#U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

[saywhat-politics]

A jury last year found that Trump had sexually abused Carroll in the 1990s.

A federal appeals court on Monday rejected President-elect Donald Trump's attempt to overturn a jury's verdict last year that found he sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s.

The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided "Trump has not demonstrated that the district court erred in any of the challenged rulings" and "has not carried his burden to show that any claimed error or combination of claimed errors affected his substantial rights as required to warrant a new trial."

[nationallawreview]

22 States Join Challenge to Massachusetts’ Question 3

Similar to California’s Proposition 12, Massachusetts’ Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act (also known as “Question 3”) imposes animal welfare standards for hens, sows, and veal calves raised in Massachusetts and makes it unlawful for businesses to sell eggs, veal, or pork that they know to be in violation of these standards (even if the animals were raised out of state). A July 22nd order from…

[aanews69]

Nous livrons des histoires. Nous vous donnons également des guides, des conseils et des astuces pour créer le vôtre.Cette chaîne est dédiée aux choses aléato...

[minnesotafollower]

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Thao’s Petition for Review of Conviction for Killing of George Floyd     

On January 9, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Tou Thao’s petition for certiorari asking for review of the U.S. Court of Appeals’ affirmance of his conviction on two counts of depriving George Floyd’s civil rights under color of law in 2020. Thao, therefore, must continue serving  his 3 and a half year sentence in federal prison.[1] =============================== [1] Montemayor, Supreme Court…

[reasonsforhope]

"Arizona’s ban on transgender athletes has been blocked by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which called the 2022 law “the essence of discrimination.”

Supporters of the so-called Save Women’s Sports Act claimed that the law protected girls and women in schools and colleges from “unfair competition.” However, the federal court found that pre-pubescent trans girls and trans girls on puberty blockers have no significant physical advantages over cis girls their own age, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.

“[The law] to ensure competitive fairness and equal athletic opportunities for cisgender female athletes cannot be squared with the fact that the Act bars students from female athletics based entirely on transgender status,” Judge Morgan Christen wrote in the court’s 3-0 decision.

“[The law] permits all students other than transgender women and girls to play on teams consistent with their gender identities,” Christen continued, “transgender women and girls alone are barred from doing so. This is the essence of discrimination.”

Two trans girls, an 11-year-old soccer player and a 15-year-old swimmer and volleyball player on puberty blockers, sued to overturn the law; 18 states signed court arguments in favor of the law, and 17 states signed arguments against it.

A lower federal court also ruled against the law, and the two court rulings against it can now be cited as a legal precedent to help other trans girls play sports. However, Arizona could also appeal the decision to be heard by an 11-judge panel on the appeals court or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the matter.

“A student’s transgender status is not an accurate proxy for athletic ability and competitive advantage,” said Rachel Berg, a lawyer with the National Center for Lesbian Rights who represented the two girls in court. “Our clients are thrilled to be able to continue to play on girls’ sports teams with their friends while this case proceeds to trial.”"

-via LGBTQ Nation, September 10, 2024

[thejewishlink]

Court Revives Doctors’ Lawsuit Saying FDA Overstepped Its Authority With Anti-ivermectin Campaign

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal appeals court Friday revived a lawsuit by three doctors who say the Food and Drug Administration overstepped its authority in a campaign against treating COVID-19 with the anti-parasite drug ivermectin. Ivermectin is commonly used to treat parasites in livestock. It can also be prescribed for humans and it has been championed by some conservatives as a treatment for…

[kiramoore626]

US appeals court backs abortion pill restrictions; Supreme Court appeal planned

US appeals court backs abortion pill restrictions; Supreme Court appeal planned Access to the abortion pill mifepristone must be restricted, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday, ordering a ban on telemedicine prescriptions and shipments of the drug by mail, though the decision will not immediately take effect. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stopped short of ruling…

[naturalresourcestoday]

Federal Appeals Court Rejects Effort to Compel Amended Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan

A federal appeals court turned away Jan. 19 a case that sought to force the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to update its recovery plan for the grizzly bear. The decision cast recovery plans as being outside the scope of a federal statute’s provision allowing for petitions to amend agency rules. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit seeking to compel amendment of USFWS’ framework…

[zoobus]

A federal appeals court panel on Friday unanimously upheld a law that could lead to a ban on TikTok in a few short months, handing a resounding defeat to the popular social media platform as it fights for its survival in the U.S.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied TikTok’s petition to overturn the law — which requires TikTok to break ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance or be banned by mid-January — and rebuffed the company’s challenge of the statute, which it argued had ran afoul of the First Amendment.

“The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” said the court’s opinion, which was written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.”

