#did trump revoke the equal employment act

[sports45]

Kaitlan Collins details Trump's order to DEI office employees

Read more

[sadbicth]

elon musk did a nazi salute twice at the inauguration, and republicans are defending him.

trump revoked executive order 11246, which prohibited discrimination.

trump put all dei employees on leave to be fired.

trump blamed the dc plane crash on dei.

trump banned all lgbtq+ flags from being hung in government buildings.

trump ordered the pentagon to cancel celebration of mlk jr. day, black history month, women's history month, holocaust remembrance day, asian american pacific islander heritage month, lgbtq+ pride month, juneteenth, women's equality day, national hispanic heritage month, national disability employment awarenessmonth, and national american indian heritage month.

trump proposed removing all palestinians from gaza, turning the area into a vacation resort called “riviera of the middle east”.

trump rolled back biden’s executive order to lower prescription drug costs for people using medicare and medicaid.

trump rescinded the $35 cap on insulin, and prices are expected to rise to $1500 a month.

trump ordered the national institutes of health to cancel their review panels on cancer research.

trump ended the guidelines to prevent ai misuse. the guidelines prevent many things, but notably it prevents production of ai child pornography.

when sean hannity asked trump about the economy, he said “i don’t care”, after campaigning with the economy as his main talking point.

trump has withdrawn the us from the world health organization.

trump is ordering health agencies to stop reporting on bird flu and halt publications of scientific reports.

trump has pardoned over 1500 people who stormed the capitol on january 6th.

trump changed mount denali back to mount mckinley.

trump signed an executive order to rename the gulf of mexico to gulf of america.

trump shut down cbp one, an app which granted legal entry to 1 million+ immigrants.

trump is allowing ice raids at churches and elementary schools.

trump announced plans to declare a national emergency at the us-mexico border.

trump signed an executive order to expand the use of the death penalty.

trump disbanded the school safety board that works to prevent school shootings. it was comprised of survivors, educators, and gun violence prevention advocates and formed after the school shooting in parkland.

trump withdrew from the paris climate act.

trump revoked all protections for transgender troops in the us military.

trump rescinded executive orders made by biden that benefited and protected women, lgbtq+ people, black americans, hispanic americans, asian americans, native hawaiians, and pacific islanders.

trump is attempting to make it legal to refuse to hire or fire pregnant women.

multiple state legislators are drafting bills to allow the punishment for abortion to be the death penalty.

trump pardoned 23 individuals convicted under the freedom of access to clinic entrances (FACE) act for their anti-abortion activism, including oftentimes violent protests at abortion clinics.

trump signed an executive order allowing deportation of foreign students who they believe express support for hamas or hezbollah.

trump announced that the us government will from here on out only recognize male and female as sexes. intersex is not legally recognized anymore.

the trump administration paused health communications to prevent the fda from announcing food recalls.

andy ogles drafted a constitutional amendment to allow trump to be president for a third term.

georgia republican congressman mike collins called for the deportation of new jersey born mariann budde, the bishop who urged trump to “have mercy” on the lgbtq+ community and immigrants during a service at the national cathedral.

six states (arizona, idaho, iowa, kansas, mississippi, and north dakota) are planning on challenging obergefell v. hodges, which would end same-sex marriage nationwide. about a dozen more states have representatives are also considering filing similar resolutions.

amazon revoked protections for lgbtq+ and black employees.

the cdc has removed their hiv prevention page.

the united states state department has officially changed its “travelers with special conditions” page which previously said “lgbtqi+ travelers” to “lgb travelers”, completely getting rid of the tqi+.

every single republican told us we were overreacting. trump swore he had nothing to do with project 2025 yet continues implementing details outlined in it. not a single person has the right to tell us we’re being dramatic anymore.

hope “cheaper eggs and gas” was worth it.

