USA: Federal appeals court reverses ban on drag shows at Texas A&M university

Leave a reply

USA: Federal appeals court reverses ban on drag shows at Texas A&M university

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Monday reversed a lower court’s decision to uphold a ban on drag shows at West Texas A&M University. The appeals court stated that the plaintiffs had shown sufficient evidence that there would be harm to their First Amendment rights as a result of the ban, meeting the preliminary injunction standard of “substantial likelihood of success on the merits.”

The appeals court’s opinion focused on whether the drag show in question met the legal standard of constituting “expressive conduct,” which is required to implicate the First Amendment. The court defined such conduct as intentionally “convey[ing] one or more messages,” and stated that in this instance “it is evident that a message in support of LGBT+ rights was intended.” The court further stated that the show was to be held in a “designated public forum” open to all, and that the defendants failed to show why it would warrant “selective exclusion.” The appeals court concluded that the “district court erred in concluding that the plaintiffs were not substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim.”

Spectrum WT, an LGBT+ group at the university, sought a preliminary injunction in March 2023 against University President Walter Wendler’s cancellation of an on-campus drag show. The drag show was intended to fundraise for the Trevor Project, an organization that aims to lower rates of suicide in the LGBT+ community. President Wendler justified the cancellation on the basis that “drag shows are derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny” and stated that he would not “condone the diminishment of any group… even when the law of the land appears to require it.” He clarified that his contention was with the drag show itself, rather than its support of the Trevor Project. Following the denial of the injunction, the plaintiffs sought emergency action from the Supreme Court to allow it to hold a show in March 2024. This request was denied.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which represented the plaintiffs, described the appeals court decision as a “victory for student expression on campus.”

This decision has wider implications for the application of First Amendment rights to drag shows, which is a subject of significant ongoing contention. Several states, such as Tennessee and Florida, have passed laws restricting drag performances. These laws have and continue to face constitutional challenges from numerous rights groups.

The post Federal appeals court reverses ban on drag shows at Texas A&M university appeared first on JURIST – News.

Transgender judge appeals to ECHR over UK Supreme Court’s “biological sex” ruling

Leave a reply

Transgender judge appeals to ECHR over UK Supreme Court’s “biological sex” ruling

Dr. Victoria McCloud, the UK’s first openly transgender judge, lodged an appeal on Monday with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against a Supreme Court ruling that defined “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 solely by biological criteria, excluding transgender women with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs). McCloud had previously sought leave to intervene in the case, but her request was refused without explanation.

The appeal, filed by the Trans Legal Clinic in partnership with W-Legal, invokes Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, arguing that the Supreme Court’s refusal to allow McCloud to intervene in the case breached her right to a fair trial. It highlights the exclusion of transgender voices from judicial proceedings directly affecting their rights, stating: “[f]or the trans community, it embodies a simple truth: there must be no more conversations about us, without us.”

In an interview with The Guardian, McCloud said that the ruling breaches not only Article 6, but also Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention, which safeguard privacy, family life, and protection from discrimination. She decried the judgment’s practical consequences, including unsafe access to gendered spaces and conflicting legal statuses that, she argued, leave transgender people caught “as two sexes at once” under domestic law.

Among those representing McCloud are Oscar Davies, the UK’s first out non-binary barrister, and Olivia Campbell-Cavendish, the first out Black trans lawyer and founder of the Trans Legal Clinic, which has launched a crowdfunding drive to support the case. According to Trans Legal Clinic’s statement, this marks the first trans-led legal team to bring a case to the ECHR in the UK.

McCloud’s ECHR challenge arrives amid widespread backlash to the ruling. Critics warn that it could undermine transgender protections across public services, schools, and criminal justice, and exacerbate risks within gendered spaces.

The post Transgender judge appeals to ECHR over UK Supreme Court’s “biological sex” ruling appeared first on JURIST – News.