[vaspider]

The Department of Defense’s health insurance plan, Tricare, must cover gender-affirming surgery for transgender dependents of active and retired service members, a federal judge has ruled. The exclusion of coverage for this care violates the equal protection guarantees of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. District Judge Nancy Torresen ruled November 1. The suit was brought by two transgender women in their 20s, identified by the pseudonyms Jane Doe and Susan Roe, who are both daughters of retired military members and are covered by Tricare. Doe and her father filed suit in 2022 in U.S. District Court in Maine, and Roe was added to the suit last year. Doe lives in Maine and Roe in Florida. Both of the women’s fathers served more than two decades in the military. [...] If the Defense Department appeals her ruling, it would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which is “the only federal circuit court with no Republican appointees among its active judges,” Leonard observed.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Lil Kalish at HuffPost:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments for the most important transgender rights case it has ever reviewed — one that could have significant consequences on the future of lifesaving gender-affirming care for youth in the country. At the heart of the case, United States v. Skrmetti, is the question of whether a Tennessee ban on such care violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which bars discrimination on the basis of sex. The Tennessee law, Senate Bill 1, encourages minors to “appreciate their sex” by prohibiting puberty blockers or hormone replacement therapy for the purposes of allowing young people to live as an “identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.”

The Department of Justice, Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union, who petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, have argued that Tennessee’s law amounts to sex discrimination because it specifically bars transgender youth from these medications while allowing cisgender youth to undergo the same treatments for other conditions, such as early puberty. “This case contains some of the worst leaning into sex stereotypes that I’ve ever seen in a statute,” said Sasha Buchert, the director of the nonbinary and transgender rights project at Lambda Legal, the oldest LGBTQ+ law firm in the U.S. “It’s clearly a sex-based consideration because this is the same care that [they’re] just banning for trans people. But even further, there is this gender conformity aspect to the statute, which I think is implicit in all of these bans that we’ve seen. It’s just that Tennessee didn’t want to hide it.”

Tennessee has argued that the law does not specifically target trans people, although the state acknowledges that the ban sets “age- and use-based limits” on puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries for the “purpose of gender transition.” (Gender-affirming surgeries are not an issue in the Supreme Court case, however, as a district court threw out a challenge to those procedures.) The law has faced legal challenges since the Tennessee legislature first passed it in March 2023. One month later, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a trans teen identified as L.W., two other families of trans youth, and a Memphis-based doctor. The DOJ then joined the suit.

That summer, a district court found that the ban likely violated the U.S. Constitution and issued a preliminary injunction on parts of the law regarding puberty blockers and hormones. Tennessee’s attorney general, Jonathan Skrmetti, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which overturned that ruling. The Biden administration then asked the Supreme Court to review this case, arguing that any ban on trans health constitutes sex discrimination.

Since the Supreme Court only took up the Biden administration’s appeal, the court will not be weighing in on the question of whether the state law violates the “fundamental right of parents” to make medical decisions for their children, which is a central question in a separate lawsuit, L.W. v. Skrmetti.

The outcome of United States v. Skrmetti will provide much-needed legal clarity for trans youth and their families amidst an increasingly anti-trans political climate. Twenty-six states have passed laws restricting health care providers from prescribing puberty blockers and hormones, as well as performing surgeries on transgender youth. Lower courts across the country have handed down conflicting rulings when these laws have been challenged. By and large, district court judges have attempted to block these bans, finding them unconstitutional after applying “heightened scrutiny” — a high legal standard used in civil rights cases that forces the government to prove a vested interest in the application of the law. Appeals court judges, on the other hand, have typically used “rational basis,” a lower form of review, when overturning previous injunctions of these bans.

Chase Strangio, the co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, said on a press call Monday that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Tennessee, it could “erode protections when it comes to sex-based discrimination,” especially in the context of medical care, long term. Strangio, the first trans lawyer to argue before the Supreme Court, is set to deliver a 15-minute oral argument on behalf of the three families of trans youth and the Memphis-based doctor on Wednesday. However, if the Supreme Court rules as the district courts have by applying “heightened scrutiny,” then it will determine that bans on trans health care constitute sex discrimination, similar to how the high court determined in the Bostock v. Clayton County case that discrimination against trans employees is also sex discrimination.

[...]

Science Versus Skeptics

There is a body of scientific evidence to show that puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy substantially reduce gender dysphoria in adolescent patients, dozens of medical associations argued in briefs submitted to the Supreme Court in September. Doctors, medical groups, LGBTQ+ advocates, Democrats, Republicans and trans individuals have submitted briefs on the efficacy of gender-affirming care to alleviate dysphoria and prevent suicide. However, Tennessee’s brief to the court is skeptical of gender-affirming care. It argues that these medical interventions are “experimental” and claims that at one point a Tennessee hospital, Nashville’s Vanderbilt University Medical Center, began providing trans health care in order to “make a lot of money.” The brief discusses at length how certain “media reports” about Vanderbilt providing gender-affirming care to minors exposed the hospital’s true intentions.

