#Judge G. Steven Agee

[rodhalliburton]

Federal Court Fails K-5 Children

On May 16, 2024, Breitbart News reported the following: “A federal court on Wednesday upheld a Maryland school district policy that does not allow parents to opt their young K-5 children out of curriculum about gender identity and sexuality. In a 2-1 panel decision released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, federal judges affirmed a lower court decision denying the request of…

[coochiequeens]

Is this kid even able to start transitioning? West Virginia placed restrictions on minors being able to transition.

 By RACHEL BOWMAN FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 21:27 EDT, 21 April 2024 

A West Virginia transgender athlete won her shot put competition in her first sporting event following an appeals court ruling that allowed her to participate - as other contestants refused to play against her.

Becky Pepper-Jackson, 13, competed in the Harris County Middle School Track and Field Championship on Thursday, two days after a court ruled West Virginia’s transgender sports ban violates the teen's right under Title IX.

Pepper-Jackson took home first place in the shot put competition with her 32-foot effort, three feet further than second place, and she placed second in discus.

Despite being legally allowed to compete, some athletes protested Pepper-Jackson's participation by refusing to play against her. 

Five girls from Lincoln Middle School stepped up to the circle for their turn, then refused to throw the ball.

Becky Pepper-Jackson (pictured), 13, won her shot put competition in her first sporting event following an appeals court ruling that allowed her to participate

In addition to taking puberty blockers and estrogen hormone therapy, Pepper-Jackson has legally changed her name and has a birth certificate listing her as female

Offering the teen a 'choice' between not participating in sports and participating only on boys' teams 'is no real choice at all,' Judge Toby Heytens wrote in the ruling.'

The defendants cannot expect that B.P.J. will countermand her social transition, her medical treatment, and all the work she has done with her schools, teachers, and coaches for nearly half her life by introducing herself to teammates, coaches, and even opponents as a boy,' Heytens wrote.

In a statement, ACLU West Virginia attorney Josh Block deemed the ruling a 'tremendous victory.'Following the decision, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said he was 'deeply disappointed' and vowed to continue fighting to safeguard Title IX.

'The law was passed more than five decades ago and was meant to address sex discrimination in education by ensuring that women had equal opportunities to participate in federally-funded programs.''We must keep working to protect women’s sports so that women’s safety is secured and girls have a truly fair playing field,' Morrisey said on Tuesday. 'We know the law is correct and will use every available tool to defend it.'

In the ruling, the appeals court reaffirmed that government officials had the authority to establish separate sports teams for boys and girls and enforce the line between them.

'We also do not hold that Title IX requires schools to allow every transgender girl to play on girls teams, regardless of whether they have gone through puberty and experienced elevated levels of circulating testosterone,' the court proclaimed.'We hold only that the district court erred in granting these defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this particular case and in failing to grant summary judgment to B.P.J. on her specific Title IX claim.'

In a dissenting opinion, Judge G. Steven Agee wrote the state can separate teams by gender assigned at birth 'without running afoul of either the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX.'

West Virginia is among the 24 states barring transgender women and girls from competing in sports consistent with their gender identity.

Pepper-Jackson told NBC News in October that she would not give up on her fight to compete in girl's sports.

'I want to keep going because this is something I love to do, and I’m not just going to give it up,' she said. 'This is something I truly love, and I’m not going to give up for anything.'

Her mother, Heather Pepper-Jackson, said, 'She likes to do the best in everything, be it algebra or running or shot put or discus.'

'She tries to excel in everything that she does, just like any other kid... if she didn't start the fight, who's going to?'

[beardedmrbean]

Maryland’s largest school district does not have to allow parents to opt their K-5 children out of classes and books that discuss LGBTQ topics like sexuality and gender, at least for now, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.

The 2-1 ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision denying a preliminary injunction on the basis that the parents had not shown how the policy – initiated by the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) board – would violate their children’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

The parents had argued that refusal to provide an opt-out from their children’s exposure to LGBT-themed books and related discussions violates federal and state law.

