We have probably all heard about the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights ruling on trans athletes, well here is GLAD’s analysis of that ruling.
We also have a Supreme Court ruling coming out this month on if we and sexual orientation are covered under “sex” in Title VII.
In another case before the Supreme Court this time it is about “religious freedom” to discriminate.
Transgender Girls and School Sports: What Does the Office of Civil Rights Letter Mean?This is not going away for a long, long time. There is going to be a lot of court rulings before this is settled with luck we will have a new president, a real president in the White House before this is settled.
Good news: nothing right now“For nearly 50 years, Title IX has served as a bedrock for establishing fair and equal educational opportunities. Any move the Office of Civil Rights takes to wield Title IX as a weapon against transgender high school girls erodes the significance of this landmark civil rights law.”-Jennifer Levi, GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director
[…]
What is the effect of the letter?The letter has no immediate effect. To be sure, OCR’s position that CIAC’s trans-inclusive policy violates Title IX is very alarming. It is also in the same vein of civil rights rollbacks and anti-LGBTQ policies we have seen emerge from the Trump administration since January 2017 However, the letter contains no authoritative legal analysis and its issuance has no immediate legal impact on CIAC or the schools to which it was addressed, much less any other schools, districts, or other statewide athletic associations. And, while it threatens the CIAC and the schools with loss of federal funds, OCR has no authority to deny these entities of federal funds by the issuance of this letter. It’s also important to note that in its entire history, OCR has never denied any entity federal funds for either alleged or demonstrated violations of Title IX.
Why doesn’t the letter have any immediate effect?While the U.S. Department of Education is charged with enforcing the law, it does not have the ability to change the law or ultimately decide what the law means. The power to interpret the meaning of Title IX lies with the courts. There is a pending federal lawsuit in which CIAC and the five schools to which OCR’s letter is addressed are defending current Connecticut policy which authorizes transgender girls to participate in girls’ sports. Initially, ADF sought an accelerated determination by the federal court hearing the case. However, with the cancellation of the spring sports season due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the court has taken the case off any accelerated schedule. As a practical matter, any action taken by OCR, in follow up to the letter, will not be able to move more quickly than the pending lawsuit.
We also have a Supreme Court ruling coming out this month on if we and sexual orientation are covered under “sex” in Title VII.
In another case before the Supreme Court this time it is about “religious freedom” to discriminate.
Trump admin to Supreme Court: Let adoption agencies reject LGBTQ familiesThe case is about whether a religious organization that is receiving public funding can discriminate in using that funding. In the past the courts have found that they could not… once again it will boil down to how Chief Justice Roberts votes.
Washington Blade
By Chris Johnson
June 3, 2020
In the latest example of the Trump administration seeking to enable legal discrimination against LGBTQ people, the Justice Department is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to allow religious-affiliated adoption agencies to refuse child placement into LGBTQ homes.
In a 35-page brief, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco and other Justice Department attorneys maintain the City of Philadelphia has “impermissibly discriminated against religious exercise” under the First Amendment by requiring Catholic Social Services to abide by a contract requiring LGBTQ non-discrimination practices in child placement.
“Governmental action tainted by hostility to religion fails strict scrutiny almost by definition,” the brief says. “This court has never recognized even a legitimate governmental interest — much less a compelling one — that justifies hostility toward religion.”
Although the case involves Catholic Social Services refusing to abide by the terms of its contract, the Justice Department framing of the litigation makes it seem like the City of Philadelphia is an aggressor and unfairly targeting Catholic Social Services, asserting the municipality is allowing for exemptions in some cases, but not religious-affiliated adoption agencies.This June 30th is going to be a busy day for the court.
No comments:
Post a Comment