Review, 2025
Abstract On 12 November 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
passed judgment in the case of MI v Switzerland. MI was an Iranian man whose
asylum claim on the grounds of sexual orientation was rejected by the Swiss …
Webinar: The Supreme Court and Trans Sports, 15 January 2026
| On January 13, 2026, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases involving state restrictions on transgender participation in sports: West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. The Court will consider whether bans on transgender athletes violate Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination in education or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Join Williams Institute scholars and other legal experts on January 15 at noon to explore the significance of the cases, the oral arguments, and what the Court’s decision could mean for transgender youth. RSVP today! UCLA School of Law is a State Bar of California-approved MCLE provider. This session is approved for one hour of MCLE credit. |
US Supreme Court turns away appeal of Texas library book ban
WASHINGTON, Dec 8 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court in a free speech case on Monday opted not to hear an appeal by a group of residents of a rural Texas county of a judicial decision allowing local officials to remove 17 books that these officials deemed objectionable from public libraries.
The justices let stand a lower court’s decision allowing the removal of books including ones dealing with themes of race and LGBT identity, from its public library system. The lower court rejected the argument made by the plaintiffs that removing the books was unlawful under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections against government abridgment of free speech.
More: https://www.reuters.com/world/us-supreme-court-turns-away-appeal-texas-library-book-ban-2025-12-08/
Dangerous New Reporting Guidelines for US Annual Human Rights Reports
The U.S. State Department recently sent new instructions to all U.S. embassies to guide in the preparation of the State Department’s 2025 Human Rights Reports. (See our LinkedIn post on this here.) As expected, they are removing the section of the annual report that covers abuses against LGBTQI+ persons. But even more alarming, they are now requiring reporting on transgender medical care as a human rights abuse involving the “chemical or surgical mutilation of children.” In short, the reports are no longer even vaguely credible on LGBTQI+ issues and are now creating an anti-rights framework to legitimize attacks against our communities.
The Council for Global Equality (CGE) has long encouraged human rights groups to report abuses to U.S. embassies for inclusion in the annual human rights reports. Over the past years, based on those local partnerships and the work of a dedicated LGBTQI+ policy team at the State Department in Washington, the U.S. human rights reports became increasingly comprehensive and were used by the United States and many other governments to formulate policy and adjudicate refugee claims. Unfortunately, based on recent instructions and the last 2024 reports, we now know the next reports will no longer be credible on LGBTQI+ and related issues, and CGE fears that the continued submission of information to U.S. embassies could create risks for the community itself.
Given this new policy directive, we encourage groups to maintain cautious contact with trusted U.S. embassy staff, but we also urge groups to exercise extreme caution if you plan to submit information to U.S. embassies or the State Department, as we fear the information could be twisted or used against community interests. For refugee and asylum adjudication purposes only, there may be ways to submit relevant information on extrajudicial executions, torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of LGBTQI+ persons, but please reach out to us (info@globalequality.org) or refugee groups directly to discuss how best to present and submit that information so that it is not cited inappropriately.
At the same time, we want to encourage all human rights groups to continue to document and share information widely on abuses targeting LGBTQI+ persons — that information is more important than ever given the current backlash. Many of you already have robust dissemination networks for your data, including other embassies and the European Union, but please feel free to reach out to discuss how to ensure your documentation reaches the broadest possible audience. And please note that the following CGE member organizations and allied human rights groups regularly compile human rights reports that document violations against LGBTQI+ people globally, which are often useful for policymakers in Washington and beyond: Amnesty International USA, Global Justice Institute, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, ILGA, Outright International, Synergía – Initiatives for Human Rights, and The Williams Institute. Please reach out to those groups directly or reach out to us to help make connections to share your documentation.
