This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take a case in which Indiana was trying to deny the right of married nonbiological mothers in same-sex couples to be recognized as legal parents by being put on their children’s birth certificates. An appeals court had ruled in January that both mothers must be allowed on the birth certificates; because the Supreme Court has refused to take the case, that decision stands.
Indiana had been appealing a January 2020 ruling of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Box v. Henderson that said Indiana must put both same-sex spouses on the birth certificate of a child born to one of them. This right is crucial for giving children with same-sex parents the legal protection of both parents from the moment of birth. In an order (PDF) posted this morning, the Supreme Court “denied certiorari,” meaning they will not hear the case.
I wrote at length about the case in June, when Indiana asked the Supreme Court to take it, and just a few weeks ago, when it filed an additional brief. Please go read those posts if you want to try and understand the convoluted logic by which Indiana was trying to say that only biology, not marital status, matters for birth certificates and that while it does allow a husband’s name to go on a child’s birth certificate even if another man is really the biological father (say, if he and his wife have fertility issues and use a sperm donor), it can treat same-sex couples differently.
Not buying it? Neither, apparently, was the U.S. Supreme Court. The court may also have been reluctant to issue a ruling in opposition to its 2017 decision in Pavan v. Smith, which said that married same-sex couples in Arkansas have the right to both be on their children’s birth certificates. That decision itself rested on the landmark 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which said same- and different-sex couples must be treated equally. This case thus threatened not only the rights of same-sex parents, but also the solidity of Obergefell to protect all same-sex couples. The Supreme Court’s refusal to take it is a very good thing.
Congratulations to all of the eight plaintiff couples and their families, to the attorneys from the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Ropes & Gray who worked on the case, and all of the families in Indiana and elsewhere who will benefit.
Indiana continues to press the U.S. Supreme Court to take a case that would deny the right of married nonbiological mothers in same-sex couples to be recognized as legal parents by being put on their children’s birth certificates. It doubled down in a brief filed with the court last week. Double down with me as we take a look at the case—and how parenting bloggers are inadvertently playing an odd role.
Indiana is appealing a January 2020 ruling of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Box v. Henderson that said Indiana must put both same-sex spouses on the birth certificate of a child born to one of them. This right, recognized not only in that case but also in the 2017 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Pavan v. Smith, is crucial for giving children with same-sex parents the legal protection of both parents from the moment of birth.
In its petition to the Supreme Court, filed June 15th, however, Indiana maintains that the 7th Circuit ruling “is in tension with the traditional, constitutionally protected understanding that, at birth, only a baby’s biological parents have legal rights and obligations toward the child.”
In early November, however, the plaintiffs, eight female same-sex married (or previously married) couples and their children, filed a response to Indiana’s request that the Supreme Court take the case. As Mark Joseph Stern noted at Slate, this was by request of the court, and “This unusual step indicates that the justices are interested in taking up the case.” Indiana last week followed up with an additional filing of its own, responding to the plaintiff’s response.
I covered the case and its arguments in some detail in an earlier post. In brief, Indiana is arguing that it is basing its practice on biology, not on marital status. That way, it claims, it does not run afoul of two U.S. Supreme Court rulings about marital status: Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized marriage for same-sex couples, and Pavan v. Smith, which said Arkansas may not prevent married same-sex couples from having both mothers’ names on their children’s birth certificates. Because those rulings only forbid discrimination on the basis of marital status, Indiana argues, discriminating on the basis of biology is just fine and dandy (my paraphrase).
Defining a Father
The plaintiffs’ recent response (PDF) to this argument noted that Indiana’s Birth Worksheet, which collects information for the birth certificate, “asks the mother if she is married to the child’s ‘father,’ and, if so, to identify him. It does not use the term ‘biological’ or otherwise indicate that the ‘father’ must have a genetic tie to the child.” Therefore, although Indiana says it “treats the term ‘father’ to mean ‘biological father,’” the plaintiffs say “that meaning is neither evident from the form nor supported by Indiana law, and it is contradicted by the form itself.” In other words, the plaintiffs argue, Indiana is not, as it claims, making its decisions based strictly on biology.
Indiana, in its latest response (PDF) to the plaintiffs, notes that it is true that the Birth Worksheet does not define “father” as meaning a biological father—but it then asks incredulously, “But what else would it mean?” It continues, “The word ‘father is commonly understood to mean ‘biological father’ or, as defined by Merriam-Webster, ‘a man who has begotten a child.’” That’s actually the second definition of “father” by Merriam-Webster. Conveniently, Indiana ignores the first definition, which is simply “A male parent,” no begetting necessary.