EDIT: i removed the “trump refused to swear on the bible” point because it was being taken as me being an offended christian. i’m not christian, im agnostic. the reason i included it in the first place is because he’s the first president in history to ever refuse to swear on ANYTHING. meanwhile his “conservative christian” followers had no issue with this, and decided to continue to scramble for excuses instead of admitting he may not be as religious as he claims he is. i figured taking that point out entirely is probably better than filling this with an explanation in the middle of the other important issues.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

David Smith at The Guardian:

Donald Trump didn’t need to wait for the black box flight recorder. He knew what caused the mid-air collision of a passenger plane and army helicopter that killed 67 people. Or he thought he did. “They actually came out with a directive – ‘too white’,” the US president told reporters on Thursday, seeking to blame former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden for including Black and Latino people in the federal workforce. “We want the people that are competent.” That it took Trump less than a day to exploit a tragic plane crash for his crusade against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs should come as no surprise. The 78-year-old president is on a mission to win the “culture wars”, acting with speed and ferocity to bring his rightwing agenda into every corner of American life. It is a form of shock therapy that aims to rewire society itself.

Less than two weeks back in office, an emboldened, unapologetic Trump has launched a series of executive orders and policy changes that broadly target DEI, education curricula and political protests. The actions aim to reverse so-called “woke” policies and restore “merit-based” systems. Trump said during a remote address to executives at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland: “My administration has taken action to abolish all discriminatory diversity, equity and inclusion nonsense – and these are policies that were absolute nonsense – throughout the government and the private sector.” The president has also moved to eliminate “radical gender ideology and critical race theory [CRT]” from the nation’s schools. He has targeted LGBTQ+ rights, making it official government policy that there are only two sexes while seeking to ban federal funding or support for youth gender-affirming care and ban transgender individuals from serving in the military. Trump’s sledgehammer, aimed at smashing decades of progressive gains, has made a mockery of “We are not going back” – the slogan of his vanquished election opponent, Kamala Harris.

Chris Scott, a Democratic strategist who was Harris’s coalitions director, said: “What it has made clear is that a second Trump term is working to turn America back into pre-civil rights America during the Jim Crow era. That’s what we’re seeing with a lot of these policies.” He added: “It is an absolutely terrifying time in this country. When we talk about ‘Make America Great Again’, a lot of folks understood what that means, particularly people of colour, particularly Black folks. We are on the precipice of going back, returning to our darkest times within this country.” [...] Trump’s election victory last year took this hostility from the fringes to the Oval Office. Despite gaining less than 50% of the national popular vote, the 47th president believes he has a mandate to impose a fundamental cultural realignment, not by increments but with sudden and overwhelming force. Trump’s administration has branded DEI initiatives in the federal government as “discriminatory”, “anti-American” and driven by a “far-left agenda”. He has ordered the elimination of all federal DEI programmes and related offices, placing staff on leave and removing related websites because they represent “immense public waste and shameful discrimination”. The order directs the administration to review which federal contractors have provided DEI training materials to government agencies and revokes the Equal Employment Opportunity order signed in 1965 by Lyndon Johnson. Trump directed agencies to stop using gender identity or preferred pronouns. And federal workers have been told to report colleagues who may seek to continue DEI programmes. There are signs that the assault is not confined to the government alone but seeping into wider society. Companies such as McDonald’s, Meta and Walmart have reportedly pulled back on DEI programmes in response to political pressure. It is a dramatic reversal from the diversity push that followed the police murder of George Floyd, an African American man, in Minneapolis in 2020.

In two weeks of 47’s term so far, Demented Donnie’s crusade against “wokeness” (eg. DEI and LGBTQ+ rights) has done calculable harm to America.

[in4newz]

Elon musk did a nazi salute twice at the inauguration, and republicans are defending him

Elon musk did a nazi salute twice at the inauguration, and republicans are defending him.

trump revoked executive order 11246, which prohibited discrimination.

trump put all dei employees on leave to be fired.

trump blamed the dc plane crash on dei.

trump banned all lgbtq+ flags from being hung in government buildings.

trump ordered the pentagon to cancel celebration of mlk jr. day, black history month, women's history month, holocaust remembrance day, asian american pacific islander heritage month, lgbtq+ pride month, juneteenth, women's equality day, national hispanic heritage month, national disability employment awarenessmonth, and national american indian heritage month.

trump rolled back biden’s executive order to lower prescription drug costs for people using medicare and medicaid.

trump rescinded the $35 cap on insulin, and prices are expected to rise to $1500 a month.

trump ordered the national institutes of health to cancel their review panels on cancer research.

trump ended the guidelines to prevent ai misuse. the guidelines prevent many things, but notably it prevents production of ai child pornography.

when sean hannity asked trump about the economy, he said “i don’t care”, after campaigning with the economy as his main talking point.

trump has withdrawn the us from the world health organization.