Repost: Affirming the (Constitutional) Belonging of Sexual Minorities in Saint Lucia: The ECSC Propels a Commonwealth Caribbean Renaissance
by —Amanda Janell DeAmor Quest, Commonwealth Caribbean Lawyer, LLB (Hons), LEC
On July 29, 2025, the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (“the ECSC”)[1] delivered its judgment in the landmark decision of Randall Theodule & Ors v The Attorney General of Saint Lucia [2025] ECSC J0729-1 (“the ECSC decision”), where it declared sections 132 and 133 of Saint Lucia’s Criminal Code, Cap. 3.01 of the Revised Edition of the Laws of Saint Lucia (“sections 132 and 133 of the Criminal Code”) unconstitutional. Crucially, it insisted that by criminalising consensual sexual activity between adults of the same sex and anal sex between men, even in private, sections 132 and 133 of the Criminal Code contravened various fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Saint Lucia (“the Constitution”). Beyond its formal vindication of their constitutional rights, the ECSC decision affirms the (constitutional) belonging of sexual minorities in Saint Lucia and propels a Commonwealth Caribbean renaissance on sexual minority rights.
The ECSC decision
The ECSC began by addressing certain preliminary objections raised by the Defendant. In this respect, it confirmed that section 1 of the Constitution – an “opening section” that enumerates, among others, the right to the protection of the law – conferred enforceable rights and was not just a “preamble”. In so concluding, the ECSC relied upon the holding of the Caribbean Court of Justice (“the CCJ”) in Nervais v The Queen and Severin v The Queen [2018] CCJ 19 (AJ) (“Nervais”), where the CCJ insisted that section 11 of the Barbados Constitution, “which substantially mirrors section 1 of the Saint Lucia Constitution”, was separately enforceable (paragraphs 94-96). The ECSC also concluded that the Claimants possessed the requisite locus standi to “challenge laws which criminalise homosexual conduct”, and did not have “to await prosecution…to experience a violation” (paragraph 109).
The ECSC thereafter considered, in extenso, whether sections 132 and 133 of the Criminal Code qualified as “existing laws for the purposes of section 2 of the Constitution Order” so as to be immunised from constitutional scrutiny (paragraph 140). Given Saint Lucia’s recent accession to the appellate jurisdiction of the CCJ, the ECSC was bound to adopt the CCJ’s unique hermeneutical approach in McEwan and Others v The AG of Guyana [2018] CCJ 30 (AJ) (“McEwan”). Accordingly, after examining their legislative history, the ECSC concluded that sections 132 and 133 of the Criminal Code were not “existing laws” for the purposes of section 2 of the Constitution Order. With regard to section 132, the ECSC emphasised that it “was clearly a new enactment which created an offence not previously known to the criminal law”, and was therefore not inoculated from constitutional scrutiny (paragraph 149). As for section 133, the ECSC clarified that it “in large measure criminalised buggery between consenting homosexual adult males while decriminalising it in the case of consenting heterosexual couples”, and so was “not impervious to constitutional review” (paragraph 166).
Turning to the claims of substantive rights infringements, the ECSC conducted a thoughtful assessment of arguments advanced by both sides, and concluded as follows:
Having established violations of the Claimants’ constitutional rights, the ECSC considered whether there was any constitutionally sanctioned justification for the infringements. It answered this question in the negative (paragraph 173). Amidst virulent socio-cultural disapprobation of homosexuality, the ECSC emphasised that “the criminalisation of homosexual conduct may also have the tendency to deprive homosexual individuals of their right to the protection of the law.” It further identified “public humiliation, vilification and even physical attacks” experienced by homosexuals as a “concomitant effect” of the stigmatisation that criminalising homosexual conduct engendered. Those occurrences, it reasoned, were incompatible with the “dignity of certain categories of citizens” and “evolving standards of decency in a free and democratic society” (paragraph 188).
In conclusion, the ECSC held that sections 132 and 133 of the Criminal Code were unconstitutional, having unjustifiably infringed the Claimants’ constitutional rights to, inter alia, the protection of the law, liberty, freedom of expression, and privacy. It therefore ordered their modification to exclude acts of “gross indecency” between consenting adults of the same sex and “buggery” between “consenting persons aged 16 or older in private” (paragraph 205).