Next—and here’s the really ludicrous part—it tries to prove that “the word ‘father’ is commonly understood to mean ‘biological father’” by citing three posts by dad bloggers, at Dadtography, Dad Fixes Everything, and Mind Journal, that explore the differences between being a “father” and being a “dad.” Each argues that being a “father” is simply a matter of biology, whereas a “dad” is someone who is active in raising a child. Certainly some may make that argument—and I’m definitely all for encouraging men to be hands-on in their parenting. Yet Indiana’s lawyers are again being very selective in choosing these posts. These may be fine blogs, but we don’t know if they’re necessarily representative of widespread opinion. One can easily find just as many pieces by men who have adopted children, i.e., children not biologically related to them, and use the term “adoptive father.” (Here are one, two, three of them that I found fairly easily.) And the Dad Fixes Everything post they cite even undercuts the state’s argument by noting that “Merriam-Webster doesn’t offer much clarity on the difference between these two titles [dad and father] for men.”
Another point Indiana addresses in the new filing is when a couple (like one of the plaintiff couples), used one person’s egg and the other’s womb. In the initial filing, they called this “the rarest of cases” and said little more about it. (It’s not that rare; it’s the method my spouse and I used and I know plenty of other couples who have.) Indiana now notes that state law conveys biological parental rights on the egg donor, and claims that the State’s refusal to list the gestational mother on the child’s birth certificate (where she would have had to be listed in the “biological father” spot) is “reasonable,” since she is the child’s biological mother, not biological father. “Her remedy is to file a maternity action,” they say. That’s right: after nine months of pregnancy, even when married to the person who provided the egg, the state wants a mother to jump through legal hoops to prove her parenthood. A better answer: Change the form.
Indiana continues to press its case to a Supreme Court made even more conservative with the recent addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. It even directly addresses the conservative justices who dissented in Pavan, reminding them of their dissent and offering them here a chance to finally have their way (my bold):
As three [dissenting] justices recognized in Pavan, “nothing in Obergefell indicates that a birth registration regime based on biology, one no doubt with many analogues across the country and throughout history, offends the Constitution. To the contrary, to the extent they speak to the question at all, this Court’s precedents suggest just the opposite conclusion.” This case gives the Court a critical opportunity to clarify that States may, consistent with Obergefell and Pavan, establish a biology-based system for allocating parental rights (reflected on the child’s birth certificate) without insisting that every supposed biological parent undergo genetic testing and adjudication.
The two new filings from the plaintiffs and the state have been distributed to the court for its conference on December 11, when the justices will likely consider whether to take the case. If they do, it would still be months before a decision.
Yes, even if they take the case and rule in Indiana’s favor, nonbiological parents in same-sex couples could still get second-parent (co-parent) adoptions to secure their legal rights. Second-parent adoptions, however, usually cost several thousand dollars in attorney’s fees and require an intrusive home study, background check, and court appearance in most states (though a few are simplifying the process). They can also take months to complete, leaving a child without the legal protection of both parents during that time, and at risk if the biological mother dies or is incapacitated.
As always, I’ll remind readers that even if you’re a nonbiological/nongestational mother and are on your child’s birth certificate, you should still do a second-parent adoption if you can. Only an adoption or other court order of parentage is guaranteed “full faith and credit” by other states, and secures the nonbiological parent’s legal ties to the child regardless of marital status. See my October post for more information about this. Nevertheless, having accurate birth certificates is a vital right that not only gives children the immediate protection of both parents, but also gives parents a key document that is required for completing school registrations and other important forms in our children’s lives. Denying children of same-sex parents this right is discrimination, pure and simple.
The plaintiffs in Box v. Henderson have also argued that the Supreme Court does not usually take cases “to resolve questions of state law,” but that is what Indiana is asking it to do. The Court of Appeals “faithfully” applied both the Supreme Court decision in Pavan and state law, and so nothing in the case warrants the Supreme Court’s review, they assert. Let’s hope the Supreme Court agrees and refuses to take the case. If it doesn’t, the rights of queer families will once again be on the line.