Some of the book titles include "The Pride Puppy," "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," and "Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope." 

The parents argued that the books contradict their religious duty to train their children in accordance with their faith on "what it means to be male and female; the institution of marriage; human sexuality; and related themes."

The litigants - three sets of parents who are Muslim, Jewish and Christian, along with a parental rights organization -- argue that the responsibility for what their children learn should fall to them, instead of the schools.

However, the court ruled that the mere exposure to ideas contrary to one’s faith is not enough of a burden to implicate the First Amendment and that exposure to issues that one disagrees with, even for religious reasons, is "part of the compromise parents make when choosing to send their children to public schools," the ruling states.

"We take no view on whether the Parents will be able to present evidence sufficient to support any of their various theories once they have the opportunity to develop a record as to the circumstances surrounding the Board’s decision and how the challenged texts are actually being used in schools," U.S. Circuit Judge G. Steven Agee, President George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the majority in the opinion.

"At this early stage, however, given the Parents’ broad claims, the very high burden required to obtain a preliminary injunction, and the scant record before us, we are constrained to affirm the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction."

U.S. Circuit Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., who was appointed by former President Trump, dissented, writing that he disagreed with the district court motion finding the parents failed to establish that the board burdened their First Amendment rights. 

"The parents have shown the board’s decision to deny religious opt-outs burdened these parents’ right to exercise their religion and direct the religious upbringing of their children by putting them to the choice of either compromising their religious beliefs or foregoing a public education for their children," Quattlebaum wrote.

"I also find that the board’s actions, at least under this record, were neither neutral nor generally applicable. Finally, I find the parents have established the other requirements for a preliminary injunction. So, I would reverse the district court and enjoin the Montgomery County School Board of Education from denying religious opt-outs for instruction to K-5 children involving the texts."

Eric Baxter, a senior counsel and vice president at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which is representing the parents, tells Fox 5 DC that the group is disappointed with the decision and says the themes are inappropriate for students.  

"They involve issues around sexuality that are simply too mature for such young children," Baxter said. 

Baxter tells The Hill they plan to appeal the ruling.

"The court just told thousands of Maryland parents they have no say in what their children are taught in public schools," Baxter tells the publication. "That runs contrary to the First Amendment, Maryland law, the School Board’s own policies, and basic human decency."

MCPS, which is the wealthiest district in Maryland, announced in 2022 efforts to include an LGBTQ-inclusive reading list as part of its English language arts curriculum. The decision sparked several rallies pushing for the school district to put the opt-out policy back in place.

Bethany Mandel, a mother and contributing writer for Deseret News, told "Fox & Friends First" last year that she believed it's a parent's right to tackle controversial topics, including sexuality and gender ideology, with their children on their own terms.

"Some of the books were first, second, third-grade read-aloud books about transgender ideology, about sexuality," Mandel told Carley Shimkus. "Some of the parents who spoke in favor of banning the opt-out said… 'I'm gay, and a book didn't make me gay and... There's no way that your child, if you shield them in this manner, can sort of operate in the outside world,' and that's not what anyone is asserting."

"No one thinks that our kids can turn gay by reading a book. What we're asserting is that children are best learning about these sort of tricky, sticky subjects from their parents, and their parents should have a right to determine how their kids are first introduced to this," she continued. 

[ericfruits]

An appeals court deals another blow to Donald Trump’s travel ban

THE president’s plan to ban travel from six Muslim-majority countries, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said on May 25th, “drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination”. By a 10-3 vote, the appeals court based in Richmond rebuffed Donald Trump’s attempt to have his second try at a travel ban reinstated after it was blocked by a Maryland judge in mid-March. The pause on the entry of refugees, and on travellers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, “speaks with vague words of national security” and dials back some of the more egregious aspects of the first ban, the court ruled, but abandons “one of our most cherished founding principles—that government shall not establish any religious orthodoxy, or favour or disfavour one religion over another”.

