Tag Archives: lgbtq

US Supreme Court grants emergency relief in California gender identity case

The Supreme Court on Monday granted emergency relief to parents challenging California school policies on student gender identity, allowing a district court injunction to take effect while litigation continues in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In an unsigned per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Ninth Circuit’s stay of the injunction was not justified under the governing four-factor test. It found that the parents, particularly those seeking religious exemptions, are likely to succeed on the merits “of their Free Exercise Clause claim.” It further noted that the nondisclosure rules are likely trigger strict scrutiny because they substantially interfere with “the right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.” The Court concluded that parents asserting due process claims are likely to prevail, citing longstanding precedent recognizing parental authority over children’s upbringing and education.

In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that the Court intervened prematurely while the case is still developing in the lower courts: “If nothing else, this Court owes it to a sovereign State to avoid throwing over its policies in a slapdash way, if the Court can provide normal procedures.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, indicated that she would have granted relief to the teacher plaintiffs.

The split decision follows a legal battle between religious parents and educators in California. Two sets of Catholic parents, represented by the Thomas More Society, challenged state school policies which prevent schools from disclosing students’ gender identities to their families, arguing that they violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The plaintiffs stated that these policies misled them and secretly facilitated the children’s social transition. In contrast, California argued that students have the right to privacy regarding their gender expression, particularly if they fear rejection from their families. The state asserted that its school policies and state law are designed to strike a balance between parents’ rights and the students’ need for privacy.

The case will return to the Ninth Circuit while the district court’s injunction remains in effect for the parent class.

The post US Supreme Court grants emergency relief in California gender identity case appeared first on JURIST – News.

UN experts call on the UK to ensure equal rights for women, girls, and transgender individuals

Leave a reply

UN experts call on the UK to ensure equal rights for women, girls, and transgender individuals

A group of UN experts on Friday called for the United Kingdom to guarantee that the current reviews of statutory guidance under the Equality Act 2010 align with international human rights standards and provide the equal enjoyment of rights for women and girls, including the transgender community.

The group of experts expressed appreciation of the government’s assurances that the legislative review would be conducted in a non-discriminatory manner, commenting, “The present review represents an important opportunity for the United Kingdom to reaffirm its long-standing commitment to equality, dignity and the rule of law, and to ensure that the human rights of all are upheld in practice.”

This new development comes amid a changing legal horizon characterized by years of intense litigation, a polarized social climate, and conflicting guidance from equality organizations regarding the intersection of gender identity and biological sex. In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers that references to “sex,” “man,” and “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to an individual’s biological sex. This means that the legal sex of transgender individuals, which is determined by their possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), is no longer considered their “sex” for the purposes of the Equality Act, rendering the marginalized community more vulnerable to exclusion from single-sex services and affecting their ability to challenge sex-based discrimination.

Following the 2025 ruling, organizations such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the official regulator of the Equality Act 2010, began updating its guidelines to clarify that service providers were legally entitled to restrict access to single-sex spaces such as bathrooms based on biological sex. The interim guidance provided by the EHRC was challenged by the Good Law Project, which stated that it was legally flawed, a harmful interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling, and produced only nine days after the publication of the Supreme Court’s judgment, with minimal consultation on the issue sought.

The High Court dismissed the case on February 13, 2026, as it found that the Supreme Court’s ruling was properly applied and that the Good Law Project lacked the proper standing to bring the case, since it did not suffer direct harm as a result of the decision. In light of this, the group of UN experts pushed for the United Kingdom to ensure that the review process was inclusive and complied with international human rights frameworks such as Article 2(2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity.

The post UN experts call on the UK to ensure equal rights for women, girls, and transgender individuals appeared first on JURIST – News.

New SOGIESC publication: ‘Queering Courts’

Leave a reply

New SOGIESC publication: ‘Queering Courts’

The monograph ‘Queering Courts’ is now also available outside of the Low Countries through Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Queering-Courts-Analysing-marriage-European/dp/B0GK94TXKJ/ref=sr_1_1.

New SOGIESC publication: ‘Queering Courts’

With the use of queer legal theory, ‘Queering Courts’ analyses how courts such as the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the United States Supreme Court interpret and apply the notions of ‘sex’, ‘gender’, ‘sexuality’ and ‘sexual orientation’ in their equal marriage rights case law.

The research reveals that courts interpret the notions as binary constructs with the dominance in the hierarchies commonly anchored on certain heteronormative beliefs. This results in the discrimination, non-inclusivity and ‘othering’ of all that do not fall within the dominant part of the hierarchies, making them thus ineligible to enjoy ‘full’ or ‘equal’ marriage rights. While the decision-making of the courts is influenced by factors such as history, culture, religion, politics, etc., judicial self-restraint is oftentimes exercised for credibility, legitimacy, and authority reasons. The research suggests that courts should ‘queer’ their approaches for more inclusive, diverse, and universal adjudication. Until then, the enjoyment of full equal marriage rights is only for the heterosexually privileged.