The Kansas Supreme Court ruled last week that nonbiological mothers may be recognized as parents simply by acknowledging maternity at the time a child is born and showing that the birth mother consented to shared parenting. The case also brings us what could be the best use of the word “notorious” since RBG.
The two cases, In re M.F. and In re W.L., involved nonbiological, nongestational mothers who were trying to establish parental rights after they had separated from their partners. The couples had never married and had not made any written co-parenting agreements. In one case, both of the mothers’ names were on the child’s birth certificate; in the other, they were not, although the twins’ last names were hyphenates of the mothers’ names. Neither nonbiological parent had done a second-parent (co-parent) adoption. Two lower courts said the nonbiological mothers were not legal parents, but the state Supreme Court has now overturned those rulings.
The Supreme Court had also decided in a nonbiological mother’s favor in a 2013 decision involving a separated same-sex couple—but in that case, the women had a written co-parenting agreement. The parents in the current cases did not. Nevertheless, the court ruled last week, just because the earlier couple had a written agreement didn’t mean that subsequent couples were required to show written agreements or their oral equivalents.
They concluded in the current two cases that based on current state parenting statutes, “A woman seeking to establish parenthood who relies on the presumption of maternity under [state law] need not show the existence of a written or oral coparenting agreement between her and the birth mother. She need only show she has notoriously recognized maternity and the rights and duties attendant to it at the time of the child’s birth” and that “the birth mother has consented to shared parenting at the time of the child’s birth.”
“Notorious” in its legal sense means something “generally known and talked of.” I now sort of want a t-shirt that says “Notorious Parent.” (Maybe this can be the next fundraiser from one of our LGBTQ legal organizations….)
The court made a further important point, stressing that in one of the cases, it was the nonbiological parent K.L.’s “notorious recognition” of her parentage, not (as the lower courts had said) any “open and notorious demonstrations of parenting” or “open and notorious assumption of parenting responsibilities” that mattered. They explain the distinction:
It simply was not necessary that she demonstrate she was an attentive, hands-on, involved mother. Rather, she had to show that she notoriously recognized her maternity, including the rights it would give her and the duties it would impose upon her. The two [lower] courts’ focus … needed to be on whether K.L. had qualified as one of M.F.’s [the child’s] two parents, not on whether she had later turned out to be a model of parenting success.
In other words, nonbiological parents needn’t feel the pressure to prove they are model parents in order to be recognized as parents, something many earlier LGBTQ parents have had to struggle with as they fought for legal rights to their children.
Furthermore, the court said, it is important that the nonbiological mother’s acknowledgment of maternity and the biological mother’s consent happen at the child’s birth, in order to establish stability for the child:
Allowing unilateral action by either party to thwart the maternity of the other after a child has arrived and vital bonds with both have begun to form is unacceptable…. [A] demand that each individual have made up her mind as of the time of the baby’s arrival incentivizes stability for that child over surmountable relationship disappointments that are bound to occur…. In the case of the birth of a child, the crystallization of the parties’ individual intents at the time the child enters the world configures the family.
This is great news, showing that even in Kansas, a very red state, we can make progress for queer families.
Even as we have been waiting for the results of the presidential election, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case yesterday that will determine whether taxpayer-funded foster care and adoption agencies—and possibly any provider of government-contracted services—can cite religious beliefs as a reason to discriminate against LGBTQ people and others. Here are some of the arguments made.
For detailed background on the case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, I refer you to my piece from last week. In short, it began in 2018, when the City of Philadelphia stopped referring foster children to Catholic Social Services (CSS) because the agency would not license qualified same-sex couples to be foster or adoptive parents. CSS then brought a lawsuit in federal district court, which ruled for the city, as did an appeals court. CSS appealed to the Supreme Court, which took the case in February 2020. In June, the Trump administration filed a brief siding with CSS.
Yesterday, in front of a court that included the newly seated Amy Coney Barrett, lawyers for both CSS and the city presented their cases. All of the justices pushed on the question of whether CSS, in taking the city’s contract, was doing the city’s work or doing its own work and simply being licensed by the city. If the latter, the city would have less authority to enforce its nondiscrimination laws.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that the city was paying CSS, and the government does not pay entities to take a license. Justice Stephen Breyer noted that the city isn’t asking CSS to endorse marriage for same-sex couples, merely that they meet the statutory requirements to be foster parents.
Prompted by more conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, however, CSS claimed that no same-sex couple had ever applied to the agency. If they had, it said, they would simply have been referred to another agency. CSS also emphasized its 200-year history of providing services to children and families and said the city was targeting it because of its religion.
