The conservative push for a narrow definition of gender, for the Gender Action Plan (GAP), could undo decades of updates to the UN’s language and weaken the very foundations of inclusive climate action, negotiators at COP30 tell TNM .The fight, they say, is now about power, patriarchy and who gets to influence climate policy.
USA: Ohio Man Who Sued to Get “GAY” License Plate Achieves His Dream
An Ohio man has finally received his “GAY” license plate, two months after the state Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) agreed to relax some restrictions on banned words for custom plates.
In September, William Saki filed a lawsuit against state officials for rejecting his application for a license plate reading “GAY,” arguing such a rejection violated his free speech rights. In a sworn declaration, Saki said that the BMV website had prevented him from registering a plate reading simply “GAY,” which he said he wanted to claim for National Coming Out Day.
More: https://www.them.us/story/william-saki-ohio-gay-license-plate-law-suit
Netherlands court upholds decision rejecting asylum for US transgender woman
A Dutch court on Monday upheld the decision by the Netherlands government to deny asylum to US transgender woman Veronica Clifford-Carlos. The court acknowledged the worsening conditions for transgender persons in the United States, but held that she was not facing systematic denial of protection or essential services.
Clifford-Carlos, 28, is said to be the first person to have fled the Trump administration to seek asylum in the Netherlands. In September 2024, Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Caspar Veldkamp told Dutch newspaper Parool that, while certain US rules affecting transgender people were “worrying,” they did not generally risk prosecution or serious harm.
The court, however, sent the case back to the immigration authorities for review because of a procedural error that undermines the basis of the original rejection, giving the applicant an opportunity to present new evidence to prove that she faces a “real risk” of persecution.
This condition particularly arises from Article 1 (A) (2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. According to the convention, a person is considered a refugee and has a right to be granted asylum if he or she can demonstrate a “well-founded fear” of persecution, a real risk of harm or severe violations of their human rights. This definition factors in both general, systemic threats and the individual situation of the applicant.
Under EU law, Article 61 of EU Regulation 2024/1348 further allows for the possibility of denying protection to asylum seekers by designating other countries as “safe countries of origin.” This makes it legal for a state to reject an applicant if the person faces no “real risk” of imminent harm in their country of origin, and there are effective legal remedies in the event of any harm. The Dutch immigration authority currently designates the US as a “safe country of origin,” and this was upheld in this case by the Amsterdam court. Nonetheless, the Netherlands government has recently launched programs to grant “academic asylum” for researchers fleeing the restrictive scientific environment in the US.
Clifford Carlos stated that although she lived in San Francisco, which is known as a hub for nonbinary and transgender people, she had received death threats and harassment while walking down the street. She was also treated with suspicion in hospitals. According to her lawyer, the Dutch authorities underestimated the conditions in the US, comparing them to 1930s Germany under the rise of the Nazi regime.
US President Donald Trump enacted various measures limiting the rights of transgender persons, such as the exclusion of transgender people from military service and a ban on gender-transition care for minors. The government further restricted the right of transgender and nonbinary people to indicate on a passport the sex that corresponds to their gender identity. The current US administration also banned terms such as “gender identity,” “transsexual,” and “non-binary” in official communications, drastically changing the language referring to the LGBTQ community. Trump additionally has banned trans women from women’s sports competitions and sent trans women to men’s prisons.
The post Netherlands court upholds decision rejecting asylum for US transgender woman appeared first on JURIST – News.
Remedial Duty and Defiance: The Constitutional Stakes of Hong Kong’s Expired Suspended Declaration on Same-Sex Partnerships
—Chi-Sang Poon, Hong Kong Rule of Law Initiative (HKROLIN)[1]
On 27 October 2025, the Court of Final Appeal’s suspended declaration in Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice [2023] HKCFA 31 expired without the required legislated framework for recognising same-sex partnerships. This lapse crystallizes a continuing constitutional breach of Hong Kong’s “mini-constitution,” the Basic Law—particularly Articles 4 and 39, which impose positive obligations on all branches to safeguard rights. In a political landscape reshaped by the 2020 National Security Law, the case now tests whether final judicial remedies retain binding force amid deepening executive–legislative defiance. Reaffirming the suspended declaration as an enforceable restitution order—not a symbolic advisory—this article rebuts “no-consequences” narratives, draws on domestic (W) and comparative (Fourie, Doucet-Boudreau, M v H) precedents, and situates Hong Kong within a three-tiered remedial framework: the UK’s advisory declarations, Canada’s restraint-based model, and Hong Kong’s Basic Law, which uniquely imposes an explicit constitutional duty to implement rights. It argues that Sham’s demand for wholly new legislation—rather than administrative adjustment—poses an unprecedented constitutional challenge that requires the Court of Final Appeal to fulfil its duty under the Basic law to hold the political branches accountable for upholding their positive obligations. It further underscores the emerging role of amicus curiae participation as a remedial safeguard against informational asymmetry, enabling proportionate escalation of supervision where non-compliance persists.
