On Friday, August 25 U.S. President Donald Trump signed a memorandum directing “the military not to move forward with an Obama-era plan that would have allowed transgender individuals to be recruited into the armed forces.”
The memo “also bans the Department of Defense from using its resources to provide medical treatment regimens for transgender individuals currently serving in the military.”
On Monday, August 28 Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington challenging “the constitutionality of an official federal policy of discrimination against transgender people regarding military service.” The lawsuit was filed on behalf of “two individuals who seek to join the military; one current service member who seeks appointment as an officer; the Human Rights Campaign…; and Gender Justice League.”
According to the lawsuit, “Dripping with animus, the Ban and the current accessions bar violate the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment. They are unsupported by any compelling, important, or even rational justification.”
We do not support this ban against transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military.
Karnoski, et al v. Trump — complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief
Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN Sue President Trump to Reverse Transgender Military Service Ban — Lambda Legal
Trump signs directive banning transgender military recruits — CNN
Trump announces plan to ban transgender individuals from U.S. military service (USA) — Gender Identity Watch
A woman named Evan Michael Minton is suing Mercy San Juan Medical Center, a Catholic hospital, because the hospital did not want to perform a hysterectomy on her to advance the fiction that she is a man. Another hospital in the same hospital system later did perform the surgery. Minton claims that Catholic doctrine oppresses her and causes her damage. Minton, through her counsel, the American Civil Liberties Union, fails to note that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all people.
Transgender patient sues Dignity Health for discrimination over hysterectomy denial _ The Sacramento Bee
The Missouri General Assembly has issued a proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution, known as Senate Joint Resolution No. 39, introduced by Senator Bob Onder. The proposed amendment, add a new section to the constitution specifying that “the state shall not impose a penalty on a religious organization on the basis that the organization believes or acts in accordance with a sincere religious belief concerning marriage between two persons of the same sex.” The proposal also stats “Nothing in this section prevents the state from providing a license to marry or providing any other marital entitlement, service, or benefits authorized by state law,” and “Nothing in this section permits a hospital…to refuse to treat a marriage as valid for purposes of a spouse’s right to visitation or to make surrogate health care decisions.” This amendment will appear on the November election ballot in Missouri, and if approved, will be effective immediately.
Justin Adkins is a Woman who identifies as a Man. Adkins was arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge on October 1, 2011. Following arrest, Adkins was handcuffed to a wall for seven hours. Adkins alleges different treatment because of transgender status. Adkins sued the City of New York, former mayor Michael Bloomberg, and various other officials, claiming (1) deprivation of federal civil rights in violation of § 1983, based on defendants’ harassment and mistreatment of transgender arrestees; (2) excessive use of force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment; (3) denial of equal protection in violation of § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment, based on sex and gender identity discrimination; (4) violation of § 1983 and the First Amendment, based on the punishing and chilling of plaintiff’s gender identity and expression; (5) unreasonable conditions of confinement under § 1983; (6) failure to intervene in violation of § 1983; (7) municipal liability under § 1983; and (8) supervisory liability under §§ 1981 and 1983.1 Defendants thereafter moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim. The Court granted defendants’ motion in most respects, but allows plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim against the City of New York to survive.
Roxie Lee Jones is a child rapist currently incarcerated in Washington State. Jones sued the prison in which he is incarcerated for adopting a policy to ban sexually explicit materials. The court declined to dismiss Jones’s First Amendment free-speech challenge to the policy.
Jones v. Sinclair
The Department of Justice settled a lawsuit to protect prisoners at the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women in Wetumpka, Alabama, from sexual victimization by correctional officers. The settlement resolves the Justice Department’s findings of sexual abuse and sexual harassment at Tutwiler.
In January 2014, the Justice Department issued a findings letter concluding that Tutwiler subjects its women prisoners to a pattern and practice of sexual abuse in violation the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The findings identified several systemic failures that led to the pattern of abuse, including ineffective reporting and investigations and no grievance policy. Continue reading “Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women (USA)”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge to Assembly Bill A3371, a New Jersey statute banning the provision of “sexual orientation change efforts” (“SOCE”) counseling to minors. The challenge was brought by a minor seeking to undergo SOCE counseling and by his parents. The court previously rejected a challenge brought by counselors.
Doe v. New Jersey
Lisa Howe, a former Belmont University(Tennessee) soccer coach who parted ways with the university — a city contractor — after officials there learned she and her same-sex partner were expecting a child, was the impetus for a Nashville ordinance to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. A 2011 act of the Tennessee General Assembly added a definition of “sex” to the Tennessee Human Rights Act and created the Equal Access to Intrastate Commerce Act. Howe sued, claiming that the state law violates the Equal Protection guarantees of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. The trial court dismissed the action for lack of standing. A Tennessee appellate court affirmed dismissal for lack of standing because Howe and the other plaintiffs failed to allege a discrete, palpable, cognizable injury in fact.
We disagree with the court’s reasoning in this case. Municipalities should have the right to enact laws that reflect the values held by the municipality, such as a desire to protect gay and gender nonconforming people. However, we support adding a definition of “sex” to state civil rights laws, as such measure can aid in the effort to address the conflict between laws banning discrimination based on gender identity and exceptions in state anti-discrimination laws to provide sex-segregated space for Women and Girls. We also believe if GLBT Organizations would have an honest conversation about this conflict, it would be easier to make the case for protections based on gender identity.
Court dismisses same-sex lawsuit against Gov.