Posted on Aug 4, 2016
Supreme Court temporarily blocks transgender restroom policy - Sexuality - WORLD
6.31K
35
20
10
10
0
I was interested to read that 5 of 8 Supreme Court justices voted to maintain the status quo for bathroom and shower/locker facilities in the transgender issue while "legal challenges to open restroom rules play out."
I doubt this will directly affect corporate decisions to modify toilet and shower/locker facilities or keep the status quo.
It will be interesting next year when the court takes the issue up again after the legal challenges have played out.
Full Story below
"Supreme Court temporarily blocks transgender restroom policy
TRANSGENDERISM | Five justices agreed to preserve ‘status quo’ while legal challenges to open restroom rules play out
by Leigh Jones
Posted 8/04/16, 09:24 am
The U.S. Supreme Court late Wednesday announced it would temporarily block a lower court ruling requiring a Virginia school district to open its campus locker rooms to a transgender student.
The Gloucester County School Board had asked the Supreme Court to put the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on hold as school gets started this fall and its lawyers prepare a full appeal of the lower court ruling.
A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit in April ruled in favor of Gavin Grimm, a high-school student who is biologically female but identifies as a male. Gavin, the student’s legal name, has started hormone therapy but has not undergone sex reassignment surgery.
Gavin sued the Gloucester County School Board over its policy requiring students to use the restrooms that correspond to their biological sex. The board set the policy in 2014 after Gavin’s use of the boys’ restroom became public knowledge and parents expressed concerns about students’ privacy. A lower court ruled the school’s provision of private restrooms for transgender students was a reasonable accommodation of their needs, but the appellate court disagreed.
While disappointed in the ruling, gay rights groups noted the court’s action shouldn’t be interpreted as an indication of what it might do in the future with challenges to policies requiring schools and businesses to open restrooms based on gender identity and not biology.
Three of the justices—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—would have left the lower court ruling in place, indicating how they might vote when the case eventually comes before them. Justice Stephen Breyer sided with the justices willing to put the order on hold, but only “as a courtesy.” Court-watchers already speculate Breyer would side with the liberal justices to uphold transgender-friendly restroom policies.
“Especially in light of Justice Breyer’s statement that his vote for a stay was a mere ‘courtesy’ to preserve the status quo while the court considers whether to review the decision, this should not be taken as any sign of where a majority of the court is leaning on the substantive question of whether Title IX protects transgender students,” the The National Center for Lesbian Rights said in a statement.
Grimm filed suit against the Gloucester County School Board before the Obama administration issued its May 13 directive to every school district in the country saying Title IX, a federal law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex for federally funded education programs, included gender identity and schools needed to update their policies to reflect the new interpretation. So far, 23 states have filed suit against the order.
Lawsuits also are pending over HB2, the North Carolina law that requires government and school building bathrooms to be restricted based on biology rather than gender identity. LGBT activists say such laws discriminate against people who don’t identify with their birth gender. Opponents say open restroom policies violate common-sense privacy norms, especially for women and girls who don’t feel comfortable having biological males in their restroom and locker room facilities."
I doubt this will directly affect corporate decisions to modify toilet and shower/locker facilities or keep the status quo.
It will be interesting next year when the court takes the issue up again after the legal challenges have played out.
Full Story below
"Supreme Court temporarily blocks transgender restroom policy
TRANSGENDERISM | Five justices agreed to preserve ‘status quo’ while legal challenges to open restroom rules play out
by Leigh Jones
Posted 8/04/16, 09:24 am
The U.S. Supreme Court late Wednesday announced it would temporarily block a lower court ruling requiring a Virginia school district to open its campus locker rooms to a transgender student.
The Gloucester County School Board had asked the Supreme Court to put the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on hold as school gets started this fall and its lawyers prepare a full appeal of the lower court ruling.
A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit in April ruled in favor of Gavin Grimm, a high-school student who is biologically female but identifies as a male. Gavin, the student’s legal name, has started hormone therapy but has not undergone sex reassignment surgery.