At first glance, the expiry of the suspended declaration in Sham Tsz Kit may seem a narrow setback in the recognition of same-sex partnerships. For comparative public-law observers, however, it exposes a deeper tension: whether time-limited judicial remedies retain binding force at expiry amid entrenched resistance to rights reform.
The Basic Law functions as Hong Kong’s post-handover “mini-constitution.” Article 39 incorporates ICCPR guarantees via the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (HKBOR); Article 4 imposes a positive obligation to safeguard rights; and Article 82 vests final adjudicative authority in the Court of Final Appeal (CFA). Once the CFA identifies a rights violation, remedial compliance is constitutionally required – not discretionary.
Since 2020, this architecture has come under acute strain. The 2021 electoral overhaul yielded a legislature closely aligned with executive priorities, narrowing policy space for contested initiatives. Policymaking has become vertically coordinated; dissent, politically costly; and rights-based reform, an unthinkable luxury. The Legislative Council’s September 2025 veto of the Government’s Registration of Same-sex Partnerships Bill—blocking executive implementation of a judicial order—exemplifies this shift.
Practical enforceability now depends as much on executive–legislative cooperation as on doctrine. It was against precisely this risk that the CFA issued a suspended declaration of invalidity—a device long recognised in jurisdictions such as South Africa and Canada—and extended the suspension to two years, anticipating legislative resistance.
Expiry following coordinated abstention now poses a constitutional question without precedent: if the legislature declines to legislate and the executive defers to that inaction, does finality dissolve—or does the Court retain supervisory authority to prevent its judgment from being hollowed out? Suspended declarations derive legitimacy from activation at expiry. Sham will test whether that activation point retains legal consequence in Hong Kong’s positive-obligation framework.
The litigation began in 2020, challenging Hong Kong’s blanket non-recognition of overseas same-sex marriages. The appeal advanced three propositions: (1) a constitutional right to same-sex marriage; (2) a positive obligation to provide an alternative framework for legal recognition; and (3) recognition in Hong Kong of foreign same-sex marriages.
On 5 September 2023, the Court of Final Appeal unanimously rejected (1) and (3), but—by majority—accepted (2): the Government is under a positive obligation under HKBOR Article 14 (privacy/family life) to establish an alternative framework for recognising same-sex partnerships and to provide attendant rights and obligations.
The majority’s reasoning (at ¶¶125–215) drew on two strands: (i) the European Court of Human Rights’ positive-obligations jurisprudence under Article 8; and (ii) Hong Kong case law affirming positive duties to render rights effective—most notably Leung Kwok Hung v HKSAR (2005), citing Plattform Ärzte (1988), requiring “reasonable and appropriate measures” to secure the practical enjoyment of rights. This effect-oriented principle formed the doctrinal bridge to mandate legal recognition.
Applying that logic, the CFA in Sham declared the absence of any framework unconstitutional, while suspending the declaration for two years to permit compliance. In a supplemental judgment, it granted liberty to apply “in connection with the implementation of or non-compliance with this Order,” obviating fresh judicial review while allowing extensions for compelling reasons. The Court made clear that legislation, not administrative guidance, was required.
Comparatively, Sham marks an evolution in remedial design: not in the suspension itself, but in the unprecedented need for post-expiry supervision to meet the equally unprecedented requirement of new legislation.
After the legislature vetoed the Government’s narrow partnership bill in September 2025, Hong Kong entered a moment of constitutional reckoning. The expiry of the Court’s suspended declaration called for lawful follow-through—not administrative improvisation. Yet the Government declined to seek an extension (HKFP, 12 Sept 2025) and instead floated post-expiry administrative measures (HKFP, 30 Oct 2025), despite the judgment’s requirement of legislation.