The centrepiece of the 67-page majority opinion, written by the court’s chief justice, Roger Gregory, is a traipse through a 17-month-long string of declarations, tweets and comments from the president and his advisers which reveal the true motive behind the travel restrictions. The story begins with Mr Trump’s campaign-trail call, in December 2015, for a “total and complete shutdown” on Muslims entering America. It wends its way to the following summer, when Mr Trump appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in July 2016. Judge Gregory recounts that when Mr Trump was asked “whether he had ‘pulled back’ on his ‘Muslim ban’,” Mr Trump replied, “I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.” In another flourish foreshadowing the trouble his eventual order would face in court, Mr Trump added: “Our constitution is great...Now, we have a religious, you know, everybody wants to be protected. And that’s great. And that’s the wonderful part of our constitution. I view it differently.”

Mr Trump’s rather novel sense of what the constitution permits is, in the eyes of Judge Gregory and nine of his colleagues—all picked by Democratic presidents—persuasive evidence that his executive order is irreparably tainted. That’s true despite Kleindienst v Mandel, a 1972 Supreme Court ruling that permits presidents to stop foreigners from entering the country and instructs courts not to “look behind the exercise of that discretion” by investigating its motive. But according to the controlling opinion in Mandel, a concurrence from Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy, the government must have a “bona fide” reason to bar entry. The Fourth Circuit majority found that Mr Trump’s thin and weakly reasoned national-security justification for restricting travel from the six Muslim countries did not suffice as a good-faith reason.

It’s not clear exactly what the Mandel court meant by “looking behind” a policy, but the Fourth Circuit took it as an invitation to read the travel ban in light of Mr Trump’s own words. Drawing on an amicus brief Joshua Matz wrote on behalf of several dozen constitutional-law scholars, Judge Gregory concluded “there is simply too much evidence that [the order] was motivated by religious animus for it to survive any measure of constitutional review”. In a key concurring opinion, Judge Stephanie Thacker agreed that hostility against Muslims fuelled the ban but argued that campaign statements should be out of bounds, as they “are inevitably scatted with bold promises”. Post-inauguration musings from “the president, his adviser and the text” of the first executive order, she wrote, are quite enough to make “crystal clear a primary purpose of disfavouring Islam and promoting Christianity”. 

Three dissenting judges—all appointed by Republican presidents—saw International Refugee Assistance Project v Trump quite differently. Judge G. Steven Agee denied that the plaintiffs had standing to sue. Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote the majority had “radically extend[ed] Supreme Court establishment-clause precedents” to reach a “politically desired outcome”. And Judge Dennis Shedd argued that “the real losers in this case” are “the millions of individual Americans whose security is threatened on a daily basis by those who seek to do us harm”. 

What happens next? Jeff Sessions, the attorney-general, quickly announced that the administration “will seek review of this case in the United States Supreme Court”. What type of review is still unclear. The government could ask the nine justices for an immediate emergency order to temporarily lift the stay on the travel ban, a request that would require five votes and a sense that waiting to implement the ban may bring irreparable harm. The other tack would be to ask the justices to hear their appeal in the usual course. The latter path is slower but possibly surer, as it takes only four votes to hear a case. But the appeal would not be heard until October at the earliest, and a decision would take months, diluting the urgency of the administration’s claims. The Trump administration could also pursue both strategies simultaneously.

A host of questions arise regarding how the ideologically divided Supreme Court, with a 5-justice conservative majority, will view Mr Trump’s besieged ban—and even whether they will agree to review it. One unknown is how Justice Kennedy, the unpredictable swing justice, will handle the controversy. Another is the chief justice, John Roberts, a conservative who laments his court’s politicisation and cannot relish the prospect of having to adjudicate such tension between the branches of government.

http://ift.tt/2s2e7Hl

[ericfruits]

An appeals court deals another blow to Donald Trump’s travel ban

THE president’s plan to ban travel from six Muslim-majority countries, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said on May 25th, “drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination”. By a 10-3 vote, the appeals court based in Richmond rebuffed Donald Trump’s attempt to have his second try at a travel ban reinstated after it was blocked by a Maryland judge in mid-March. The pause on the entry of refugees, and on travellers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, “speaks with vague words of national security” and dials back some of the more egregious aspects of the first ban, the court ruled, but abandons “one of our most cherished founding principles—that government shall not establish any religious orthodoxy, or favour or disfavour one religion over another”.