Affirming the (constitutional) belonging of sexual minorities in Saint Lucia
The “need to belong” is inherent in human nature. According to social psychologists, Dr. Roy Baumeister and Dr. Mark Leary, this need is “deeply rooted and powerful”. Moreover, as a “fundamental human motivation”, the need to belong is “found to some degree in all humans in all cultures”. The satisfaction of the need to belong is so essential to actualising human contentment that, as noted social psychologist, Dr. Geoffrey Cohen puts it, “threats to belonging” can feel “biologically…similar to the experience of pain”. Unfortunately, however, as Dr. Cohen explains, “[a]lthough most of us know what it feels like to be excluded or question our belonging…we don’t do the greatest job of recognizing that feeling when it happens to others”. Dr. Cohen’s observation is especially helpful in contextualising societal apathy towards sexual minorities and other “underrepresented or stereotyped groups”, for whom “threats to belonging” reflect a “continual reality in many…[social] institutions”. For decades, sexual minorities in Saint Lucia have experienced what Dr. Cohen describes as a “crisis of belonging”, largely occasioned by interminable discrimination, social ostracism, exclusion and targeted violence. Quite apart from the obvious physical health consequences, those threats to belonging can produce “a host of negative long-term psychological consequences”. Moreover, discriminatory criminal laws that infringe their fundamental rights, designate them as outlaws, and instigate targeted violence exacerbate the crisis of belonging often experienced by sexual minorities in homophobic socio-cultural contexts.
Against that backdrop, the ECSC decision assumes particular significance for its decidedly counter-majoritarian stance in affirming the (constitutional) belonging of sexual minorities within Saint Lucia. Indeed, beyond any doctrinal significance, it challenges the enduring crisis of belonging experienced by sexual minorities in Saint Lucia due to their systematic exclusion from full membership and moral citizenship within the society. Despite the ECSC’s marked focus on constitutional rights-based doctrinal analysis, its references to notions of “dignity” and “evolving standards of decency in a free and democratic society” strongly implicate the importance of the Constitution’s preamble to human rights adjudication. Attorney General of Barbados v Joseph[2006] CCJ 1 (AJ) (“Joseph”) underscores the importance of judicial attention to the preamble when adjudicating human rights matters and insisted that the Constitution “as a whole has to be understood and interpreted” in light of the preamble as their words reflect, among other things, the “values…of constitutional democracies…” (paragraph 18 of the judgment of Wit J in Joseph). The CCJ has since reiterated this position, maintaining that courts must be guided by the “statements of fundamental principle” espoused by a constitution’s preamble when “adjudicating complaints of human rights infringements” (paragraph 61 of McEwan).
Within Saint Lucia’s constitutional context, some such preambular statements of fundamental principle include, most compellingly, a recognition and acceptance that “all persons have been endowed by God with inalienable rights and dignity”, and “…each person…is under obligation to observe and promote the rights, freedoms and values recognised in this constitution…” These are more than mere abstract ideals. On the contrary, they reflect a commitment– embodied in Saint Lucia’s supreme law – to the equality, human dignity, and empathy that criminalisation denies sexual minorities. Accordingly, in proclaiming statements of fundamental principle that emphasise the inherent dignity, worthiness of all constitutional subjects, the preamble of the Constitution solemnly champions the belonging of sexual minorities, as human beings endowed by God with inalienable rights and dignity.
Thus, by invalidating sections 132 and 133 of the Criminal Code, which exacerbated their crisis of belonging by perpetuating institutionalised discrimination, the ECSC decision has affirmed the (constitutional) belonging of sexual minorities in Saint Lucia with important constitutional implications. To this end, it has legitimised the statements of fundamental principles espoused by the Constitution’s preamble as well as its substantive provisions providing protection from discrimination irrespective of status. In particular, the ECSC’s references to the “dignity of…citizens” and “evolving standards of decency…in a democratic society” throughout its analysis demonstrates how preambular statements of fundamental principles can permeate and guide substantive rights adjudication, even without being explicitly invoked. Accordingly, the ECSC decision demonstrates that – consistent with the preambular vision for an inclusive Saint Lucian polity in which each person is endowed with dignity and ought to respect the rights of other persons – the Constitution must be construed as recognising and affirming the belonging of all persons, including sexual minorities.
Equally important, in rendering its decision vindicating the constitutional rights of sexual minorities, the ECSC has assigned constitutional significance to the socio-psychological concept of belonging, transforming it into a legally recognised form of membership within the Saint Lucian polity. By so doing, it has also validated the fundamental human need to belong, which is said to be “essential for human flourishing”.