– Dr Alina Tryfonidou: “Queering Courts is an exceptional and timely contribution to the literature on the equal marriage rights of same-sex couples. Dr. Shahid offers a masterful and crystal-clear analysis of the jurisprudence of three major courts – the ECtHR, the CJEU and the US Supreme Court – engaging rigorously with their case law while illuminating, through the lens of queer legal theory, how these courts understand and deploy the concepts of sex, gender, sexuality and sexual orientation. Written in crisp, accessible language and grounded in original scholarly insight, this book provides a refreshing, innovative and genuinely enlightening perspective. A delight to read and a significant intervention in the field.”

US appeals court upholds school’s policy to use preferred pronouns

Leave a reply

US appeals court upholds school’s policy to use preferred pronouns

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled last Wednesday that
Montgomery County, Maryland, could require teachers to use students’
preferred pronouns and prohibit teachers from sharing information about
gender identity with parents.
The 2-1 opinion, written by Judge Robert Bruce King, held that the school
board’s policy requiring teachers to use the preferred pronouns of
students and not discuss gender information with parents did not violate
the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. The plaintiff, Kimberly Ann Polk,
was a substitute teacher in Montgomery County and argued that her
Christian beliefs prohibited her from using a student’s pronouns that are
different from their biological sex. She claimed the board’s policy
violated her right to freedom of religion. The Court of Appeals, however,
found that the school board’s policy was “neutral” and of general
applicability. As such, the board’s goal of preventing discrimination and
protecting student safety was sufficient to overcome any burden on Polk’s
religion.
Plaintiff Polk also asserted the policy violated her free speech rights
by “compelling her, on condition of continued employment, to communicate
misleading messages to parents.” The Court of Appeals similarly disagreed
with this argument by stating that communicating with students and parents
is part of a teacher’s official duties. Because of this, Polk was not
acting as a private speaker when adhering to this policy, but rather a
government employee. The court ruled that, in her capacity as a teacher
and government employee, Polk did not have the First Amendment right not
to follow the policy.
This decision upholds the lower court’s dismissal of Polk’s free speech
and religion claims. Polk also asserted that the school board violated the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 by denying her a religious accommodation to the
policy. This law prohibits employers from failing or refusing “to hire or
to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any
individual” because of their religion. The Fourth Circuit again upheld the
lower court’s denial of an injunction for this because Polk’s alleged
harms that would justify the injunction were the violation of her
constitutional rights. Because the court dismissed her First Amendment
claims, Polk could not argue her rights were violated.
This case comes against the backdrop of a divided judiciary on
transgender issues. A federal judge in California found last month that
schools cannot bar teachers from telling parents their children are
transgender. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily blocked
this ruling.
The post US appeals court upholds school’s policy to use preferred
pronouns appeared first on JURIST - News.

Source: https://www.jurist.org/news/2026/02/us-appeals-court-upholds-schools-policy-to-use-preferred-pronouns/

Kazakhstan approves amendments restricting discussion of LGBTQ+ issues

Leave a reply

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.

US Supreme Court declines to revisit same-sex marriage decision

Leave a reply

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.

45 UN experts renew call for gender centered approach to reach human rights goals

Leave a reply

45 UN experts renew call for gender centered approach to reach human rights goals

45 UN human rights experts reaffirmed on Thursday that gender must remain central to the fight for equality and human rights worldwide.

The statement was signed by UN special procedure mandate holders from various countries, jointly emphasizing that “binary conceptions of sex” result in an incomplete picture of the “social and cultural factors that shape identity and lived experience.” Thus, the experts urge that “[g]ender-based discrimination must be addressed alongside sex-based discrimination.”

According to the experts, employing a gender-based perspective advances human rights and equality goals due to a more comprehensive appreciation of how “roles, expectations, and hierarchies manifest in education, health, culture, at the workplace or with respect to social, economic, and political opportunities.” As such, the experts call on states and other stakeholders to reaffirm their commitment to gender equality and integration of a gender-based practice in international law. This call is consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal 5 on gender equality.

The value of recognizing intersectional forms of discrimination, including those based on sexual orientation and gender identity, was also supported by the work of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). The current Independent Expert mandate is held by South African scholar Graeme Reid and was recently renewed by the UN Human Rights Council.