Following the veto and expiry, some commentaries argue that no enforceable consequences remain—beyond administrative or declaratory relief—because the Court did not specify contingent steps post-expiry, drawing analogy to the UK’s advisory-declaration model (HKFP; Verfassungsblog, 9 Sep 2025). That analogy is misplaced. Post-handover Hong Kong does not operate under parliamentary sovereignty. Judicial restraint in specifying consequences before expiry reflects orthodox avoidance of prejudgment—it does not imply impunity afterward. When courts declare a rights violation, they do not merely comment—they resolve.
Sham also introduces a post-expiry temporal dimension to culpability:
| Phase | Nature of Wrong | Character | Culpability |
| Pre-Judgment | Unexamined omission | No judicial notice | Negligent |
| During Suspension | Acknowledged breach | Opportunity for remedy | Excused by structured grace |
| Post-Expiry | Continuing violation despite deadline | No remedy within suspension period | Knowing and wilful |
The supplemental judgment’s liberty-to-apply jurisdiction—“in connection with the implementation of or non-compliance with this Order”—therefore undercuts “no-consequences” claims. In constitutional systems where judicial finality binds the Government, expiry activates supervisory jurisdiction. This doctrinal architecture ensures that suspended declarations retain binding force rather than dissolving into symbolism.
To connect the constitutional to the legal: a suspended declaration—if it is to be more than symbolic—must operate like a restitution order: identifying a continuing wrong and requiring its repair by a fixed deadline.
Operative analogies
| Analogy | Core Mechanism | Mapping to Sham |
| Restitution Order | Court-directed repair of continuing harm | Build a statutory framework |
| Structural Injunction | Ongoing supervision | Liberty-to-apply oversight |
| Suspended Sentence | Grace before sanctions | Post-expiry wilfulness |
| “Affirmative” Restraining Order | Requires action, not restraint | Timely implementation |
In all of the above, continued non-repair can engage post-expiry remedies. In Leung Kwok Hung, the CFA immediately severed unconstitutional wording; as no legislative content was added, no suspension was required—preserving adjudicative clarity without encroaching on legislative competence.
In W v Registrar of Marriages (2013), the Court read in words to cure discrimination and, exercising judicial restraint, suspended the declarations for 12 months to allow legislative amendment (W, at ¶¶ 147–150). After the bill failed, the reading-in took effect automatically at expiry, curing the breach without further judicial intervention. This reflected a self-executing fail-safe—a form of post-expiry jurisdiction requiring no oversight—balancing the Court’s positive obligation to safeguard rights with respect for legislative primacy.
Sham, by contrast, requires wholly new legislation beyond interpretive repair. Unlike W, it lacks a self-executing remedy and therefore demands active post-expiry judicial supervision to preserve its binding force. Under liberty-to-apply, accountability pathways include supervisory orders (e.g., timelines or reporting), as in Doucet-Boudreau (2003 SCC 62) (as elaborated in Section V)); and mandamus compelling the executive to exercise its Basic Law powers—such as those under Articles 48, 50 and, if necessary, 52(3)—to secure legislative compliance. Interpretive tools such as severance or reading-in may offer temporary safeguards but cannot substitute for legislative repair: if they were sufficient, the Court would have adopted them in the judgment itself, as in Leung Kwok Hung or W.
Where non-compliance persists, contempt jurisdiction can be invoked to protect Article 82 finality. In egregious cases, misconduct in public office (MIPO) liability may arise. As affirmed in Tsang Yam-keun(2019), MIPO addresses grave derelictions of duty breaching public trust and frustrating lawful governance, attaching where misconduct is sufficiently serious—judged against official responsibilities—to warrant criminal condemnation.
Extending Section IV’s accountability pathways, comparative precedents confirm that suspended declarations possess genuine supervisory force across diverse constitutional settings, deterring post-expiry erosion of rights.