Attorney Neal Katyal, arguing for the city, said it is not targeting CSS because of its religious beliefs, but because there are no exemptions to the city’s nondiscrimination laws. This isn’t a matter of religion versus LGBTQ rights, they said, but rather of religion versus religion. A ruling in favor of CSS could mean that people are turned away from government services because of their religion.
Alito, however, seemed to side with CSS in opining that the city wasn’t actually trying to ensure that same-sex couples could be foster parents, but that it simply “can’t stand the message that Catholic Social Services and the Archdiocese are sending by continuing to adhere to the old-fashioned view about marriage.”
CSS also argued to overturn the 1990 Supreme Court case Employment Division v. Smith, in which former Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said that Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, which permits freedom of religion, does not mean that there are exemptions from “a neutral, generally applicable law” that is “not specifically directed to religious practice.” It was hard to tell if the justices seemed interested in overturning Smith, however.
Additionally, Hashim Moopan, a Justice Department lawyer arguing for CSS, said that the city does permissibly consider race or disability in placing children with foster parents. Why can’t it also consider sexual orientation? The city’s lawyers countered that there was a difference between child placements and the screening of potential parents, and it is the latter, where there are no exceptions, at issue here. When asked if CSS’ position of allowing exemptions to nondiscrimination laws could lead to discrimination on the basis of race, Moopan indicated that it wouldn’t, leading Breyer to ask whether “discrimination on the basis of race is different from discrimination based on gender, religion, and sexuality.” Moopan responded that “Race is unique in this country’s constitutional history,” and that eradicating racial discrimination “presents a particularly unique and compelling interest.” When pushed by Justice Elena Kagan on whether it is a compelling state interest to eradicate discrimination against gays and lesbians, he equivocated.
Alito seemed to side with the idea that racial discrimination and discrimination against same-sex couples are fundamentally different, citing Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that legalized marriage for same-sex couples. “Didn’t we say in Obergefell that there are honorable reasons to continue to oppose same-sex marriage?” he asked. (The Obergefell decision, written by former Justice Anthony Kennedy, does indeed say, “Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.”)
Justice Brett Kavanaugh also brought up this point in Obergefell, and told the city’s lawyers that while he understood the “stigmatic harm” of CSS’ policy on same-sex couples, “What I fear here is that the absolutist and extreme position that you’re articulating would require us to go back on the promise of respect for religious believers.”
Overall, the justices seemed split along ideological lines, although Chief Justice John Roberts’ thinking was less clear. The newest justice, Barrett, while she didn’t seem eager to overturn Smith, at one point tried to get Katyal to respond to a hypothetical situation in which a city has taken over all health care and contracts with private entities to provide it. Must a Catholic hospital then perform abortions? Katyal replied that the current case does not involve a government monopoly of previously private services, and that the government takeover of a private care system in itself raises constitutional problems.
Depending on how the court rules, the case could have far-reaching implications beyond just child services, as I explained last week. What’s next? Now we wait—even longer than for the outcome of the presidential election. A decision is expected by the end of the court’s current term next June.
16 queer couples got married at St Louis City Hall before Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation. (FOX2now)
Queer couples in America are racing to get married before before far-right nominee Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the US Supreme Court, fearing she could roll back marriage equality.
Anti-LGBT+ Catholic judge Amy Coney Barrett is expected to be confirmed to the Supreme Court on Monday (October 26), with the Republican controlled Senate rushing through the appointment of the Trump nominee just one week before the presidential election on November 3.
Barrett’s anti-LGBT+ record, including her membership of the Catholic group People of Praise which kicks members out for having gay sex and her ties to listed anti-LGBT+ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom, has sparked fears that she could roll back marriage equality when she is appointed to the Supreme Court.
In response, Tori Jameson, a non-binary, queer, sex-positive pastor who serves the LGBT+ community in St Louis, Missouri, decided to do something while there was still time.
They said: “She has made statements against Roe, against immigration. I worry about our rights being rolled back if she gets in. But I don’t have a lot of political power. I’m just a community pastor.”
According to them., Jameson offered “pop-up elopements” to the local queer community at St Louis City Hall, allowing couples to tie the knot “while [they] still have the chance”.
The four days of free wedding ceremonies saw 16 queer couples get married, while florists, bakers, photographers and other vendors offered their services for free.
