Greece – Highest Administrative Court Decision for the revised Blood Donation Form that disconnects blood donation from the sexual orientation of the candidate blood donor
Enforcement of the principle of equal treatment by removing the exclusion of homosexual men from blood donation
Hungary parliament passes constitutional amendment banning LGBTQ+ events
Hungary’s National Assembly on Monday passed an amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary that bans LGBTQ+ public events.
The change was adopted with 140 votes in favor of the amendment and 21 against. The amendment was initiated by Hungary’s governing far-right party, Fidesz -KDNP. Budapest Pride was banned last month after a fast-tracked bill was submitted to parliament, prompting protests. The amendment constitutionally codifies the 2021 Child Protection Law, which prohibits the “depiction or promotion” of the LGBTQ+ to children under 18.
The amendment also reinforces a constitutional basis to deny transgender people’s gender identity. It states that people can only be either male or female and mirrors US President Donald Trump’s executive order. The Constitution does not recognize gender reassignment, asserting that it is the state’s duty to uphold “natural order.” The measure also allows for the suspension of citizenship of Hungarians with dual or multiple citizenship in a non-European Economic Area country if they are deemed a public threat.
Government spokesperson Zoltan Kovacs released a statement on X arguing that “the amendment defines legal sex as immutable, stating that a person is either male or female and that this status cannot be legally altered” and that it is a “not an attack on individual self-expression, but a clarification that legal norms are based on biological reality.”
Hungary’s government has pushed against the LGBTQ+ community since 2021. Human Rights Watch had previously reported that LGBTQ+ individuals face discrimination and demonization, and the European Parliament in 2022 said that Hungary’s parliament can no longer be considered a “full democracy,” undoing freedom of expression and the rule of law, President Viktor Orbán has also been criticised. An April plenary session with the EU’s Parliament, Council and Commission in Strasbourg was set to discuss Hungary’s restrictions on the freedom of assembly and LGBTQ+ rights.
The post Hungary parliament passes constitutional amendment banning LGBTQ+ events appeared first on JURIST – News.
US Federal judge blocks key parts of Trump’s anti-DEI orders
A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction preventing the US Department of Labor from requiring government contractors and federal grant recipients to certify that they do not operate any diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs that violate any federal anti-discrimination laws.
Executive Order 14151, the termination provision, orders applicable federal agencies to terminate all “equity action plans,” “equity” actions, initiatives, or programs, “equity-related” grants or contracts, and all DEI performance requirements for employees, contractors or grantees. Executive Order 14173—the certification provision—mandates that recipients of federal grants validate that they are not conducting any DEI initiatives in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.
The preliminary injunction comes after the non-profit organization Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT) filed a complaint challenging the executive orders. In 2024, CWIT received federal money from the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations (WANTO) program, which works to increase women’s participation in apprenticeship programs and nontraditional occupations such as trades, construction, project management, and cybersecurity. After Trump’s executive orders, CWIT stood to lose thousands of dollars in federal funding, hindering its efforts to increase the representation of marginalized women in key fields. Approximately 70 percent of CWIT’s participants are Black and Latina women.
In the preliminary injunction, Judge Matthew Kennelly held that CWIT would likely prevail on its First Amendment challenge to the certification provision. CWIT argued that the anti-DEI executive orders impose restrictions that are “overbroad” and “impossibly vague” and that “condition CWIT’s receipt of federal funding upon the stifling of CWIT’s protected speech.” Additionally, Kennelly found that CWIT was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the termination provision violates the separation of powers. The US Constitution does not permit any executive branch official to unilaterally terminate federal grants and contracts without express statutory authority from Congress. The preliminary injunction is narrow in scope and applies only to the US Department of Labor, not to all federal agencies.
Just a few weeks ago, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the government’s request to stay a nationwide preliminary injunction that blocked enforcement of the same contested elements of the two executive orders.
The post Federal judge blocks key parts of Trump’s anti-DEI orders appeared first on JURIST – News.
