{"id":14196,"date":"2016-10-29T06:38:21","date_gmt":"2016-10-29T06:38:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/?p=14196"},"modified":"2016-10-29T06:38:21","modified_gmt":"2016-10-29T06:38:21","slug":"supreme-court-to-rule-in-transgender-access-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/politics\/supreme-court-to-rule-in-transgender-access-case.html","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court to Rule in Transgender Access Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court to Rule in Transgender Access Case<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

Supreme Court to Rule in Transgender Access Case:-<\/strong> The Supreme Court on Friday entered the national debate over transgender rights, announcing that it would decide whether a transgender boy may use the boys\u2019 bathroom in a Virginia high school.<\/span><\/p>\n

The court is acting just a year after it established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, as state laws and federal actions on transgender rights have prompted a welter of lawsuits. In taking the case, the court signaled that it may move more quickly in the area of transgender rights than it has in expanding gay rights.<\/span><\/p>\n

The public debate has been ignited, in part, by a North Carolina law that requires transgender people to use bathrooms in government buildings that correspond with the gender listed on their birth certificates, a statute that has drawn protests, boycotts and lawsuits.<\/span><\/p>\n

The case revolves around how the Obama administration is entitled to interpret a federal regulation under a 1972 law that bans discrimination \u201con the basis of sex\u201d in schools that receive federal money. The legal question is whether it can also ban discrimination based on gender identity.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Department of Education said last year that schools \u201cgenerally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.\u201d In May, the department went further, saying that schools could lose federal money if they discriminate against transgender students.<\/span><\/p>\n

That left school districts grappling with how to treat transgender students. In August, a federal judge in Texas blocked Obama administration guidelines on restroom access for such students.<\/span><\/p>\n

The case the Supreme Court agreed to hear concerns Gavin Grimm, who was designated female at birth but identifies as male. He attends Gloucester High School in southeastern Virginia.<\/span><\/p>\n

For a time, school administrators allowed Mr. Grimm, 17, to use the boys\u2019 bathroom, but the local school board later adopted a policy that required students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms for their \u201ccorresponding biological genders.\u201d The board added that \u201cstudents with gender identity issues\u201d would be allowed to use private bathrooms.<\/span><\/p>\n

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Mr. Grimm, told the justices that \u201cgirls objected to his presence in the girls\u2019 restrooms because they perceived him to be male.\u201d The group\u2019s brief said requiring Mr. Grimm to use a private bathroom had been humiliating and had, quoting him, \u201cturned him into \u2018a public spectacle\u2019 before the entire community, \u2018like a walking freak show.\u2019\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Mr. Grimm, the brief said, \u201cavoids drinking liquids and tries not to urinate during the school day\u201d and has, as a consequence, \u201cdeveloped painful urinary tract infections and felt distracted and uncomfortable in class.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

In a statement issued on Friday, Mr. Grimm said: \u201cI never thought that my restroom use would ever turn into any kind of national debate. The only thing I ever asked for was the right to be treated like everyone else.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

He continued: \u201cWhile I\u2019m disappointed that I will have to spend my final school year being singled out and treated differently from every other guy, I will do everything I can to make sure that other transgender students don\u2019t have to go through the same experience.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Speaking of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision, Shannon Minter, the legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said: \u201cThis is one of the most important days in the history of the transgender movement. The outcome of this case is likely to shape the future of that movement in ways that will resonate for a very long time.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Gary McCaleb, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, which filed a brief supporting the school board in Virginia, said, \u201cSchools have a duty to protect the privacy and safety of all students.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIn light of the right to bodily privacy, federal law should not be twisted to require that a male be given access to the girls\u2019 facilities, or a female to the boys\u2019 facilities,\u201d he said.<\/span><\/p>\n

After Mr. Grimm challenged the school board\u2019s bathroom policy in court last year, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled the policy unlawful. A trial judge then ordered school officials to let Mr. Grimm use the boys\u2019 bathroom.<\/span><\/p>\n

A 1975 regulation adopted under the 1972 law, Title IX, allowed schools to provide \u201cseparate toilet, locker rooms and shower facilities on the basis of sex.\u201d The Fourth Circuit said that it was ambiguous and that the Education Department\u2019s interpretation of it was entitled to \u201ccontrolling weight.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

A 4-to-4 tie in the Virginia case \u2014 Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., No. 16-273 \u2014 would leave that decision in place but set no national precedent. In agreeing to hear the case, the justices set aside their recent caution in adding cases to their docket while the court is reduced to eight members.<\/span><\/p>\n

The justices may be hoping they will have a new member to replace Antonin Scalia, who died in February, in time for the argument in the case early next year.<\/span><\/p>\n

The court also agreed to decide whether states may bar registered sex offenders from using Facebook and other social media.<\/span><\/p>\n

That case, Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194, concerns a North Carolina law that makes it a crime for registered sex offenders to use Facebook, Twitter and many other sites that allow the exchange of information and do not limit their membership to adults.<\/span><\/p>\n

The law was challenged by Lester Packingham, a registered sex offender who was convicted of violating it after posting an account of having a traffic ticket dismissed. \u201cGod is good,\u201d he wrote on Facebook.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mr. Packingham, who had pleaded guilty in 2002 to taking indecent liberties with a minor when he was a 21-year-old student, said the law violated the First Amendment.<\/span><\/p>\n

A North Carolina appeals court agreed, saying the law \u201carbitrarily burdens all registered sex offenders by preventing a wide range of communication and expressive activity unrelated to achieving its purported goal\u201d of protecting minors.<\/span><\/p>\n

In a 4-to-2 ruling, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the decision, saying that Mr. Packingham\u2019s Facebook post was not entitled to heightened First Amendment protection because it was conduct rather than speech.<\/span><\/p>\n

In urging the United States Supreme Court to review his case, Mr. Packingham argued that the \u201cstartling assertion\u201d that his post amounted to conduct and not speech was at odds with \u201cprecedent and common sense.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Source:-\u00a0http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2016\/10\/29\/us\/politics\/supreme-court-to-rule-in-transgender-access-case.html?ref=politics<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t