ECtHR: Bednarek v Poland – judg. 10 July 2025 – lack of explicit notion of hate motive in legislation, prosecution, conviction and in determination of punishment – violation

Leave a reply

ECtHR: Bednarek v Poland – judg. 10 July 2025 – lack of explicit notion of hate motive in legislation, prosecution, conviction and in determination of punishment – violation

Art 3 (+ Art 14) • Positive obligations • Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation • Insufficient State response to battery with homophobic overtones committed against the applicants • Treatment to which applicants were subjected reached the threshold of severity to fall under Art 3 • Domestic legal framework did not include sexual orientation among grounds for the commission of hate crime or discrimination offences • Prima facie indications that two of the applicants suffered violence motivated or influenced by prejudice • Despite the authorities investigating and convicting the perpetrators with some consideration to the homophobic context, no charges or prosecution brought for a hate-motivated attack • Attackers’ demonstration of hostility towards applicants due to their perceived sexuality not taken into account in determining punishment • State’s failure to discharge its duty to ensure violent attacks motivated by hostility towards victims’ actual or presumed sexual orientation did not remain without an appropriate response

Judgment : https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-243999%22]}

See : https://www.sexualorientationlaw.eu/documents/80-european-court-of-human-rights

See : https://policehumanrightsresources.org/case-of-bednarek-and-others-v-poland-application-no-58207-14

ECtHR: Minasyan v Armenia (59180/15) judgment | 07.01.2025 (effective legal framework protecting from media attacks against LGBT-activists)

Leave a reply

ECtHR: Minasyan v Armenia (59180/15) judgment | 07.01.2025 (effective legal framework protecting from media attacks against LGBT-activists)

67.  The Court notes, in particular, that the domestic courts gave full weight to the author’s right to freedom of expression and little to no importance to the effect of his statements on the applicants and their private life. In doing so, the courts stressed the fact that the author was a representative of the press reporting on a matter of public interest. The Court reiterates in this connection that the protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention to journalists is subject to the proviso that they act in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the tenets of responsible journalism (see Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 50, 29 March 2016). Article 10 does not guarantee a wholly unrestricted freedom of expression even with respect to press coverage of matters of serious public concern …

69.  The Court cannot accept as an example of responsible journalism an article propagating hatred, hostility and discrimination against a minority, in this case the LGBT community, which, at the material time, appeared to be one of the main targets of widespread hostility, hate speech and hate‑motivated violence in the country [emphasis added] (see Oganezova, cited above, §§ 87‑122, as well as the ECRI report and the third-party submissions in paragraphs 33 and 51 above respectively), and against those, like the applicants, who were active in promoting and defending the rights of that minority. The domestic courts failed to recognise the author’s hostile tone and intentions and the impact that his statements had on the applicants’ Article 8 rights. His expressions, which were meant to incite intolerance and hostility against the applicants with the clear intention of intimidating them and causing them real harm, were downplayed by the courts and regarded as legitimate expressions of “criticism” in the context of a debate on a matter of public interest. By doing so, the domestic courts failed to protect the applicants from speech advocating intolerance and harmful acts in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.

More: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%2259180/15%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-240280%22]}

EU court questions Italy’s ‘safe country’ list for migrants [taking into account the protection of minorities]

Leave a reply

EU court questions Italy’s ‘safe country’ list for migrants [taking into account the protection of minorities]

1 August 2025

While ruling Italy’s plan to fast-track migrant deportations is legal, the European Court of Justice set out some limits. Those include disclosing sources for their assessment of a country being considered “safe.”

A second condition stipulated by the court is that a state can only be designated as a safe country of origin if it offers adequate protection to the entire population, including minorities.

More: https://www.dw.com/en/eu-court-questions-italys-safe-country-list-for-migrants/a-73500838

CJEU: Alace (C-758/24) – judg. 1 Aug 2025 – safe country of origin

See: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?nat=or&mat=or&pcs=Oor&jur=C,T,F&num=C-758%2F24&for=&jge=&dates=&language=en&pro=&cit=none%2CC%2CCJ%2CR%2C2008E%2C%2C%2C%2C%2C%2C%2C%2C%2C%2Ctrue%2Cfalse%2Cfalse&oqp=&td=;ALL&avg=&lg=&page=1&cid=1830825

“a Member State may not designate as a ‘safe’ country of origin a third country which does not satisfy, for certain categories of persons, the material conditions for such a designation. The new regulation, 4 which allows designations to be made with exceptions for such clearly identifiable categories of persons, will be applicable as from 12 June 2026, but it is open to the EU legislature to bring that date forward.”

Press Release: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2025-08/cp250103en.pdf