UK Supreme Court backs ‘biological’ definition of woman
Judges at the UK Supreme Court have unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.
It marks the culmination of a long-running legal battle which could have major implications for how sex-based rights apply across Scotland, England and Wales.
The court sided with campaign group For Women Scotland, which brought a case against the Scottish government arguing that sex-based protections should only apply to people that are born female.
Judge Lord Hodge said the ruling should not be seen as a triumph of one side over the other, and stressed that the law still gives protection against discrimination to transgender people.
More: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg7pqzk47zo
___________________________________________________________________________
The UK Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that trans women are not legally recognised as women under the Equality Act 2010. The case arose after the Scottish Parliament passed the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which aimed to include transgender women in quotas to achieve gender balance on public sector boards.
The judges ruled that the definition of sex as set out under the Equality Act 2010 was “binary” and based on biology, thereby making individuals who were not born female unable to receive legal protections afforded to women by altering their gender with a GRC. In commenting on the decision, Lord Hodge asserted that the Equality Act 2010’s provisions revolved around biological sex at birth and were not concerned with an individual’s acquired gender, regardless of the possession of a GRC.
Although the word “biological” does not appear in defining a man or woman in the Equality Act, the court applied the literal rule of statutory interpretation, where the statute was read in its plain, ordinary meaning to be in reference to biological sex.
Initially, the appellants in the case, For Women Scotland Ltd, a feminist organisation campaigning to strengthen women and children’s rights in Scotland, challenged the definition of “woman” outlined in the 2018 Act. Section 2 of the Act defined “woman” as including:
[A] person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (within the meaning of section 7 of the Equality Act 2010) if, and only if, the person is living as a woman and is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of becoming female.
Upon appeal before the Second Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session in 2022, the appellants were successful, prompting the Scottish government to issue new statutory guidance. The guidance stated that an individual who had been issued a valid Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female would be the sex of a woman and therefore their appointment would fulfil the gender balance quota on public sector boards.
After the issuance of the new statutory guidance, the appellants petitioned the UK Supreme Court for a judicial review of the Scottish government’s decision, citing it as an error of law. The main question before the Supreme Court judges in this landmark decision was concerning the correct interpretation of “sex” and “woman”.
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision reshaping the landscape of gender rights, it is expected that multiple public bodies will have to review their gender policies.
The post UK Supreme Court rules trans women not legally women under Equality Act appeared first on JURIST – News.
US education department to cut funding on Maine for gender-affirming school sports
The US Department of Education (DOE) announced Friday its plan to terminate the Maine Department of Education’s (MDOE) federal K-12 education funding for its noncompliance with US President Trump’s executive orders attacking “gender ideology” and gender-affirming educational practices.
The DOE concluded that MDOE has endorsed or allowed school policies allowing males to compete in female sports and occupy women-only intimate spaces. It additionally stated:
[O]ver at least the past two years and continuing in the current school year, at least three male student-athletes have competed in Maine high school girls’ athletic programs for at least five different high schools (so affecting many more times that number of high schools whose female athletes competed against the male athletes).
The DOE’s Office for Civil Rights launched its Title IX investigation of the MDOE on February 21, 2025, in response to Maine Governor Janet Mills challenging Trump to get the courts to make Maine comply with his executive orders. The DOE published its noncompliance finding on March 19 along with a proposed resolution agreement, notifying Maine that it will send a letter of impending enforcement action if Maine does not sign the resolution agreement within ten days from the finding.
In addition to ceasing the practice of its gender-affirming policy, the resolution agreement would have required the MDOE to make “each school district in Maine to submit to MDOE an annual certification of compliance [and] promptly notify OCR of any credible report that a school district is still allowing a boy to participate in girls’ sports.” It would have also required the MDOE to give recognitions to female athletes who did not receive them due to males participating in women’s sports.
On March 31, the DOE sent the MDOE a final warning letter instructing that it will take enforcement action if Maine does not accept the agreement by Friday.