Comparative Snapshot
| Jurisdiction | Leading Case | Suspension | Post-Expiry Dynamics |
| Canada | Vriend v Alberta (1998) | none | Immediate reading-in; suspension debated in dissent but not adopted |
| Canada | M v H (1999) | 6 months (reduced from 1 year) | Provision struck; legislature amended within the window |
| Canada | Doucet-Boudreau (2003) | none | Supervisory reporting orders upheld; continuing jurisdiction to ensure implementation |
| South Africa | Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie (2005) | 1 year | Court threatened reading-in if Parliament failed → Civil Union Act enacted |
| Mexico | Amparo litigation | staggered | Historically robust suspensive relief; 2025 reforms restricting suspensions (counter-trend) |
| Hong Kong | Sham Tsz Kit (2023–25) | 24 months | Government abstention; wholly new statutory framework required; post-expiry activation engaged |
Across these systems—ranked by escalating remedial intensity—two constants emerge: expiry often triggers heightened judicial oversight, and courts retain supervisory tools even when compliance renders them unnecessary. Even under the United Kingdom’s parliamentary sovereignty, judges have signaled time-bound oversight to deter governmental inertia (e.g., procedural directions in Nicklinson, following Miller [I] [2017] UKSC 5).
By contrast, the Canadian Charter generally secures rights through restraint-based duties—obligations not to infringe rather than to act affirmatively. Yet in Doucet-Boudreau, the Supreme Court insisted that remedies under section 24(1) must be “effective” and “responsive,” upholding reporting orders and retained jurisdiction to ensure delivery of French-language schools. Even within a negative-rights framework, the Court recognized that declaratory relief may require continuing judicial involvement.
Hong Kong occupies a higher constitutional plane. Basic Law Article 4 imposes an affirmative duty on the Region to “safeguard the rights and freedoms” of residents in accordance with law—a positive obligation binding all branches, drawn verbatim from Annex I of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration and entrenched unchanged for fifty years. In Sham, this duty intersects with HKBOR Article 14’s protection of privacy and family life (see Section II, Sham at ¶¶125–215), requiring “reasonable and appropriate measures” for the practical enjoyment of rights. This elevates remedial supervision from discretion to constitutional necessity: the Court of Final Appeal must not merely declare rights but ensure their efficacy. Sham thus demands wholly new legislation—beyond administrative or interpretive repair—investing its suspended declaration with enforceability surpassing foreign comparators.
If Canada’s Supreme Court could retain jurisdiction in Doucet-Boudreau despite functus officio limits, Hong Kong’s CFA—fortified by Article 4’s explicit mandate—bears an even stronger duty to supervise. Although legislative votes lie beyond compulsion, the Court must ensure executive deployment of Articles 48, 50, and, if necessary, 52(3) to advance legislative compliance. Such oversight fulfills the Basic Law’s positive-enforcement design, compelling political branches to honour their constitutional duties and ensuring that the declaration binds beyond its expiry.
With expiry passed in Sham, constitutional supervision returns to the judiciary. Liberty-to-apply permits applications “in connection with the implementation of or non-compliance with this Order,” enabling outcome assessment without fresh proceedings. Yet supervision often depends on information the executive exclusively controls. Independent amici help close this gap by supplying evidence, comparative analysis, and testable legal argument. Where rights enforcement risks erosion by opacity, amici help ensure that supervision remains factually grounded—not blind.
Where post-expiry non-compliance persists, additional supervisory tools become relevant. First, court-initiated contempt remains available in constitutional systems to protect Article 82 finality where disobedience is knowing and wilful. Second, serious misconduct—such as MIPO—may be pursued through conflict-insulated private prosecution, especially where DOJ conflict or takeover risks impartiality. Leave and judicial oversight provide procedural safeguards. In a constitutional order founded on Article 4’s unique positive obligation, such escalation is not extraordinary but intrinsic: it operationalises the judiciary’s duty to ensure that rights are made effective through accountable implementation. These mechanisms form a graded-sanctions architecture, preserving finality where strategic abstention persists—without collapsing constitutional boundaries.
The expiry of the suspended declaration in Sham Tsz Kit presents Hong Kong with a constitutional inflection point: will final judgments bind the Government in practice, or will coordinated abstention and informational opacity reduce them to ceremony? Articles 4, 39, and 82 demand the former.
Comparative experience—from the United Kingdom’s advisory declarations to Canada’s monitored remedies—shows that suspended declarations gain legitimacy only through enforceability at expiry. Hong Kong’s Basic Law raises the bar still higher: its explicit positive obligation transforms post-expiry supervision from judicial discretion into constitutional duty. Rights are not self-executing; they must be made effective through accountable implementation.
