"If the court's conservative supermajority sides with the states and upholds the bans, the rulings could have significant ripple effects, paving the way for the enforcement of a range of anti-LGBTQ+ policies. If the rulings are broad, civil rights advocates warn, the supreme court could make it easier for lawmakers and school officials to ban trans students' access to appropriate bathrooms and facilities, restrict LGBTQ+ youth's ability to use chosen names and pronouns, enforce strict dress codes, limit protections against anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, and further deny access to accurate identification documents."
"It's really scary. The supreme court is poised to tell us whether dislike and moral disapproval of a specific group can be a real basis to make law, said Cathryn Oakley, senior director of legal policy for the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ rights group. This isn't just about me' In Little v Hecox, Lindsay Hecox, a trans college student, challenged Idaho's first-in-the-nation law categorically banning trans women and girls from women's sports teams, which passed in 2020, blocking her from track at age 19."
The US Supreme Court will hear two cases on state bans that bar transgender girls from girls' school athletic programs, brought by trans students in Idaho and West Virginia. Both bans were previously blocked by federal courts, and the Supreme Court is considering the appeals for the first time on trans access to sports. A conservative supermajority could uphold the bans, producing ripple effects that could enable other restrictions such as limiting bathroom access, chosen names and pronouns, dress codes, harassment protections, and access to accurate identification documents. One plaintiff, Lindsay Hecox, sought dismissal after leaving competitive sports; another plaintiff is a 15-year-old challenger in West Virginia.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]