SCOTUS news and opinions

[Broken_Erika]

US Supreme Court declines to lift block on expanded trans student protections​

The US Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a new rule from the Biden administration meant to protect students from discrimination based on gender identity.
The court order issued on Friday rejects a request by the White House to be allowed to temporarily enforce the rule in a number of states.
The ruling is a victory for the Republican-led states that had objected to the rule, and a blow to trans rights activists.
However, the order does not settle the issue and allows legal challenges to continue in lower courts.

The new federal rule issued by the Biden administration in April expands the parameters of a 1972 law known as Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in schools that receive funding from the federal government, including most universities.
The rule sought to clarify the definition of "on the basis of sex" in the law to include gender identity.
Ten Republican-led states challenged the rule, which went into force on 1 August in some parts of the country.
They sued to block it from taking effect in their jurisdictions and won the cases in lower courts in Louisiana and Kentucky.
The Supreme Court's ruling now punts the issue back to lower courts.
The court's decision came in a 5-4 vote. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court's three liberal justices in his dissent.
The attorney general of Tennessee, which has objected to the Biden administration's new rule, issued a statement calling the move by the high court "a win for student privacy, free speech and the rule of law”.
Cathryn Oakley of Human Rights watch called it "disappointing that the Supreme Court has allowed far-right forces to stop the implementation of critical civil rights protections for youth”, according to the New York Times.
Transgender rights have become a major political issue in recent years in the US.
Conservatives in Republican-led states have passed laws banning students from using bathrooms that do not match their birth gender, or banning trans girls from playing on sports teams.
The new rule did not specifically address sport, but did ban schools from treating transgender students differently from classmates, including through bathroom access.
In their majority opinion, the court wrote that it was declining to block the lower courts' rulings which had found “the new definition of sex discrimination is intertwined with and affects many other provisions of the new rule”.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg21x1j54mo

 

[sophie]

The ruling is a victory for the Republican-led states that had objected to the rule, and a blow to trans rights activists.

This is such a chickenhorsehocky, weasly framing of the issue.

"A judge today ruled that anti-Jewish hate spraypainted on a synagogue qualifies as protected speech and the local nazis who defaced the wall are not to be held criminally liable for the act. This ruling is a blow to antisemitism watchdog organizations."

 

[EnglishEdward]

Which judge is that ?

 

[choxorn]

Which judge is that ?

Judge Himml- er.... Bibbler, yeah, Bibbler, that's the ticket.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

US Supreme Court declines to lift block on expanded trans student protections​

The US Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a new rule from the Biden administration meant to protect students from discrimination based on gender identity.
The court order issued on Friday rejects a request by the White House to be allowed to temporarily enforce the rule in a number of states.
The ruling is a victory for the Republican-led states that had objected to the rule, and a blow to trans rights activists.
However, the order does not settle the issue and allows legal challenges to continue in lower courts.

The new federal rule issued by the Biden administration in April expands the parameters of a 1972 law known as Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in schools that receive funding from the federal government, including most universities.
The rule sought to clarify the definition of "on the basis of sex" in the law to include gender identity.
Ten Republican-led states challenged the rule, which went into force on 1 August in some parts of the country.
They sued to block it from taking effect in their jurisdictions and won the cases in lower courts in Louisiana and Kentucky.
The Supreme Court's ruling now punts the issue back to lower courts.
The court's decision came in a 5-4 vote. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court's three liberal justices in his dissent.
The attorney general of Tennessee, which has objected to the Biden administration's new rule, issued a statement calling the move by the high court "a win for student privacy, free speech and the rule of law”.
Cathryn Oakley of Human Rights watch called it "disappointing that the Supreme Court has allowed far-right forces to stop the implementation of critical civil rights protections for youth”, according to the New York Times.
Transgender rights have become a major political issue in recent years in the US.
Conservatives in Republican-led states have passed laws banning students from using bathrooms that do not match their birth gender, or banning trans girls from playing on sports teams.
The new rule did not specifically address sport, but did ban schools from treating transgender students differently from classmates, including through bathroom access.
In their majority opinion, the court wrote that it was declining to block the lower courts' rulings which had found “the new definition of sex discrimination is intertwined with and affects many other provisions of the new rule”.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg21x1j54mo

This is the difficult paradigm the US operates within where schools (for whatever reason) necessitate federal funding beyond that of their school district, and so must accept the strings which come attached. Perhaps it'd be brave if they simply said no.

 

[Cutlass]

This is the difficult paradigm the US operates within where schools (for whatever reason) necessitate federal funding beyond that of their school district, and so must accept the strings which come attached. Perhaps it'd be brave if they simply said no.