The UN experts’ statement comes amidst issues of gender-based discrimination across borders. In mid-July, the UN highlighted persistent gender gaps in sports, calling on member states to address gender inequalities. More specifically, in the US, several states, including Tennessee and Oklahoma, have made efforts to ban gender-affirming care for minors. Meanwhile, the UN also recently condemned the Taliban’s “gender apartheid” in Afghanistan, urging that dismantling these barriers is key to reaching gender equality.

The post 45 UN experts renew call for gender centered approach to reach human rights goals 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.

Saint Lucia court strikes down gay sex ban

Leave a reply

Saint Lucia court strikes down gay sex ban

Jul 30
Written by Amelia Hansford

Protestors in Saint Lucia condemning the nation's homosexuality laws in 2012.

Protestors in Saint Lucia condemning the nation’s homosexuality laws in 2012. (Getty)

A Saint Lucia court has struck down a set of laws criminalising homosexuality, in a major win for LGBTQ+ rights in the Caribbean.

Judges in the eastern Caribbean nation ruled on Tuesday (29 July) that laws banning so-called “gross indecency” and “buggery” were unconstitutional.

The High Court of Saint Lucia argued that the colonial-era laws unfairly targeted LGBTQ+ people and contravene fundamental human rights, including rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and protection from discrimination.

It is now the fifth country in the Eastern Caribbean region to decriminalise same-sex activity after Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, and St Kitts & Nevis.

Only five countries in the Western Hemisphere continue to ban private, consensual same-sex activity – Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Trinidad and Tobago decriminalised homosexuality in 2018, but reversed its decision in March 2025.

Saint Lucia prime minister, Philip J Pierre. (Getty)

Téa Braun, CEO of the Human Dignity Trust, told PinkNews that the ruling marked “another significant legal milestone” for the LGBTQ+ community both in the Caribbean and worldwide.

“[The ruling] demonstrates the importance of the courts when lawmakers fail to respect fundamental human rights,” Braun continued. “We extend our heartfelt congratulations to the litigants and activists who have tirelessly pursued justice.”

Saint Lucia’s anti-gay laws, which were inherited from the British during the colonial period, were retained in 2004 after the island nation updated its Criminal Code. Those found in violation of the law faced up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

In 2021, a human rights tribunal found that laws criminalising homosexuality violate international fundamental human rights laws.

Hong Kong court rules sex-segregated public conveniences breach equality and privacy rights

Leave a reply

Hong Kong court rules sex-segregated public conveniences breach equality and privacy rights

A Hong Kong court ruled Wednesday that the segregation of the sexes in public conveniences is unconstitutional for its disproportionate interference with transgender individuals’ right to privacy and equality. Judge Russell Coleman directed the government to review its regulations on the gender recognition scheme relating to access to public conveniences within 12 months.

The government conceded that the segregation by biological sex at birth is unconstitutional after the city’s top court ruling on another gender marker case. The only dispute that remained standing was whether the court could adopt a proper remedial construction to the statute.

Senior Counsel Tim Parker for the applicant argued that the law should recognize the real-life experience of a transgender individual and allow them, whose real-life experience is certified by a psychiatrist through a gender identity letter, to use washrooms conforming to their identified gender. Judge Coleman rejected this proposition, ruling that the government and the legislature, rather than the court, are in a better position to draw the line between male and female at law.

Judge Coleman also rejected the government’s proposal to recognize the gender marker on the individual’s HKID card for the purpose of accessing a public convenience. He reasoned that the proposal risks conflating the government’s policy with the law. He further reiterated that the gender marker on the HKID card is not conclusive on the legal recognition of a person’s gender and the associated rights under the law.

The judicial review concerns a criminal offense under the Public Conveniences (Conduct and Behaviour) Regulation, which prohibits any individuals from using opposite-sex public washrooms. In January 2023, the applicant challenged that the segregation based on biological sex at birth infringed on transgender individuals’ rights to equality and privacy.

Local transgender advocacy group Quarks welcomed the ruling. In a statement, the group urges the government to abolish the discriminatory statute and legislate for gender recognition.

In February 2023, the city’s top court ruled in another case that the requirement for full sex re-assignment surgery to alter gender marker on HKID card is unconstitutional. The court held that requiring transgender individuals to undergo the most invasive surgical intervention was disproportionate because it may not be medically necessary in the range of treatments for gender dysphoria.

In April 2024, the government revised its policy to allow pre-operative transgender individuals to change their sex entry. Nonetheless, the policy still requires the applicants to have received hormonal treatment for two years and submit blood test reports when required to have their identified gender reflected on their HKID card.

The post Hong Kong court rules sex-segregated public conveniences breach equality and privacy rights appeared first on JURIST – News.