The centrepiece of the 67-page majority opinion, written by the court’s chief justice, Roger Gregory, is a traipse through a 17-month-long string of declarations, tweets and comments from the president and his advisers which reveal the true motive behind the travel restrictions. The story begins with Mr Trump’s campaign-trail call, in December 2015, for a “total and complete shutdown” on Muslims entering America. It wends its way to the following summer, when Mr Trump appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in July 2016. Judge Gregory recounts that when Mr Trump was asked “whether he had ‘pulled back’ on his ‘Muslim ban’,” Mr Trump replied, “I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.” In another flourish foreshadowing the trouble his eventual order would face in court, Mr Trump added: “Our constitution is great...Now, we have a religious, you know, everybody wants to be protected. And that’s great. And that’s the wonderful part of our constitution. I view it differently.”

Mr Trump’s rather novel sense of what the constitution permits is, in the eyes of Judge Gregory and nine of his colleagues—all picked by Democratic presidents—persuasive evidence that his executive order is irreparably tainted. That’s true despite Kleindienst v Mandel, a 1972 Supreme Court ruling that permits presidents to stop foreigners from entering the country and instructs courts not to “look behind the exercise of that discretion” by investigating its motive. But according to the controlling opinion in Mandel, a concurrence from Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy, the government must have a “bona fide” reason to bar entry. The Fourth Circuit majority found that Mr Trump’s thin and weakly reasoned national-security justification for restricting travel from the six Muslim countries did not suffice as a good-faith reason.

It’s not clear exactly what the Mandel court meant by “looking behind” a policy, but the Fourth Circuit took it as an invitation to read the travel ban in light of Mr Trump’s own words. Drawing on an amicus brief Joshua Matz wrote on behalf of several dozen constitutional-law scholars, Judge Gregory concluded “there is simply too much evidence that [the order] was motivated by religious animus for it to survive any measure of constitutional review”. In a key concurring opinion, Judge Stephanie Thacker agreed that hostility against Muslims fuelled the ban but argued that campaign statements should be out of bounds, as they “are inevitably scatted with bold promises”. Post-inauguration musings from “the president, his adviser and the text” of the first executive order, she wrote, are quite enough to make “crystal clear a primary purpose of disfavouring Islam and promoting Christianity”. 

Three dissenting judges—all appointed by Republican presidents—saw International Refugee Assistance Project v Trump quite differently. Judge G. Steven Agee denied that the plaintiffs had standing to sue. Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote the majority had “radically extend[ed] Supreme Court establishment-clause precedents” to reach a “politically desired outcome”. And Judge Dennis Shedd argued that “the real losers in this case” are “the millions of individual Americans whose security is threatened on a daily basis by those who seek to do us harm”. 

What happens next? Jeff Sessions, the attorney-general, quickly announced that the administration “will seek review of this case in the United States Supreme Court”. What type of review is still unclear. The government could ask the nine justices for an immediate emergency order to temporarily lift the stay on the travel ban, a request that would require five votes and a sense that waiting to implement the ban may bring irreparable harm. The other tack would be to ask the justices to hear their appeal in the usual course. The latter path is slower but possibly surer, as it takes only four votes to hear a case. But the appeal would not be heard until October at the earliest, and a decision would take months, diluting the urgency of the administration’s claims. The Trump administration could also pursue both strategies simultaneously.

A host of questions arise regarding how the ideologically divided Supreme Court, with a 5-justice conservative majority, will view Mr Trump’s besieged ban—and even whether they will agree to review it. One unknown is how Justice Kennedy, the unpredictable swing justice, will handle the controversy. Another is the chief justice, John Roberts, a conservative who laments his court’s politicisation and cannot relish the prospect of having to adjudicate such tension between the branches of government.

http://ift.tt/2qlSOAq