l******a
发帖数: 3803 | 1 ederal Transgender Bathroom Access Guidelines Blocked by Judge
By ERIK ECKHOLM and ALAN BLINDERAUG. 22, 2016
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
Share
Tweet
Email
More
Save
Photo
Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas, right, in Austin in May. He said on
Monday that he was “pleased that the court ruled against the Obama
administration’s latest illegal federal overreach.” Credit Jay Janner/
Austin American-Statesman, via Associated Press
A federal judge on Sunday blocked the Obama administration from enforcing
new guidelines that were intended to expand restroom access for transgender
students across the country.
Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court for the Northern District
of Texas said in a 38-page ruling, which he said should apply nationwide,
that the government had not complied with federal law when it issued “
directives which contradict the existing legislative and regulatory text.”
Document: Preliminary Injunction Order
Judge O’Connor, whom President George W. Bush nominated to the federal
bench, said that not granting an injunction would put states “in the
position of either maintaining their current policies in the face of the
federal government’s view that they are violating the law, or changing them
to comply with the guidelines and cede their authority over this issue.”
The judge’s order, in a case brought by officials from more than a dozen
states, is a victory for social conservatives in the continuing legal
battles over the restroom guidelines, which the federal government issued
this year. The culture war over the rights of transgender people, and
especially their right to use public bathrooms consistent with their gender
identities, has emerged as an emotional cause among social conservatives.
The Obama administration’s assertion that the rights of transgender people
in public schools and workplaces are protected under existing laws against
sex discrimination has been condemned by social conservatives, who said the
administration was illegally intruding into local affairs and promoting a
policy that would jeopardize the privacy and safety of school children.
The ruling could deter the administration from bringing new legal action
against school districts that do not allow transgender students to use
bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice.
“We are pleased that the court ruled against the Obama administration’s
latest illegal federal overreach,” Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas
said in a statement on Monday. “This president is attempting to rewrite the
laws enacted by the elected representatives of the people, and is
threatening to take away federal funding from schools to force them to
conform. That cannot be allowed to continue, which is why we took action to
protect states and school districts, who are charged under state law to
establish a safe and disciplined environment conducive to student learning.”
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
Supreme Court Blocks Order Allowing Transgender Student Restroom Choice AUG.
3, 2016
Appeals Court Favors Transgender Student in Virginia Restroom Case APRIL 19,
2016
Estimate of U.S. Transgender Population Doubles to 1.4 Million Adults JUNE
30, 2016
Wyoming Schools Look for a Middle Way for Transgender Students JUNE 29, 2016
How the Push to Advance Bathroom Rights for Transgender Americans Reached
the White House MAY 21, 2016
Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas praised the judge’s ruling.
“The court prevented the federal government from relying on its flawed,
unlawful guidance documents to schools and employers in an injunction that
is effective nationwide,” he said in a statement.
A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, Dena W. Iverson, said the
department was disappointed with the decision and was reviewing its options.
In a statement, several civil rights organizations that had submitted a
brief opposing the injunction called the ruling unfortunate and premature.
“A ruling by a single judge in one circuit cannot and does not undo the
years of clear legal precedent nationwide establishing that transgender
students have the right to go to school without being singled out for
discrimination,” the groups — Lambda Legal; the American Civil Liberties
Union and the A.C.L.U. of Texas; the National Center for Lesbian Rights; the
Transgender Law Center; and G.L.B.T.Q. Legal Advocates & Defenders — said
in their statement.
The ultimate impact of the Texas decision is unclear and likely to be
limited, legal experts said. For one thing, more senior courts in other
regions have agreed with the administration that transgender students and
workers are protected by existing laws against sex discrimination, and their
decisions will not be altered by the Texas ruling.
Also, the decision will not necessarily affect the outcome of other current
cases. In the most prominent one, a federal court in North Carolina is
weighing almost identical issues in suits brought by civil rights groups and
the Department of Justice that seek to block a state law requiring people
in government buildings, including public schools, to use bathrooms that
correspond to the gender listed on their birth certificates.
Adding another major note of uncertainty, the United States Supreme Court
has temporarily blocked a decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
that required a school district in Virginia to allow a transgender boy to
use the boys’ bathrooms. The Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction
until it decides, probably this fall, whether to hear the case.
If the Supreme Court does take the case and reaches a majority decision one
way or another, then existing rulings by district and appeals courts could
be superseded. If the Supreme Court takes the Virginia case but then is
divided, four to four, on the issues, the Fourth Circuit’s existing
decision in favor of transgender rights would take effect, although it would
not be a nationally binding precedent.
The Texas lawsuit, filed by Mr. Paxton on behalf of officials in 13 states,
argued that the Obama administration had overstepped its authority in a
series of pronouncements in recent years, holding that discrimination
against transgender people is a violation of existing laws against sex
discrimination, including Title IX in federal education laws and Title VII
in federal civil rights laws governing the workplace.
In May, in the latest such statement, the federal departments of Justice and
Education issued a joint letter to public schools stating that transgender
people should be free to use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their
gender identities and that schools that refuse could lose federal funds.
“A school may not require transgender students to use facilities
inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities
when other students are not required to do so,” the letter stated.
The letter was quickly condemned by social conservatives, leading numerous
state governments and school districts around the country to file lawsuits
seeking to prevent the administration from taking action.
The Obama administration, seeking to deflect the Texas lawsuit and another
brought by 10 other states, argued that the directive was not a regulation
or mandate but rather an explanation of how the administration interpreted
existing sex-discrimination protections. But it carried a threat that the
administration might sue noncompliant school districts and seek to cut off
vital federal education aid.
The states argued not only that the administration was wrong as a matter of
law, but also that it failed to follow legal procedures for issuing what the
states called a “new mandate” that “harms school districts from coast to
coast by usurping lawful authority” and jeopardizing “billions of dollars
in federal funding.”
The Justice Department countered that the case was not suitable for
litigation because the states had not shown evidence that they faced
imminent harm, let alone a likelihood of success on its merits.
If and when the administration brings action against school districts, the
government and groups supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
rights argued, the affected school districts or states could then make their
case in court.
“There is a multistep procedure before a state might lose federal funding,
” said Jon W. Davidson, the legal director of Lambda Legal. “The
government would have to specifically challenge a state, the state could
respond, the government could bring a lawsuit and then litigation in the
courts would decide whether the government’s interpretation of the law is
correct or not.” | T*********I
发帖数: 10729 | |
|