Gavin sued the Gloucester County School Board over its policy requiring students to use the restrooms that correspond to their biological sex. The board set the policy in 2014 after Gavin’s use of the boys’ restroom became public knowledge and parents expressed concerns about students’ privacy. A lower court ruled the school’s provision of private restrooms for transgender students was a reasonable accommodation of their needs, but the appellate court disagreed.
While disappointed in the ruling, gay rights groups noted the court’s action shouldn’t be interpreted as an indication of what it might do in the future with challenges to policies requiring schools and businesses to open restrooms based on gender identity and not biology.
Three of the justices—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—would have left the lower court ruling in place, indicating how they might vote when the case eventually comes before them. Justice Stephen Breyer sided with the justices willing to put the order on hold, but only “as a courtesy.” Court-watchers already speculate Breyer would side with the liberal justices to uphold transgender-friendly restroom policies.
“Especially in light of Justice Breyer’s statement that his vote for a stay was a mere ‘courtesy’ to preserve the status quo while the court considers whether to review the decision, this should not be taken as any sign of where a majority of the court is leaning on the substantive question of whether Title IX protects transgender students,” the The National Center for Lesbian Rights said in a statement.
Grimm filed suit against the Gloucester County School Board before the Obama administration issued its May 13 directive to every school district in the country saying Title IX, a federal law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex for federally funded education programs, included gender identity and schools needed to update their policies to reflect the new interpretation. So far, 23 states have filed suit against the order.
Lawsuits also are pending over HB2, the North Carolina law that requires government and school building bathrooms to be restricted based on biology rather than gender identity. LGBT activists say such laws discriminate against people who don’t identify with their birth gender. Opponents say open restroom policies violate common-sense privacy norms, especially for women and girls who don’t feel comfortable having biological males in their restroom and locker room facilities."
Supreme Court temporarily blocks transgender restroom policy - Sexuality - WORLD
Posted from world.wng.org
Supreme Court
Gender
Transgender
Faith
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
7
7
0
Sotomayor and Ginzberg were4 opposed to this block. One more Democrat appointment and the will of the people is gone. The SCOTUS will be another arm of the Democrat Party just as the Justice Department and the IRS is.
(7)
(0)
PO1 Sam Deel
Master Chief, they already are. Haven been since Chief Justice Roberts became Obama's Yes man. Remember his unlawful stance on the Obozocare Tax and the DACA illegals program? The SCOTUS opinion on marriage actually violated the Constitution, as marriage is NOT enumerated, therefore a Amendment X States Right. Only a Constitutional Amendment could have brought it into the Federal purview. And why is no one seemed to be alarmed that Justice Antonin Scalia was very possibly assassinated? The official story of his demise was full of holes and unanswered questions. We have a say'n here in The Great Republic, "That dog don't hunt".
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
This will be an interesting topic LTC Stephen F. It seems odd to me that this had to go to the Supreme Court. We need to initiate a report of survey, common sense seems to be lost in the US of A.
(4)
(0)
SSgt Robert Marx
I agree. The girl involved in the litigation had to have been bank rolled by her parents. You would think that gender issues would be pretty much cleared up by one's parents at birth and the few problem identifications could be solved through medical intervention during infancy. I think it comes down to this society is entirely too litigious.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
This whole sexual Idenity is pure garbage and parents that support their children in this are as insane and immature as the children. What is going to happen to a girl in the boys locker or bath room? Photos and harassment. Who thinks this kind of humiliation is going to be good for any one? A psychiatrist who spent 30 years studying gender dysmorphy says it is a mental illness. The reality will not be as pretty as the progressive dream. It is like opening combat arms to women. Well the reality is women aren't interested in being in combat arms. So when doing the studies, the evaluations etc did any one really ask the women? Well has any one really asked the normal people that will have to share the rest rooms, changing rooms etc with the opposite sex? Consider the head of the ACLU in Atlanta Georgia who was using the female rest room with her daughters when two guys walked in scaring the hell out of them. Well she has now resigned from the ACLU. Having used locker rooms in high school etc I will say ffor some it was a place of torment. Because something is a social standard doesn't require it be changed or challenged and millions of dollars wasted on BS.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google