USA: North Carolina federal judge rules for transgender state employees challenging health plan

A judge for the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina found Friday in favor of transgender state employees who were denied gender-affirming healthcare coverage. Judge Loretta Biggs ruled that the state health plan must offer “medically necessary services for the treatment of gender dysphoria.”

The plaintiffs, represented by Lamda Legal and the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF), filed their complaint in 2019 and alleged that the refusal of coverage for gender-affirming healthcare by state employer healthcare plans violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by unlawfully discriminating based on sex and transgender status.

Biggs agreed, concluding:

Issues surrounding transgender healthcare evoke strong emotional and political opinions. … But politics and emotion are not admissible as evidence in a court of law. Plaintiffs’ doctors, their experts, every major medical association, and Defendants’ own third-party administrators all agree that, in certain cases, gender affirming medical and surgical care can be medically necessary to treat gender dysphoria. Defendants attempt to create scientific controversy in this uniform agreement through experts who mix their scientific analysis with hypothetical speculation and political hyperbole. Only science that is relevant, reliable, and offered by a qualified expert is admissible, however, and the admissible portions of Defendants’ expert’s testimony, even when taken in the light most favorable to Defendants, do not justify the exclusion at issue. Defendants’ belief that gender affirming care is ineffective and unnecessary is simply not supported by the record. Consequently, their categorical sex- and transgender-based exclusion of gender affirming treatments from coverage unlawfully discriminates against Plaintiffs in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Title VII.

Julia McKeown, an assistant professor in the College of Education at North Carolina State University, said following the ruling, “I am thrilled beyond measure for this powerful victory not only for myself but other transgender employees across the state.” She also noted, “As government employees, all we want is equal access to healthcare, but we were denied just because we are transgender.”

The post North Carolina federal judge rules for transgender state employees challenging health plan appeared first on JURIST – News.

USA: Federal judge rules employers cannot deny gender affirming care

A US federal judge in Georgia Thursday ruled that employers who exclude gender-affirming medical care from their healthcare insurance coverage violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Anna Lange, a sheriff’s deputy, brought the case against her boss, Cullen Talton, and Houston County, Georgia. Lange, who began her gender transition in 2017, was unable to get coverage approved for her to receive gender-affirming care under the health insurance plan provided by her employer. In her complaint, she argued that the health plan adopted was discriminatory;  the county and Talton “knowingly and intentionally chose to adopt and maintain the [policy].” She said she made a repeated request to remove or waive the policy.

Lange, who was diagnosed with gender dysphoria, had a doctor recommend gender-affirming treatment to her. However, the insurance plan Lange had excluded treatment for gender dysphoria, including talk therapy, hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgery.

In the order, Judge Marc Treadwell cites the US Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in <u>Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia</u>, where the court held that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 discrimination against a transgender person is unlawful. The order states that “the implication of Bostock is clear […] Bostock covers any possible intended point—discrimination on the basis of transgender status is discrimination on the basis of sex and is a violation of Title VII.”

After the decision, Lange said:

[It is] a huge relief to know that I can finally receive the medically necessary care that I was repeatedly and unfairly denied. I can confidently move forward with my life knowing that gender affirming care is protected under federal law. This decision is not only a personal victory, but a tremendous step forward for all transgender Southerners who are seeking insurance coverage for medically necessary care.

The post Federal judge rules employers cannot deny gender affirming care appeared first on JURIST – News.

USA: Couples involved in California same-sex marriage case ask US Supreme Court to allow release of trial video

The plaintiffs involved in California’s 2010 landmark same-sex marriage case Tuesday asked the US Supreme Court to not block the public release of the court video recording the case, in which the state’s same-sex marriage ban was overturned.

The Supreme Court is currently deciding on a challenge by the original proponents of Proposition 8 to keep the video of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger/Brown trial under seal. In 2021 the challengers lost their bid to stop the trial video’s release in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the Ninth Circuit ruling that the challengers did not demonstrate a “particularized injury” and did not have standing under Article III of the US Constitution.

The proponents’ requested that the Supreme Court overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decision to allow the trial video’s release. They argued that the court video was only to be used in chambers.

The same sex couples involved in Perry, along with the City of San Francisco and tv station KQED, argue that there is no reason for the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

In 2008 California’s Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban was approved by a referendum. This proposition created an amendment to the California Constitution “to define marriage as between one man and one woman, thus reversing a state judicial ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in California.”

The post Couples involved in California same-sex marriage case ask US Supreme Court to allow release of trial video appeared first on JURIST – News.