As well, with its clear rejection of majoritarian conceptions of morality as a basis for criminalising conduct that is intricately connected to the expression by homosexuals of their full humanity and which does no harm to the society, the ECSC decision legitimises their claims to full moral citizenship. Its decidedly counter-majoritarian approach on the issue of sexual minority rights – as championed in National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality – also positions dignity, equality, social inclusion, and belonging at the heart of Saint Lucian constitutionalism. Ultimately, while the ECSC decision cannot entirely resolve the persistent crisis of belonging experienced by sexual minorities within the Saint Lucian society, it dismantles one of the legal foundations upon which state authored exclusion has rested, and affirms their (constitutional) belonging and inherent dignity as rights-holders deserving of full moral citizenship.
The ECSC Propels a Commonwealth Caribbean Renaissance
Without question, the Commonwealth Caribbean has seen advancements in the promotion of sexual minority rights. Despite this, homosexuality and gender non-conformity remain notorious causes célèbres within Commonwealth Caribbean societies since “…homophobia permeates the region…” and is “part of the culture of the Caribbean”. Be that as it may, amidst this climate of exclusion, the ECSC decision as well as similar ones rendered in Belize, Barbados, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Dominica herald a Commonwealth Caribbean renaissance concerned with dismantling colonial-era criminal laws legitimising and perpetuating discrimination against sexual minorities. In this regard, affirmative judicial interventions are particularly meaningful in a region where colonially transplanted laws have long denied sexual minorities their dignity, rights, and sense of belonging. However, beyond its substantive doctrinal contributions – clarifying the scope of constitutional rights as well as mitigating the debilitating effect of the “existing laws” or “savings law” clause, which precludes courts from declaring colonial-era laws to be violative of constitutional rights – the ECSC decision propels this Commonwealth Caribbean renaissance by building upon the progress advanced by regional judicial renderings on sexual minority rights. The message it conveys is pellucidly clear: majoritarian conceptions of morality should not, without more, determine who belongs.
Suggested citation: Amanda Janell DeAmor Quest, Affirming the (Constitutional) Belonging of Sexual Minorities in Saint Lucia: The ECSC Propels a Commonwealth Caribbean Renaissance, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Dec. 5, 2025, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/affirming-the-constitutional-belonging-of-sexual-minorities-in-saint-lucia-the-ecsc-propels-a-commonwealth-caribbean-renaissance/
[1] The ECSC has unlimited jurisdiction to hear and determine legal matters in Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and the British Virgin Islands.
The post Affirming the (Constitutional) Belonging of Sexual Minorities in Saint Lucia: The ECSC Propels a Commonwealth Caribbean Renaissance appeared first on www.iconnectblog.com.
JOB OPENINGS at the UCLA School of Law Williams Institute
Tokyo High Court ruling upholds same-sex marriage ban
The Tokyo High Court on Friday issued the final pending appellate decision in Japan’s nationwide same-sex marriage litigation, holding that the country’s statutory framework limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate the Constitution of Japan. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims of breach of constitutional guarantees to equality and individual dignity. It rejected their request for damages on the basis that no constitutional injury had been established.
The ruling stands in contrast to earlier high court judgments issued between 2021 and 2024. Courts in Sapporo, Nagoya, Osaka, Fukuoka, and in an earlier Tokyo appeal found aspects of the current marriage framework unconstitutional. Several of those courts held that Article 14(1) of the Constitution prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and justified their decisions by Article 24’s requirement for marriage and family law to be based on “individual dignity” and the “essential equality of the sexes.” The latest decision, by contrast, concluded that the legislature retains broad discretion to define marriage, with Presiding Judge Yumi Toa affirming that provisions governing same-sex marriage ought to be thoroughly deliberated in the legislature.
The court also rejected the argument that denying same-sex couples access to marriage infringes Article 14’s equality guarantee, holding that distinctions grounded in the current civil code definition do not amount to unconstitutional discrimination.
Many municipalities and prefectures across Japan offer recognition through partnership certificates for same-sex couples. However, these frameworks do not provide the full legal rights associated with marriage, such as automatic parental recognition, inheritance, and spousal tax treatment.