[...] United States v. Skrmetti comes at a pivotal time for trans rights in the U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has promised to “stop” gender-affirming care for minors nationwide, which he has equated to “child abuse” and “sexual mutilation.” The incoming president has also appointed Russell Vought, the co-author of Project 2025, as the director of the Office of Management and Budget. Project 2025, the blueprint for a second Trump term, includes dozens of policies that erase federal protections for LGBTQ+ people, including allowing Medicare and Medicaid to deny coverage for gender-affirming care and removing trans-inclusive protections from Title IV.

Tomorrow at SCOTUS: a very big case on gender-affirming care will be heard for oral arguments, and it is United States v. Skrmetti. The Skrmetti case is a crucial case to determine the fate of gender-affirming care for trans and gender-expansive youths (and adults).

#LGBTQPeopleAreNotGoingBack

See Also:

The Advocate: What to expect in this week’s landmark gender-affirming care U.S. Supreme Court case

[naamahdarling]

Victory! Appeals Court Overturns Ruling Upholding Oklahoma’s Discriminatory Birth Certificate Policy

🏳️‍🌈Happy Pride!!!🏳️‍🌈

🏳️‍⚧️FUCK YOU KEVIN STITT!!!🏳️‍⚧️

We are here to stay, you fucking moral coward.

We even know one of the people who filed the suit!

The court explained the Constitution requires that “there must be some rational connection between the Policy and a legitimate interest. There is no rational connection here—the Policy is in search of a purpose.”

IOW, "Can you show us a legitimate reason withholding this right is beneficial to literally any actual cause that materially affects actual people and not just their feefees? No? Bye."

Now we just need to make sure OSDH starts complying again and issuing amended certificates, and maybe we can get a little more goddamn respect up in here. Boyfriend can get his birth certificate changed!

I'm so proud of the plaintiffs! Rowan is so important to our local peer support community. I don't think I know the other two but they deserve a big hand as well.

Reblog this so people see that A) good things still happen to trans people in the worst places, and B) why not familiarize yourselves with what legal stuff like this is being done in your area, and see how you can support the cause? It matters so much!

[todaysdocument]

Appeal Request from Lenny Bruce v. Hon. John M. Murtagh, Criminal Court of the City of New York

Record Group 21: Records of District Courts of the United StatesSeries: Civil Case FilesFile Unit: Lenny Bruce vs Hon. John M. Murtagh, Criminal Court of the City of New York: Special Sessions: County of New York: Part 2B: Frank S. Hogan, The District Attorney of the County of New York, Civil 64-3574

LH 5, --

COPY

LENNY BRUCE

PLAINTIFF

AGAINST

FRANK HOGAN

CRIMINAL COURT CIV 64 3574

WILLIAM Cahn 

SOUTHERN

DISTRICT COURT

UNITED ] STATE S 

LeNNY [sic] BRUCE

PLAINTIFF

FRANK HOGAN

WILLIAM CAHN 

CRIMINAL

COURT 2B, DEFENDANT 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT 

GVEN THA -

LENNY BRUCE PLAINTIFF IN

CIV ACTION 643574 HEREBY

APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SECOND CIRCUIT

FROM THE ORDER BY JUDGE PALMERY

DENYING MOTION ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ENTERED IN THIS ACTION

Lenny Bruce [signature] Per Se

5 West 8TH ST

N Y. C, N. Y.

Dec 15, 1964

TO

FRANK Hogan

JUDGE MURTAUGH

JUDGE PHIPPS

JUDGE CREEL 

William Cahn D.A. Nassau County Criminal Courts part 2B: County of New York

TH E CIV ACTION THAT AROSE UNDER 28 U.S.C.

S.D. OF N.Y.

[Stamp in center of page]

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

FILED

DEC. 15 1964

S.D. OF N.Y.

TOMORROW Bring Research

LB

[mydaddywiki]

William Barr

Physique: Average Build Height: 6′ 1″ (1.85 m)

William Pelham Barr (born May 23, 1950) is an American attorney who served as the United States attorney general in the administration of President George H. W. Bush from 1991 to 1993 and again in the administration of President Donald Trump from 2019 to 2020. Barr was the second person in U.S. history to serve twice as attorney general (the first was John J. Crittenden).

Bill looks like a human Droopy. Then I see him smile and I go aww… want some dick? What? I’m not voting for or marrying him. I’m just using him as a cum dumpster then kicking him to the streets. And something tells me, he would be good in bed.

Born and raised in New York City, Barr was educated at the Horace Mann School, Columbia University, and George Washington University Law School. From 1971 to 1977, Barr was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency. He then served as a law clerk to judge Malcolm Richard Wilkey of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Before becoming attorney general in 1991, Barr held numerous other posts within the Department of Justice, including leading the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and serving as deputy attorney general.

Barr has been married to Christine Moynihan Barr since 1973, and together they have three daughters. Lets see what else I can find out about him. Hmm… Barr is an avid bagpiper having played competitively in Scotland with a major American pipe band.

OK that one is WAY too easy.