trump is ordering health agencies to stop reporting on bird flu and halt publications of scientific reports.

trump has pardoned over 1500 people who stormed the capitol on january 6th.

trump changed mount denali back to mount mckinley.

trump signed an executive order to rename the gulf of mexico to gulf of america.

trump shut down cbp one, an app which granted legal entry to 1 million+ immigrants.

trump is allowing ice raids at churches and elementary schools.

trump announced plans to declare a national emergency at the us-mexico border.

trump signed an executive order to expand the use of the death penalty.

trump disbanded the school safety board that works to prevent school shootings. it was comprised of survivors, educators, and gun violence prevention advocates and formed after the school shooting in parkland.

trump withdrew from the paris climate act.

trump revoked all protections for transgender troops in the us military.

trump rescinded executive orders made by biden that benefited and protected women, lgbtq+ people, black americans, hispanic americans, asian americans, native hawaiians, and pacific islanders.

trump is attempting to make it legal to refuse to hire or fire pregnant women.

multiple state legislators are drafting bills to allow the punishment for abortion to be the death penalty.

trump pardoned 23 individuals convicted under the freedom of access to clinic entrances (FACE) act for their anti-abortion activism, including oftentimes violent protests at abortion clinics.

trump signed an executive order allowing deportation of foreign students who they believe express support for hamas or hezbollah.

trump announced that the us government will from here on out only recognize male and female as sexes. intersex is not legally recognized anymore.

trump refused to swear on the bible during his inauguration. (i’ve gotten some comments about this specific point. i didn’t include it because i’m christian, because i’m not. i’m agnostic. i included it because he’s the first president in history to refuse to swear on ANYTHING, bible or not. in the bible it teaches that the only person who cannot touch the bible is the antichrist, yet that on TOP of everything else will never convince his followers that he’s unfit.)

the trump administration paused health communications to prevent the fda from announcing food recalls.

andy ogles drafted a constitutional amendment to allow trump to be president for a third term.

georgia republican congressman mike collins called for the deportation of new jersey born mariann budde, the bishop who urged trump to “have mercy” on the lgbtq+ community and immigrants during a service at the national cathedral.

six states (arizona, idaho, iowa, kansas, mississippi, and north dakota) are planning on challenging obergefell v. hodges, which would end same-sex marriage nationwide. about a dozen more states have representatives are also considering filing similar resolutions.

amazon revoked protections for lgbtq+ and black employees.

the cdc has removed their hiv prevention page.

the united states state department has officially changed its “travelers with special conditions” page which previously said “lgbtqi+ travelers” to “lgb travelers”, completely getting rid of the tqi+.

every single republican told us we were overreacting. trump swore he had nothing to do with project 2025 yet continues implementing details outlined in it. not a single person has the right to tell us we’re being dramatic anymore.

hope “cheaper eggs and gas” was worth it.

Source

[humanoidpossums]

Okay I’m starting to feel like a crazy person. People keep telling me I’m being dramatic and I know every generation thinks that things are the worse they have been and that it’s the end of the world and it doesn’t actually end. But I keep reading the signs and no one can convince me I’m wrong.

The us put the orange man back in a place of power and he learned from last time, he knows what strings to pull and he knows he has to roll things out quickly so there isn’t time for push back. We are already seeing that.

They have already revoked the equal employment act

They are already stripping away the rights of women and it’s getting worse

They are already pushing against what little protection LGBT people have

They have started the ICE raids

They are normalising behaviours of fascism, trying to convince people we don’t see what we see. Trying to tell us what is happening isn’t happening

Trump just announced building a 30,000 bed “facility” in guantanamo bay.

I know the history of Guantanamo, I know what the us has done there before. I know what we did in world war 2 in our own country. You can call it whatever you want to, a work camp, a concentration camp, an internment camp, a holding facility, it’s the same fucking shit.

In world war 2 we didn’t know what was happening in the camps until they were liberated, most people forget that or were never taught it in school. We didn’t join the war because of the atrocities the Germans were committing we joined for our own reasons. We ran our own camps at the time, imprisoned American citizens of Japanese decent in interment camps, they might not have had gas chambers and might not have been as deadly but they still killed people. They still unlawfully detained people. The Germans called the Jews criminals, illegals, said what they were doing was protecting their people, the real Germans. They said they would fix the economy, make new jobs and fix the country. The same fucking shit our leaders are saying now.