The decision creates a direct conflict among courts, leaving Japan without a uniform interpretation of constitutional protections relating to marriage. Lawyers for LGBT & Allies Network (LLAN), which has previously translated major marriage-equality rulings, noted the significance of the divergence between this outcome and the 2024 Tokyo High Court judgment that held the ban unconstitutional.
The issue is now expected to proceed to the Supreme Court of Japan, a unified ruling would determine whether the Constitution permits or requires marriage equality and could clarify the relationship between Articles 14 and 24 in the context of contemporary family structures.
The post Tokyo High Court ruling upholds same-sex marriage ban appeared first on JURIST – News.
Katholische Kirche: Sexuelle Neigung bleibt Einstellungskriterium
Lange mussten queere römisch-katholische Seelsorgende ihre sexuelle Orientierung geheim halten. Sie widersprach der katholischen Sexualmoral. Vor drei Jahren gab es Hoffnung, dass sich das ändert. Nun haben die Schweizer Bischöfe Stellung bezogen und es zeigt sich: Es ändert sich wenig.
Ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-713/23 Wojewoda Mazowiecki: Member States must recognise same sex marriages lawfully concluded in another EU country when couples exercise their freedom of movement
“Article 20 and Article 21(1) TFEU, read in the light of Article 7 and Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, on the ground that the law of that Member State does not allow marriage between persons of the same sex, does not permit the recognition of a marriage between two same-sex nationals of that Member State concluded lawfully in the exercise of their freedom to move and reside within another Member State, in which they have created or strengthened a family life, or the transcription for that purpose of the marriage certificate in the civil register of the first Member State, where that transcription is the only means provided for by that Member State for such recognition.“
__________________________________________
The Network of European LGBTIQ* Families Associations (NELFA) welcomes today’s ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-713/23, which confirms that Member States must recognise same sex marriages lawfully concluded in another EU country when couples exercise their freedom of movement.
The case concerned two Polish citizens who married in Germany and asked for their marriage certificate to be transcribed into the Polish civil register. Polish authorities refused, citing domestic law that bans marriage for same sex couples. The Court found that this refusal violates EU freedom of movement and the right to private and family life, making clear that Member States cannot deny the marital status that couples have legally acquired elsewhere in the Union.
The judges confirmed that such recognition does not force a Member State to introduce marriage equality in its national legislation. What it does require is equal treatment in procedures that already exist. If a country provides a single route to recognising foreign marriages, it must apply that route without discrimination based on sexual orientation.
NELFA strongly welcomes this decision. It affirms what we have been saying for years. Rainbow families must not lose their rights when crossing borders inside the European Union. Our members span countries with very different legal systems, and we constantly see the harm caused when children and parents move from a country that recognises their family to one that denies it. Today’s ruling sends a clear message that EU law stands firmly on the side of family unity and legal continuity.
This judgment also highlights the urgency for many Member States to update their laws and administrative procedures so they no longer create obstacles for LGBTIQ* families. The Court’s reasoning mirrors what civil society, legal experts and the European Court of Human Rights have repeatedly stressed. In 2023, the Strasbourg Court held that Poland failed to provide any legal framework for same sex couples, reinforcing the need for structural change.
NELFA will continue to advocate for full recognition of rainbow families across the EU, including parenthood recognition, access to parenthood rights, and the removal of discriminatory barriers in cross border situations. This ruling is another strong building block that moves Europe closer to a Union where all families are treated with dignity and respect, everywhere.
For media inquiries: info@nelfa.org
Find the judgment here: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-713/23
Uganda secures $2 billion in World Bank financing as lending resumes [following a nearly two-year suspension triggered by the country’s controversial anti-LGBTQ legislation]
More: https://thedigitalbanker.com/uganda-secures-2-billion-in-world-bank-financing-as-lending-resumes/
Executive Director The Williams Institute is seeking an Executive Director to help guide our next chapter. Candidates should have a passion for rigorous research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, a strong appreciation for the Institute’s voice and values, and deep understanding of the policy issues facing LGBTQ communities. Ideal candidates will hold a J.D. or social science Ph.D., bring senior leadership experience, and have a proven record of innovation and collaboration across a broad range of partners and audiences. Deadline to apply: January 2, 2026 
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 