"On his first day back in office, Donald Trump issued a sweeping executive order attacking the rights, freedom, and dignity of transgender and other gender nonbinary Americans. One part of that order requires trans and gender nonbinary people to have passports that indicate the sex assigned to them at birth, not their true sex at the time their passport is issued, putting them in potentially extreme peril when traveling, working, or living overseas."
"Our community immediately stood up for its rights and for our common humanity. In less than three weeks, trans and gender nonbinary people, represented by the ACLU, challenged the patently discriminatory order in federal district court, in a case named Orr v. Trump. The district court soon stopped the new Trump anti-trans passport policy from taking effect as the lawsuit proceeded in the courts. A federal appellate court concurred."
"But, last month, the Republican supermajority of the U.S. Supreme Court-without full briefing, oral argument, or considered deliberation-promptly reversed the well-considered lower court rulings and allowed the passport restrictions to go into effect as the litigation went forward. The snap decision was not only ill-considered as a matter of law, but it also reflected the arch-conservative supermajority's callousness and stunning lack of empathy for trans people, who are suffering greatly as a result of the Trump administration's actions."
On his first day back in office, Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring passports for transgender and gender nonbinary people to indicate sex assigned at birth rather than current sex, creating danger overseas. Transgender and gender nonbinary people, represented by the ACLU, filed Orr v. Trump in federal district court, and the district court enjoined the policy; a federal appellate court agreed. Last month the Republican supermajority on the U.S. Supreme Court, without full briefing or oral argument, reversed the lower courts and allowed the passport restrictions to take effect while litigation continues. The decision drew a dissent calling it a 'back-of-the-napkin assessment' and is described as callous and harmful to trans people.
Read at San Francisco Bay Times
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]