Sham’s grace period has ended; the breach persists. The Court of Final Appeal now bears a constitutional obligation to act—within institutional limits yet without retreat—to ensure its final orders are implemented. Assisted by independent amici, it must verify executive diligence, compel lawful use of constitutional powers to facilitate legislative cooperation, and escalate proportionately where non-compliance endures. The choice will determine whether final adjudication in Hong Kong continues to bind the political branches—or quietly recedes into symbolism. Whether its suspended declaration grows teeth—or dissolves into oblivion—will mark a watershed in the region’s constitutional future.
Suggested citation: Chi-Sang Poon, Remedial Duty and Defiance: The Constitutional Stakes of Hong Kong’s Expired Suspended Declaration on Same-Sex Partnerships, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Nov. 13, 2025, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/remedial-duty-and-defiance-the-constitutional-stakes-of-hong-kongs-expired-suspended-declaration-on-same-sex-partnerships/
[1] The author thanks Professor Sharon Hom for her helpful comments on an earlier draft.
The post Remedial Duty and Defiance: The Constitutional Stakes of Hong Kong’s Expired Suspended Declaration on Same-Sex Partnerships appeared first on www.iconnectblog.com.
Kazakhstan approves amendments restricting discussion of LGBTQ+ issues
The Parliament of Kazakhstan on Wednesday approved a proposal to ban propaganda of “non-traditional sexual orientation”, despite serious concerns raised by several human rights organizations over its implications for LGBTQ+ rights.
The draft law “On Amendments and Supplements to Certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Archival Matters” proposes mandatory labeling of materials containing LGBTQ+ topics. Propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation would constitute an administrative offence with sanctions including a fine and even 10 days of administrative arrest for repeated offences. According to a report of Human Rights Watch (HRW), the proposal will enable authorities to suspend access to digital means without a court order. The law has now been forwarded to the Senate and will require the president’s signature to take effect.
Several human rights organizations have voiced their disapproval of the bill. Seven international human rights organizations, including HRW and the Eurasian Coalition on Health, Rights, Gender and Sexual Diversity (ECOM), urged Parliament on Tuesday to reject the bill. According to the organizations, the proposal increases the vulnerability of the LGBTQ+ community in Kazakhstan and violates its obligations under international law. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) protects the right to freedom of expression and to receive information. Article 26 ICCPR is also at risk, protecting the right to equality before the law and prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Yelnur Beisenbayev, head of the ruling Amanat Party praised the endorsement of the amendments. Beisenbayev argued that the proposal aims at protecting the safety and mental health of children. Member of Parliament, Nikita Shatalov, said Kazakhstan is adhering to Article 17 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) as it “obliges states to take measures to protect children from information and materials harmful to their well-being.” Rights organizations oppose this claim. ECOM said, “Restricting access for adolescents and youth to accurate information on sexual orientation and gender identity violates these provisions [Article 17 CRC] and impedes the realization of the right to education and health.”
This year, Kazakhstan was urged to implement the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review, which include abolishing discriminatory provisions based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and protecting the freedom of expression of the LGBTQ+ community.
The post Kazakhstan approves amendments restricting discussion of LGBTQ+ issues appeared first on JURIST – News.