Part of the reason for the federal funding is that the local funding shortchanges students based on racism. But another part is that local schoolboards shortchange students based on making up crap to push radical conservative ideologies.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Supreme Court limits Arizona voting without citizenship proof​

The US Supreme Court has granted a Republican request to partially reinstate an Arizona law demanding proof of American citizenship for voter registration.
In a 5-4 ruling, justices reinstated part of a 2022 law that rejected such forms if the voter did not provide proof of citizenship.
The law's full revival would have excluded more than 41,000 people from voting in November's election between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.
President Joe Biden won Arizona in 2020 by just over 10,000 votes. His administration and advocacy groups had sued to stop the law.

Thursday’s ruling revived a provision in the Arizona law that requires residents to provide proof of American citizenship to register as voters in the state.
It rejected, however, the law's provision to mandate that voters who used a separate federal registration form should provide such documentation.
Michael Whatley, chairman of the RNC, said the ruling was a "major victory for election integrity. American elections must be decided by American citizens".
However, the ruling is expected to have little impact on November's election as it does not affect any Arizonan already registered to vote, according to the Arizona Republic newspaper.
The law was enacted in March 2022 by Doug Ducey, the then-Republican governor, to balance what he said was voting accessibility with election security.
The Biden administration sued to revoke it in July of the same year, arguing that it was superseded by a 1993 federal law called the National Voter Registration Act.
Advocacy groups also petitioned against the Arizona measure.
Last September, Phoenix-based US District Judge Susan Bolton ruled in favour of the challenge, and blocked requirements for documentary proof at both state and national levels.
A three-judge panel on the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to halt Judge Bolton's ruling.
That prompted an emergency Supreme Court filing from the Republican National Committee and Arizona Republicans.
On Thursday five conservative justices granted the Republican request. A sixth conservative, Amy Coney Barrett, joined with the three liberal justices in opposing the request.
Arizona, which is expected to be one of the most competitive states in the November election, has been a flashpoint in the battle over voting laws.
It is the only state that requires voters to provide a birth certificate, a passport or one of a handful of other documents proving their citizenship.
A closely watched Republican review of the 2020 presidential election found no evidence that irregularities marred Mr Biden's narrow victory over Trump.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj087qrp3jro

 

[Birdjaguar]

Supreme Court declines to hear challenge of the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s structure​

CNN: The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear an appeal challenging the structure of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the latest legal case that threatened independent government agencies.

The appeal from two “educational organizations,” alleged that the 52-year-old independent consumer protection agency violates the Constitution because its five-member board can only be removed by the president for cause.

A federal appeals court had ruled against the groups and so the Supreme Court’s decision to deny the case leaves the agency’s structure in place.

The case is the latest stop in a years-long legal battle over independent agencies Congress creates and attempts to insulate from politics and the whims of a president. Critics say those independent agencies, whose boards cannot be easily removed, raise significant separation of powers concerns.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission can “ban products, file enforcement suits, and secure eight-figure penalties,” the groups told the Supreme Court. “But it does all of this outside the lines of political accountability.”

The agency’s commissioners, the groups said, are “wholly unaccountable to the chief executive whose power it wields.”

In response, the Biden administration argued that the plaintiffs don’t make products regulated by the commission and therefore shouldn’t be allowed to sue in the first place. The groups filed the litigation not because of a recalled product but rather because the commission declined to fulfill their records requests in 2021.

Biden officials stressed that a ruling for the groups could invite challenges to similarly structured federal agencies, including the National Transportation Safety Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Those agencies also have multi-member boards that were created to inject a degree of independence from the president — and presidential politics — from their decision-making.

A ruling for the groups, Consumers’ Research and By Two, could have given a president more power to shape those boards.

The appeal is the latest in a string of cases attempting to undermine independent agencies. In 2020, the Supreme Court invalidated the leadership structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ruling that it violated separation of powers principles because the president was barred from removing the director at will. That litigation cropped up after a high-profile fight between the then director and former President Donald Trump.

Among the attorneys representing the groups challenging the Consumer Product Safety Commission this time is Don McGahn, who was White House counsel under Trump.

To defend the consumer agency, the Biden administration is relying heavily on a 1935 precedent that raised similar questions about the Federal Trade Commission. The groups challenging the agency are focused instead on the more recent decision, from 2020, involving the CFPB.

A US District Court judge nominated by Trump sided with the groups, but the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. When the full 5th Circuit declined to revisit that decision in April, Judge Don Willett, a Trump nominee, wrote that the 1935 precedent controlled the case but that it was “nigh impossible to square” that opinions with the Supreme Court’s “current separation-of-powers sentiment.”

The appeal to the Supreme Court, Willett wrote, “writes itself.”