Jameson added: “We are going to take care of our own. You can be hateful, but there is an opportunity here to celebrate love and be joyful.”
Fears are mounting among the queer community that the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett could undo marriage equality.
On October 4, a week after Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett, two conservative Supreme Court justices launched a chilling attack on the 2015 equal marriage ruling.
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote in a statement that Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that legalised same-sex marriage in all 50 states, had “ruinous consequences for religious liberty”.
“Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other anti-discrimination laws,” the pair wrote.
“It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law.
“But it is quite another when the court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the free exercise clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch.”
Chase Strangio of the ACLU explained that the statement suggests the justices “are eager to overturn Obergefell already — even though it is only five years old”.
He added: “The brazenness of the rightward direction of the court is a threat to even the most basic expectation of legal protection. What we can expect is the continued erosion of legal protections gained over the past century.”
More than 1,000 experts and organizations filed nearly 50 briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday arguing that taxpayer-funded child welfare agencies should not be able to discriminate against LGBTQ people and others by citing religious beliefs. The implications of this case could go far beyond child welfare, however.
The case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, began in 2018, when the City of Philadelphia stopped referring foster children to Catholic Social Services (CSS) because the agency would not license qualified same-sex couples to be foster or adoptive parents, a violation of the city’s anti-discrimination laws. CSS then brought a lawsuit in federal district court, claiming those laws impinged on their freedom of religion. Both the district court and an appeals court ruled in the city’s favor, saying that it can require foster care agencies with city contracts to adhere to the city’s nondiscrimination laws. CSS appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which said in February that it would hear the case this fall; this past Wednesday it scheduled oral arguments for November 4.
In June, the Trump administration filed a brief siding with CSS and saying that taxpayer-funded child service agencies should be allowed to discriminate. Now, major LGBTQ organizations, child welfare professional associations, LGBTQ youth service providers, faith-based foster care agencies, faith leaders, legal scholars, civil rights organizations, bipartisan elected officials, and others have filed 46 friend-of-the-court briefs opposing such discrimination. Freedom for All Americans, one of the groups involved in the strategy behind the briefs, helped recruit signatories including approximately 450 faith leaders and clergy, 35 current and former Republican elected officials and leaders, more than 30 national businesses, and more than 165 mayors and local governments (including the U.S. Conference of Mayors) representing 50 million Americans.
A new report released this week by the Movement Advancement Project (MAP) further shows the harms of religious exemptions in the child welfare system. Among other things, the report reminds us of the extent of taxpayer funding in the system, with $7.3 billion in dedicated federal child welfare funding going to states and counties and then to individual child-placing agencies, and an estimated $29.9 billion in federal, state, and local funds spent on child welfare in 2016. The impact of allowing discrimination in this system would be immense, as MAP explains:
Research finds that Black and Native American children, children with disabilities, and LGBTQ youth are overrepresented in the child welfare system. That’s why robust nondiscrimination protections within the child welfare system based on race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other characteristics are so important even though many states lack explicit protections for sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. Without such protections, children may be mistreated or separated from their families because of factors unrelated to their safety and well-being, and otherwise qualified families may be denied the ability to foster and adopt children in need.
Depending on how the Supreme Court rules and how broad or narrow its ruling is, the Fulton case could create a license to discriminate that would go against the best interests of the hundreds of thousands of children and millions of families who receive services through the system, MAP says.
This undermines the very premise of taxpayer-funded social services: that they are designed to serve all of the public.
Beyond child welfare, a very broad ruling could even “result in nearly every entity that receives government funding, ranging from child welfare agencies to soup kitchens and those offering job training programs, being able to claim a religious exemption to a wide array of regulations and laws.” It could mean that “government-funded service providers choosing to serve only those who share their own beliefs or refusing to provide critical services to those who don’t.”
MAP doesn’t pull any punches: “This undermines the very premise of taxpayer-funded social services: that they are designed to serve all of the public.”
Visit the Freedom for All Americans website to read more about the case, sign up for updates, and learn how you can help spread the word about the harm of using taxpayer funds to discriminate.
The only time I’ve ever been on birth control was when my spouse and I were trying to have a child. This just goes to show the variety of ways that birth control is used—and why the Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing more employers to refuse to cover it is very much a queer issue.