USA: Ohio House passes bill to ban trans athletes from women’s sports

Ohio’s House of Representatives Wednesday passed a bill that prohibits transgender girls and women from participating on women’s high school and college athletic teams. The Save Women’s Sports Act, HB 151, passed 56 to 28 with Democrats voting in opposition, wasn’t intended to be scheduled for legislators originally.

The original text was to amend the Ohio Resident Educator Program, assisting new teachers with mentoring and professional development in their early careers. Jena Powell, a Darke County Republican, offered an amendment to the bill based on an earlier piece of legislation she proposed last year, HB 61.

Currently, the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA), the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) regulate policies for transgender athletes to ensure medical privacy and fairness. OHSAA guidelines stipulate that transgender girls and women must have completed a minimum of 1 year of hormone treatment and/or demonstrate that they don’t possess any physical or physiological advantage over ‘genetic females.’  Equality Ohio said the text displays “a fundamental ignorance about transgender people and their participation in sports” and “attacks the Ohio High School Athletic Association and the NCAA in their ability to make policies that they deem are best for athletes.”

HB 151 would overrule these policies and institute a complete ban on transgender girls and women from playing women’s sports. The bill would require schools, state universities and private colleges to classify separate single-sex teams and sports for each sex. One of the bill most controversial provisions stipulates that a student with a “disputed” sex shall present a signed doctor’s statement clarifying their “internal and external reproductive anatomy,” testerone levels and genetic makeup. Representative Beth Liston criticized the bill and said she “strongly condemn[s] the Ohio Republicans’ policy of mandatory genital inspections for children who want to play sports.”

Powell believes allowing transgender women to play on women’s teams is a violation of Title IX, a regulation established in 1972 to prevent sex discrimination in education. In a West Virginia lawsuit over a similar bill, the US Department of Education and Department of Justice argued that Title IX “prohibit[s] discrimination against students because of their sex, including because a student is transgender.”

The Ohio Senate will consider the bill when it returns from its summer recess.

The post Ohio House passes bill to ban trans athletes from women’s sports appeared first on JURIST – News.

USA: North Carolina State Senate passes LGTBQ education ban for elementary students

North Carolina State Senators Wednesday advanced legislation that will prohibit public school classroom instruction regarding sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten to third grade.

The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina (ACLU) opposed the bill’s advancement, stating that LGBTQ students will be targeted and alienated by its enactment because it restricts what can be taught and what students can learn.

The North Carolina bill stipulates that:

Instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity shall not be included in the curriculum provided in grades kindergarten through third grade, regardless of whether the information is provided by school personnel or third parties. 

Additionally this bill would require parents to be notified by the school if their child requests to use a different name or pronoun. In response to the bill’s latest advancement, the ACLU of North Carolina wrote “The bill has passed. We’re disappointed but not surprised. And we will continue to fight for the rights of LGBTQ youth.”

This bill’s passage occurs after Florida signed the controversial Parental Rights in Education, deemed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, into law in March.

The post North Carolina State Senate passes LGTBQ education ban for elementary students appeared first on JURIST – News.

Lithuania Parliament votes to consider alternative civil union and ‘close relationship’ laws – civil union law is not expected to pass

The Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) voted to consider two alternative draft laws, with the former being on civil unions and the latter on “close relationships.”

The draft Law on Civil Union passed the first reading in the parliament on Thursday, with 70 votes in favor, 49 against and six abstentions. The bill seeks to regulate the rights of unmarried couples and their obligations towards each other. The law would replace the definition of a partnership in the Family Book of the Civil Code with that of a civil union, and require such unions to be registered with a notary.

The bill defines a civil union as a “voluntary agreement between two persons (partners) registered in accordance with the procedure established by law, by which they seek to establish and/or develop a personal relationship with each other.” The law would regulate the personal and property relations between unmarried couples, including “the legal regime of the partners’ property, the right of inheritance, the right of representation and acting on behalf of another partner.” 

Member of Parliament Jurgita Sejonienė, while presenting the bill, stated that it was “a long-lasting state debt for unmarried persons.” She further said, “It is necessary to take into account the interests of the group of the society, which for one reason or another does not form a marriage, but leads a common life connected with social, spiritual and moral aspects. It is necessary to solve the practical issues of such a life.”

Draft amendments to the Civil Code were also approved that aim to “regulate the recognition of a person’s right to close relations.” The amendments passed the first reading with 70 votes in favor, 23 against and 30 abstentions. Deputy Speaker of the Seimas Paulius Saudargas presented the alternative draft, emphasizing that unlike the civil union law, the amendments would draw a clear distinction between unmarried couples and family relations.