This is not new, this is not unique, this is not clever.

This is the same fucking bull shit repeating itself again. It wasn’t new in Germany, it wasn’t new in Palestine, and it’s not new now.

I am terrified for myself, for my family and friends, for every person being targeted and honestly even for those doing the targeting right now. They might not care about the lives of others but it will make its way down to them in time, it always does.

I am so fucking terrified

[ajz0626]

Just a fascist doing fascistic things

[sports45]

Trump orders all federal DEI workers put on leave

President Donald Trump's administration directed that all federal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) staff be put on paid leave and eventually be laid off. It also moved to end affirmative action in federal contracting.

Read more

[californiaprelawland]

Thanks To The Supreme Court, DACA Is Safe For Now

By Stephanie Yu, Pomona College, Class of 2022

June 25, 2020

On June 18, the Supreme Court reached a 5-4 decision against the Trump administration’s plans to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). [1] The Supreme Court communicated that its rejection was not explicitly against DACA or the idea of rescission—rather, it stemmed directly from the administration’s failure to provide adequate grounds to close the DACA program. [2] Chief Justice John Roberts, who put forth the swing vote and wrote the decision, asserted that the Court only concerned itself with “whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.” [3]

DACA is an immigration program introduced by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during the Obama Administration, in the summer of 2012. [4] Under this program, “certain unauthorized aliens who entered the United States as children” may submit applications to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a “two-year forbearance of removal” and if successful, receive federal benefits and employment authorization. [4] This program has benefited more than 700,000 aliens under the age of 31 in 2012 who have occupied continuous residence in the U.S. since 2007, assisting them in obtaining higher education and drivers’ licenses, among other endeavors and aspirations. Individuals who possess these qualifications and “are current students, have completed high school” and pose no threat to “national security or public safety,” were established as warranting advantageous treatment. [4] Essentially, they are viewed as “productive” contributors to American society who “lacked the intent to violate the law” and consider the U.S. to be their solitary home. [4]

Two years following the establishment of DACA, DHS issued a memorandum, communicating intent to expand DACA eligibility and inaugurate a second program, Deferred Action for Parents of American and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). [4] This memorandum proposed nullification of the age requirement for DACA applicants, who would now also be eligible if they entered the U.S. in 2010 (as opposed to 2007) and receive an additional year of forbearance of removal (a total of three years). Additionally, DAPA would grant 4.3 million parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents the same rights enjoyed by DACA members, including deferred action and work authorization. [4]

In response to this memorandum, 26 states filed lawsuits, alleging that the modified DACA and introduction of DAPA represented three legal breaches: the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) “notice and comment requirement,” the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the “Executive’s duty under the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.” [4] The suits were met with division in the Fifth circuit; however, no ultimate action was taken, and no policies were enacted. Eventually, in 2017, under the new Trump administration, DHS revoked the DAPA memorandum, and the Attorney General implored DHS to rescind DACA as well. Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine C. Duke took action and issued a decision memorandum, declaring the termination of DACA. In effect, DHS would no longer accept new DACA applications, and renewals would be limited to DACA recipients whose statuses would expire within the following six months. [4]

In response, many groups of plaintiffs stepped forward to confront Acting Secretary Duke’s decision, communicating that the “rescission was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA,” as well as that it contravened the “equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.” [4] Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that “DHS’s decision to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious under the APA,” as sufficient justification had not been presented. [4] However, given the administration offers more concrete information and explanations in the future, it can make another attempt to shut down the program. [1]

The Supreme Court’s decision, which restores the program, carries significant implications for DACA communities in the United States. First, DACA members will continue to receive protection from deportation, maintain eligibility for all benefits under the DACA program, and retain the right to apply for a 2-year DACA renewal. [5] Second, those outside the DACA program who meet eligibility can apply. [5] Third, DACA recipients may be able to travel internationally and return to the United States according to Advanced Parole (if COVID-19 safety considerations are met). [5]

Nevertheless, these protections may very well be temporary if Trump obtains re-election, as he has promised to “immediately terminate the program.” [3] On the other hand, presumptive Democratic nominee has promised to “make DACA permanent on ‘day one’ if elected president.” [6] It is clear that the November election will hold pivotal significance in determining the future of undocumented immigrants in the United States.