First, let me assure you I know how birth control works. My spouse and I, however, were doing reciprocal IVF, with me donating an egg for her to carry. We needed to synch our cycles so that my egg was retrieved when her uterus was ready. Enter the birth control pill, which allows a clockwork prediction of one’s monthly cycle. (More details here on how we did this.) Yet my situation is far from the only one involving queer people and birth control. Bisexual and pansexual people may be in relationships that have the potential within them to create pregnancies, as may transgender and nonbinary folks. Sometimes, too, birth control is used to regulate hormones for medical reasons having nothing to do with procreation.
The Supreme Court upheld the Trump administration’s desire to allow almost any employer, even for-profit ones, to cite religious or moral beliefs as a reason to refuse to cover birth control for its employees. In doing so, it gutted provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that say employers must cover this. (The ACA did, in fact allow exemptions for religiously affiliated organizations, while also giving their employees ways of having birth control covered by having the organizations not pay the costs directly, as CNN explains.) Now, the Supreme Court has said even employers who are not religiously affiliated may use religious or moral reasons not to cover birth control. Between 75,000 to 125,000 women could lose birth control coverage, by the government’s estimate.
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said in her dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, “Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree.”
This is deeply frightening, especially given the other ways this administration is pushing for religious exemptions to nondiscrimination laws—say, in adoption and foster care,
I wish I had some words of encouragement—but all I can do is agree with RBG. One more reason for us all to vote in November.
Army Sergeant Shane Ortega laces up boots before posing for a portrait at home at Wheeler Army Airfield on March 26, 2015 in Wahiawa, Hawaii. (Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)
Democratic lawmakers have pressed for an end to Donald Trump ‘s ban on transgender people serving in the military, in wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on LGBT+ civil rights protections.
In its ruling last month, the Supreme Court made clear that anti-discrimination protections enshrined in the 1964 Civil Rights Act also protect people from discrimination in employment based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
LGBT+ activists are hopeful that the ruling means that days are numbered for the ban on trans people serving in the armed forces, which was imposed in the wake of an infamous Trump tweet-storm in 2017.
Trump administration warned of ‘certain defeat’ over trans military ban
In a letter to Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Attorney General William Barr published Wednesday, Democrats in the House of Representatives urged the Trump administration to “immediately” eliminate the ban and cease resisting court action on the issue in the face of “almost certain defeat.”
The letter states: “This policy denies transgender people the ability to enlist in the military and puts transgender troops at risk of being discharged for living openly and authentically.
“The Bostock decision unambiguously clarified that Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex includes protections for LGBTQ workers.
“Justice Gorsuch wrote ‘[t]he statute’s message for our cases is equally simple and momentous: An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.’”
Noting the four ongoing lawsuits challenging the ban working their way through the court system, the letter adds: “The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock will provide significant weight to those already substantial claims: the principle announced— that gender-identity discrimination is discrimination ‘because of sex’—applies equally to claims under the Constitution.
“Prolonging the litigation in the face of almost certain defeat, and thereby prolonging the existing policy, will continue to inflict serious harm on transgender people seeking to serve our country and on those already serving while living in the shadows, enduring the dignitary harm of being told they’re a burden.
“This policy is an attack on transgender service members who are risking their lives to serve our country and it should be reversed immediately.”
The White House declined to comment on the letter, according to forces outlet Stars and Stripes.
The letter, spearheaded by Washington Democrat Suzan DelBene, is signed by 113 Democratic members of Congress, including every single out LGB House lawmaker – David Cicilline, Angie Craig, Sharice Davids, Sean Patrick Maloney, Chris Pappas, Mark Pocan and Mark Takano. There are no out transgender people elected to the House of Representatives.
Joe Biden has already vowed to immediately scrap trans ban
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has already pledged to scrap the ban if elected in November.
His policy plan makes clear: “Every American who is qualified to serve in our military should be able to do so—regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity and without having to hide who they are.
“Biden will direct the US Department of Defense to allow transgender service members to serve openly, receive needed medical treatment, and be free from discrimination.”
The landmark ruling will extend protections to millions of workers nationwide and is a defeat for the Trump administration, which argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that bars discrimination based on sex did not extend to claims of gender identity and sexual orientation.
The 6-3 opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberal justices.
“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids,” Gorsuch wrote.
“There is simply no escaping the role intent plays here: Just as sex is necessarily a but-for cause when an employer discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees, an employer who discriminates on these grounds inescapably intends to rely on sex in its decisionmaking,” the opinion read.