Please make sure your library orders a copy – now more important than ever before …
All information available here: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-lgbti-law-9780198847793
LGBTI+ associations from Türkiye, vow to fight “unacceptable” judicial package, citing “serious threats” beyond rumored removal of hate clauses
| LGBTI+ associations from Türkiye, vow to fight “unacceptable” judicial package, citing “serious threats” beyond rumored removal of hate clauses. A powerful coalition of 15 LGBTI+ organizations from Türkiye has declared it will intensify its fight against the government’s controversial “11th Judicial Package,” warning the public against “complacency” even as unverified reports claim specific anti-LGBTI+ “hate provisions” have been removed from the draft. In a joint statement, the rights groups expressed deep skepticism about the claims, suggesting they could be a “deliberate” government tactic “to neutralize public outrage and pacify social opposition.” The statement, signed by all registered organizations, thanked feminist movements, women’s organizations, trade unions, and other civil society allies for their “strong and collective response” that reportedly forced the government to reconsider the discriminatory clauses. However, the activists remain vigilant. “This strong and collective response has once again proven the power of social opposition,” the statement read, but it cautioned that “this does not change the anti-democratic intent of the government.” The coalition highlighted that nearly identical hate provisions were previously included in a “10th Judicial Package” and were “postponed only thanks to our struggle and public pressure.” They warn that even if the clauses are removed now, the government will likely reintroduce them “under the guise of the ‘family year'” or as part of a future constitutional amendment. Package “Unacceptable” Even Without Hate ClausesCrucially, the organizations argued that the 11th Judicial Package remains “unacceptable even in its current form,” posing “serious threats to society at large.”The statement identifies two other key areas of concern: Children’s Rights: The package includes regulations concerning “children pushed into crime (CDC)” that the groups argue “do not aim to protect children, but to further criminalize them” and “disregard the principle of the child’s best interests.” Right to Protest: An amendment introduced as a “traffic regulation” is condemned as a disguised attempt to “effectively obstruct the constitutional right to protest and demonstration and suppress street opposition.” The coalition described this as “a step toward silencing not only the voices of LGBTI+ people, but all segments of society seeking their rights and justice.” The 15 signatory organizations have vowed to continue their struggle against the entire package, calling on the public “to remain vigilant against these attacks… to stand shoulder to shoulder, and to strengthen solidarity.” Full Text of the Joint Statement |
US Supreme Court declines to revisit same-sex marriage decision
The US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on Monday that sought to overturn the decade-old landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
The appeal was filed by Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015, defying a court order.
Davis asked the Supreme Court to reconsider Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. She argued that the ruling unconstitutionally violated her right to practice religion freely under the Free Exercise Clause. Hearing the first appeal of the case, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that, in this instance, her First Amendment rights could not be violated in her capacity as a public official.
“When Davis denied Plaintiffs a marriage license, she was wielding the ‘authority of the State’—not ‘function[ing] as a private citizen,” Judge Helene N. White, nominated by former President George W. Bush in 2008, wrote.
Davis also sought to reverse a verdict that required her to pay more than $100,000 in damages, $246,000 in legal fees and $14,000 in expenses to the couple whom she denied a marriage license. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment against Davis in March.
Obergefell held that denying same-sex couples the right to marry “demeans” and “stigmatizes” them, “diminish[es] their personhood,” and “subordinate[s] them.”
“Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the landmark opinion.
Several organizations celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear Davis’s appeal. In a statement Monday, the ACLU wrote: “Our freedom to marry remains the law of the land.” The Human Rights Campaign wrote: “Love is (still) love… We won’t let up. We will keep fighting until all of us are free.”
The post US Supreme Court declines to revisit same-sex marriage decision appeared first on JURIST – News.
US Supreme Court grants stay that restricts gender expression on passports
The US Supreme Court on Thursday allowed a policy to move forward that prevents nonbinary and transgender people from having gender markers on their passports that align with their chosen identity.
In the 6-3 decision, the court held that:
Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.
The respondents’ failed to establish that the government acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” when issuing passports. 22 U. S. C. §211a permits the government to:
…grant and issue passports, and cause passports to be granted, issued, and verified in foreign countries by diplomatic and consular officers of the United States, and by such other employees of the Department of State who are citizens of the United States as the Secretary of State may designate, and by the chief or other executive officer of the insular possessions of the United States.
The court said that the government was likely to succeed on the merits because it would suffer an “irreparable injury” without the stay. The government argued that it would be injured by “having to speak to foreign governments” in instances of identifying people, which is contrary to its foreign policy and ‘scientific reality.’”
In February, the ACLU sued the Trump administration when the president signed an executive order reversing a Biden-era policy that allowed transgender and nonbinary people to mark an “X” on their passport. The lawsuit claimed that the policy violated the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fifth Amendment by infringing on individuals’ privacy rights.
The case will be remanded to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for further litigation.
The post US Supreme Court grants stay that restricts gender expression on passports appeared first on JURIST – News.
The Supreme Court of India held that transgender and gender-diverse persons are not required to seek permission from their employers to undergo gender affirmation or surgical intervention
The Supreme Court of India held that transgender and gender-diverse persons are not required to seek permission from their employers to undergo gender affirmation or surgical intervention, asserting that the right to self-determination of gender is a matter of personal autonomy and dignity.
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 