Category Archives: Courts

Should be Easy

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Biden administration suit against Tennessee over whether that State can restrict medical treatments for transgender minors.

[T]he court said it would hear the Biden administration’s challenge to a Tennessee law that bans gender-transition care, such as medications that can delay the onset of puberty and hormones that can cause physical changes such as the development of facial hair or breasts.

Leave aside the question of whether there is such a thing as “transgender minors.” There is, but they’re exceedingly rare, and those cases are easily identified by physiological factors like stunted development of physical sexual characteristics that are consistent with the child’s DNA-determined sex, or excessive development of physical sexual characteristics that are contrary to the child’s DNA-determined sex.

The Court’s ruling in the Tennessee case should be a short, sweet one-pager: Yes, the State can restrict medical treatments for transgender minors.

What would be nearly as bad as ruling against Tennessee would be the Court expanding on that simple Yes by writing limits—minimum or maximum—to the State’s authority to restrict. Limits on the authority to restrict are themselves political decisions that must be left to the political branches of our Federal government—Congress and the President, or Congress overriding a veto—and to the State governments individually.

A Thought on the Alitos

Posted on by
Reply

News personality Lauren Windsor had a thought regarding Justice Samual Alito and his wife and some flag-flying. A number of letter-writers in The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section had thoughts regarding Windsor’s hit piece.

I have my own thought, beginning from this remark by one of the letter-writers who (also) decried Windsor’s piece:

Justice Alito is being blamed for Mrs Alito’s flag flying.

Along with all the other criticisms of Windsor’s dishonesty stands this: she deeply insults Ms Alito, along with women generally, by suggesting that the wife is necessarily subordinate to the husband and that the wife is nothing more than the little woman, who needn’t worry her pretty little head about things that are in the man’s realm of responsibility.

What bigoted, sexist garbage Windsor has spewed.

It Doesn’t Get Any Clearer

Posted on by
Reply

A portion of oral argument in Moms for Liberty and Young America’s Foundation, et al v US Department of Education was relayed to Southeastern Legal Foundation Executive Director Kim Hermann while she was at a Heritage Foundation conference centered on addressing the Biden administration’s general penchant for putting boys into girls’ locker rooms and sports prioritize[ing] gender identity over sex in a broad range of milieus. That portion:

The judge allegedly asked a Justice Department lawyer to explain what expertise the Department of Education has on human biology and sexuality that justifies judicial deference to the feds’ new interpretation of “sex.” The DOJ lawyer replied “I guess I’m not sure,” according to Hermann’s colleagues.

What a sweeping indictment of Chevron Deference by the Biden administration defendants in the case.

The Fifth Circuit Issued a Ruling

Posted on by
1

Some time ago, recall, Department of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, with the full and enthusiastic support of Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden, put into effect a Rule (referred to as Guidance Documents in the court’s ruling) that sought to rewrite Title IX to claim that a child’s, or near-adult college student’s, claim of “self-identified” gender was sufficient to allow a boy or a near-adult male access to girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletic endeavors as “teammates.”

Texas demurred, and the Fifth Appellate Circuit Court agreed.

Among other things, the court wrote [citations included, emphasis added]:

The Guidance Documents build on previously enjoined guidance issued under President Barack Obama. See Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence B-2, 89 Fed. Reg. 33,474 (Apr. 29, 2014) (“Title IX’s sex discrimination prohibition extends to claims of discrimination based on gender identity.”); see also 2016 Dear Colleague Letter on Title IX and Transgender Students 2, US Dep’ts of Educ & Justice (May 13, 2016) (informing educational institutions about the new “Title IX obligations regarding transgender students”). This Court enjoined implementation of these prior guidance documents as contrary to law because “the plain meaning of the term sex as used in § 106.33 when it was enacted by [the Department] following passage of Title IX meant the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.” Texas v United States, 201 F. Supp. 3d 810, 832–33 (N.D. Tex. 2016) (O’Connor, J.).

And [citation included]

…Defendants maintain that their actions will only be final when they apply these interpretations to particular factual circumstances via enforcement. But a substantive interpretation that will eventually result in investigative and enforcement activities constitutes final agency action even if an application to specific individual cases has yet to occur. Cf. MPP, 597 U.S. at 809 n.7 (noting agreement between the majority and dissenting opinions that final agency action exists when the action results in a final determination of rights or obligations regardless of some contingent future event).

And:

Regarding the first vacatur-versus-remand factor, the Department will not be able to justify its decision to create law that Congress did not pass and that the Supreme Court did not allow.
…
Not only are the Guidance Documents contrary to law and in excess of the Department’s authority, but the Department will also not be able to substantiate its decision on remand because there is no possibility that it could correct the fundamental substantive and procedural errors.

Thus, the matter won’t even be sent back to the DoEd for correction: there is no deficiency here that the department is capable of correcting.

And, as bluntly as court rulings get:

Thus, the Court applies this default remedy and VACATES the Guidance Documents on the grounds that the Department enacted a substantive rule that is contrary to law, did so in a manner beyond the scope of its legitimate statutory authority to promulgate it in the first place….

In fine, as the court emphasized at the outset of its ruling,

Having considered the briefing and applicable law, the Court concludes that Defendants cannot regulate state educational institutions in this way without violating federal law.

However, in the end, the ruling applies Texas-wide only; it does not apply to the whole of the 5th Circuit’s jurisdiction. The other States in the circuit—Louisiana and Mississippi—will have to go to the expense of bringing their own suits.

The court’s ruling can be read here.

 

h/t Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton.

Some Thoughts on the Supreme Court

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal has an article regarding claimed internal dissention in the Supreme Court. There are some items within that article that triggered my pea brain.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, speaking at the Harvard Radcliffe Institute, said she sometimes weeps in her chambers after the conservative majority issues one of its polarizing rulings.

Justice Sotomayor may well weep over the rulings and their nature; emotions can run high. But there’s nothing polarizing over the Court’s decisions to adhere to what our Constitution and a statute actually say, rather than what this or that Justice might wish either to say. Nothing polarizing, that is, except in the fetid imaginations of the Left and of some WSJ news writers.

And this from Daniel Ortiz, a University of Virginia Professor of Law:

There’s a lot of ill will and anger that’s been building up, and now that they are in the crucible, it’s just going to get worse.

A lot of that ill will and anger is borne of the distrust that has developed from the despicable leak of a draft opinion, a leak whose perpetrator has not been identified, and which investigation the Court’s Chief Justice John Roberts apparently has decided not to pursue with any seriousness, using only the Court’s own policing agency, the Marshal of the Supreme Court and her staff, which have no investigatory experience. That much is on the Chief Justice for his decision to not take the leak seriously except rhetorically.

And this:

Democratic lawmakers called on Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from those cases after reports that MAGA-associated flags flew from his homes in Virginia and New Jersey. Alito said no, declaring that his impartiality in the cases couldn’t reasonably be questioned—the legal standard—because it was his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, who raised the flags, at times over his objection.

“At times over his objection” is wholly irrelevant here. The Progressive-Democrats’ objections are insults to all women, not just to Ms. Alito, and to husbands everywhere, not just to Justice Alito. Progressive-Democrats are suggesting that the little woman cannot act on her own initiative, but only within the bounds of husbandly…guidance. And husbands don’t respect their wives’ intelligence and independence of action, needing always to…guide…them in all areas. The little woman isn’t the man’s partner in life, but his subordinate. This is the utter contempt the Left has for the rest of us.