Saudargas said:

We recognize that personal relationships, not just property relationships, between people living together must be protected, which is why we propose to legally recognize close relationships. The bill on close relationship does not create a family relationship, while a civil union gives an impression of creating a family relationship.

Last year the parliament voted down the bill on civil partnerships that would have defined a partnership as an “emotional connection” and provided the right to take the surname of one’s partner or adopt their children. Several previous attempts to legalize civil unions did not move past early stages of the parliamentary process. 

Following debate by parliamentary committees, the draft laws are expected to return to the full parliament for plenary debate on June 21, though the civil union law is not expected to pass in the Catholic-majority country.

The post Lithuania Parliament votes to consider alternative civil union and ‘close relationship’ laws appeared first on JURIST – News.

Liechtenstein: As of July, stepchild adoption will be possible for registered couples (only open to same-sex couples)

As of July, stepchild adoption will be possible for registered couples. Surprisingly, a narrow majority of the state parliament also rejected the ban on joint adoption and reproductive medicine – this is mainly of a symbolic nature.

Read: https://www.vaterland.li/liveticker/liveticker-landtag-060522-28/

USA: South Carolina Governor signs bill banning transgender athletes

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster Monday signed a bill banning transgender athletes from playing sports as the gender they identify as. South Carolina joins a number of other states which have signed similar laws into effect.

The bill, entitled the Save Women’s Sports Act, requires transgender students to compete with the gender listed on their birth certificate in public elementary, middle and high schools, as well as public colleges. The law also applies to private schools who compete against public schools.

Executive Director of Gender Benders and Community Health Program Director of Campaign for Southern Equality Ivy Hill, said of the new law: “Transgender youth are not a threat to fairness in sports, and this law now needlessly stigmatizes young people who are simply trying to navigate their adolescence, make friends, and build skills like teamwork and leadership, winning and losing.”

South Carolina joins several states who have signed and enacted the bill. Both Texas and Florida passed similar bills prohibiting transgender athletes from participating on sports teams that do not align with the sex that they were assigned at birth. Louisiana’s and Alaska’s governments are considering similar legislation.

The post South Carolina Governor signs bill banning transgender athletes appeared first on JURIST – News.

USA: Texas Supreme Court: state may investigate gender affirming care as child abuse

The Texas Supreme Court Friday ruled that state agencies in Texas may investigate gender affirming care as child abuse but that the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) is not bound to undertake any such investigations.

On February 18, Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an opinion stating that many forms of gender affirming care “can legally constitute child abuse” under Texas law. On February 22, Governor Greg Abbott directeddirected state agencies in Texas to investigate gender affirming care as child abuse in accordance with Paxton’s opinion. The ACLU and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Does, a family with a transgender daughter, and Dr. Megan Mooney, a doctor who provides care to transgender youth.

On March 2, a district court implemented a temporary injunction halting any investigations. Texas took an interlocutory appeal, superseding the injunction. However, a court of appeals issued a temporary order on March 21 “reinstating the temporary injunction in its entirety.” The state sought relief from the supreme court from that order.

The supreme court recognized that, under Rule 29.3 of Texas appellate procedure, the court of appeals may make temporary orders “to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm.” However, the rule “plainly limits the scope of the available relief to that which is necessary to preserve the parties’ rights.” Therefore, the supreme court ruled that portions of the injunction which apply to “any and all persons” in Texas are invalid.

The court also noted that Abbott’s letter cited “no legal authority that would empower the Governor to bind state agencies with the instruction contained in the letter’s final sentence, and we are directed to none” although DFPS may have believed that it was bound to follow the directive.

As a result, the court explained:

[W]e are left with (1) a court of appeals order that protects only the plaintiffs as against DFPS and its Commissioner’s actions, and not as against the Governor; (2) a nonbinding Attorney General Opinion; (3) a nonbinding statement by the Governor; and (4) a state agency, DFPS, with the same discretion to investigate reports of child abuse that it had before issuance of OAG Opinion No. KP-0401 and the Governor’s letter.

The ACLU, ACLU of Texas and Lambda Legal issued a statement calling the decision “a win.” The organizations commented, “[t]hough the court limited its order to the Doe family and Dr. Mooney, it reaffirmed that Texas law has not changed and no mandatory reporter or DFPS employee is required to take any action based on the governor’s directive and attorney general opinion.”

The post Texas Supreme Court: state may investigate gender affirming care as child abuse appeared first on JURIST – News.

UCLA: Accepting Applications for the 2022 Gleason/Kettel Summer Law Fellowship