The DOE’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor commented in a press release:
The Department has given Maine every opportunity to come into compliance with Title IX, but the state’s leaders have stubbornly refused to do so, choosing instead to prioritize an extremist ideological agenda over their students’ safety, privacy, and dignity … Governor Mills would have done well to adhere to the wisdom embedded in the old idiom—be careful what you wish for. Now she will see the Trump Administration in court.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal funds. President Trump issued Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 to enforce Title IX, notably by requiring girls’ or women’s school athletic opportunities and private spaces (e.g., locker rooms) to be reserved only for biological females. They further ordered federal funding to be cut from educational institutions that did not comply with the orders.
On the contrary, the MDOE supported its stance by stating that the Maine Human Rights Act adheres to Title IX by prohibiting discrimination in education on the basis of a protected class, including the class of “sexual orientation (which includes gender identity and expression)…”
The DOE also announced that it will be referring this investigation to the US Department of Justice for suit in federal court. These developments come after the Trump administration’s announcement to create a Title IX Special Investigations Team to combat “gender ideology” in schools.
The post US education department to cut funding on Maine for gender-affirming school sports appeared first on JURIST – News.
USA: Attorneys general file brief to US Supreme Court supporting Maryland county’s LGBTQ book curriculum
A coalition of 19 attorneys general filed a 31-page amicus brief with the US Supreme Court on Wednesday, claiming a Maryland county’s policy of incorporating LGBTQ-inclusive books into their curriculum with no opt-out option for parents does not violate the US Constitution.
The amicus brief asserted that the use of LGBTQ-inclusive books in the school district’s curriculum without an opt-out option, a policy adopted by the Montgomery County Board of Education in March 2023, falls within public schools’ authority and overriding interest to foster a safe learning environment. The attorneys general further claimed that the policy does not violate parents’ rights to freely exercise their or their child’s religious beliefs under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
The brief encouraged the US Supreme Court to uphold a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denying the petitioners’ request for a preliminary injunction on the grounds that exposure of the petitioners’ children to LGBTQ-inclusive books through the district’s curriculum did not interfere with the petitioners’ free exercise rights.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, who co-led the coalition of attorneys general, stated: “Preparing our children to engage with and thrive in a diverse society is a central premise of education. Local school districts have the right to determine that the use of LGBTQ-inclusive books helps to foster inclusive learning environments for all our students.”
The US Supreme Court agreed in January to hear the case, filed by petitioners Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, Islamic practitioners joined by Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents, who object to the contents of LGBTQ+ books included in the school’s reading list. The petitioners had filed a lawsuit alleging the policy violated their rights under the First Amendment, stating that it infringes on their right to practice religion as they please.
The amicus brief was signed by the attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the petitioners’ challenge on April 22.
The post Attorneys general file brief to US Supreme Court supporting Maryland county’s LGBTQ book curriculum appeared first on JURIST – News.
Ashley Cummins, an out lesbian, alleged she was frequently harassed and denied opportunities for advancement based on her gender and sexual orientation.
UN and EU condemn growing crackdown on LGBTI rights and human rights defenders in Belarus
Hungary – Proposed amendment to the ‘Women 40’ early retirement scheme withdrawn
A court decision triggered a legislative initiative to explicitly address the gender status of the beneficiaries of a pension scheme for women.
D’après une étude de l’institut Gfs Bern, l’hostilité envers les personnes queer a pris de l’ampleur en Suisse. Si la population se montre généralement ouverte sur les questions relatives à la communauté LGBTQIA+, ses membres sont nombreux·ses à régulièrement faire l’objet de discriminations. L’avenir nous dira si l’extension du champ d’application de l’interdiction de discriminer, inscrite dans l’article 261bis du Code pénal, à la discrimination fondée sur l’orientation sexuelle ou sur le sexe suffira à améliorer la situation.
Plus: https://www.humanrights.ch/fr/nouvelles/lintolerance-envers-queer-ravivee
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 