All Rise...

"If you have never had to have your human rights 'debated' or 'decided' by a court of law, you are operating from a position of privilege."

Once again out rights are being heard by the Supreme Court!

Presidential powers, transgender rights among upcoming Supreme Court arguments

National Constitution Center

December 29, 2025

by Scott Bomboy

Starting in January 2026, the Supreme Court will resume hearing arguments in several high-profile cases, including debates about executive powers and questions of discrimination.

The Court already considered cases this past fall about Colorado’s conversion therapy ban (Chiles v. Salazar), the fate of the Voting Rights Act (Louisiana v. Callais), President Donald Trump’s ability to levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump), and the president’s power to fire a Federal Trade Commissioner (Trump v. Slaughter).

The rest of the 2025-2026 term features additional significant arguments raising constitutional questions and involving election issues. The justices also could add more cases to the docket up until mid-January 2026 for arguments in the current term.

Here is a brief look at some of the key cases to watch in the New Year.

Transgender Athletes

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. (Arguments: Jan 13, 2026)

In two cases scheduled to be heard separately on the same day, the Court will consider the extent to which gender identity and biological assignment at birth can be considered as factors in scholastic sports competitions. In Little, the Idaho Legislature enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which bases competition on biological assignment at birth. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the law violated the14th Amendment Equal Protection rights of “transgender women and girls.” In the case from West Virginia, a parent sued on behalf of her child, B.P.J., arguing that a state law banning biological boys who identify as girls from competing on girls’ teams was unconstitutional. The district court ruled in favor of the state on Equal Protection Clause and Title IX grounds. A divided Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the district court decision in favor of the student on the Title IX claim and ruled against the state on the Equal Protection questions.

But it is not just in the Supreme Court that cases against us are being heard.

---

Appeals Court Halts Ruling Letting Teachers Disclose Students’ Gender Identity

Education Week

By Kristen Taketa, The San Diego Union-Tribune

January 02, 2026

A federal appeals court has temporarily paused enforcement of a San Diego federal judge’s ruling that had cleared the way for school staff to tell parents about possible changes to their child’s gender presentation without the student’s consent.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a short-term administrative stay of the ruling but has not yet decided whether to grant a longer-term stay pending an appeal. It’s expected to rule on that next week.

The case, Mirabelli v. Olson, began in 2023 when two Escondido Union School District teachers sued over the district’s policy, based on state guidance at the time, prohibiting employees from disclosing what it called a student’s transgender or gender-nonconforming status absent the student’s consent.

The state has said that doing this risks outing a student who may be transgender or gender-nonconforming to their parents, creating an unsafe school environment and violating state privacy and non-discrimination laws.

---

Court rules parents can sue schools when they're not told their kids identify as transgender

KJZZ 

By Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services

December 31, 2025

Parents have a legal right to sue public schools when they’re not informed that their children are choosing to identify themselves as a gender other than the one to which they were born, the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled.

In a unanimous conclusion, the court on Tuesday resurrected a lawsuit filed against the Mesa Unified School District by the parent who said she was not informed that her daughter was using a male name at her junior high school.

The judges said that there was enough evidence to support the argument that the district had purposely withheld that information from the mother about her child’s sexual and gender identity issues.

Appellate Judge Michael Brown, writing for the court, said the Parents’ Bill of Rights, enacted by the Legislature in 2010, provides broad protections against interference with how a family chooses to raise a child. And they said the mother deserves to have her allegations heard at trial.

These are not the first and they will not be the last court cases challenging our rights to exist! And it is only going to get worst as the Republicans pack the courts