________________________________________________________________

[1] Williams, Pete & Edelman, Adam. “Supreme Court Blocks Trump from Ending DACA in Big Win for Dreamers.” NBC News, 18 June 2020,  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-cannot-end-daca-big-win-dreamer-n1115116

[2] Totenberg, Nina. “Supreme Court Rule for DREAMers, Against Trump.” National Public Radio, 18 June 2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/829858289/supreme-court-upholds-daca-in-blow-to-trump-administration

[3] “DACA: What is DACA and how did the Supreme Court vote to block Trump?” AS English, 19 June 2020, https://en.as.com/en/2020/06/19/latest_news/1592564470_225767.html

[4] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf

[5] DACA. Immigrant Resource Learning Center, https://www.ilrc.org/daca

[6] Axelrod, Tal. “Biden Vows to Make DACA Permanent on ‘Day One’ if Elected President.” The Hill, 18 June 2020, https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/503392-biden-vows-to-make-daca-permanent-on-day-one-if-elected-president-after

Photo Credit: Pax Ahimsa Gethen

[professionalprocrastinator22]

The previous comment is so true! There are many legal challenges underway. But I’m also here to say that Trump did not repeal the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

An “act” is a term for a law passed by congress. A president cannot use an executive order to overturn a law. But a president can withdraw another president’s executive order, and that’s what Trump did here.

Now, I’m not saying it’s wrong to share your frustration about Trump repealing an executive order that “prevented federal contractors from hiring discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin,” per PolitiFact. That is upsetting!

But that’s not the same as Trump plunging us “back to the 1950s.” The 1964 Civil Rights Act — the one that created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — still exists. And so does the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972.

Telling people those things are gone isn’t accurate. It overstates the power a president wields. It spreads unnecessary fear. In intense political situations, fear is a weapon. It paralyzes people.

Right now, it’s more important than ever to carefully scrutinize and verify every detail you share to ensure you understand what happened.

I’ve been seeing scary, false or misleading info spreading like wildfire in Trump’s first few days. That will contribute to people experiencing news burnout and tuning out for the next four years. If you are going to try to communicate what is happening to others on social media, take care to ensure that you have the full, accurate picture. Understanding what you want to push back against is a critical first step.

Full info here from PolitiFact:

I'll be real with y'all, I knew Donald Trump was going to do some henious, bigoted shit the second he sat down in that chair in the oval office, but - and I can't emphasize this enough - I didn't not expect him to immediately repeal the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

Like I'm still stunned by it. We're back to the 1950's now. We on the left were trying to fight to maintain gains we made the past 10-15 years and trump comes in a sweeps the rug out from all of us. You can now be fired for being for your race, religion, sexuality, sex and gender, disability, or nation of origin.

Employers can now fire you for being black or brown or LGBTQ or blind or in a wheelchair or a woman or literally whatever characistic they want.

I can't convey just how fucked we are. The EEOC is one the most important win in the history of Civil Rights. He did it on MLK Day! That's extra fucked!

Y'all thought their anti DEI or CRT or whatever other acronym they were throwing out there crusade was going to start and end at stuff younger than a high schooler, but no they went after one of the bedrocks of civil rights.

The more I think about it the more my head spins.

[justsomeantifas]

Trump’s New Immigration Ban: Who Is Barred and Who Is Not

The original ban barred for 90 days people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It also barred all refugees for 120 days, and Syrian refugees indefinitely.

What’s New

The ban is not immediate, going into effect on March 16.

Iraq removed from the list.

Current visa holders no longer affected.

Syrian refugees barred temporarily, not indefinitely and refugees of minority religions no longer favored.

Refugees already granted asylum will be allowed.

References to support for the Constitution and other beliefs removed.

Details added about why the six countries were selected.

The full text of the new executive order is available here.

BARRED - People From 6 Countries

The new ban removed Iraq from its list of seven targeted countries, though Iraqi nationals seeking admission will be subject to additional scrutiny. Some of Trump’s foreign policy advisors argued for the country’s removal, citing the country’s role in fighting the Islamic State.

There were several legal challenges to the original ban, with claims based on equal protection rights granted by the Constitution, the First Amendment’s prohibition of government establishment of religion, and a non-discrimination statute of an immigration law.

Plaintiffs also cited a law that says the government cannot act arbitrarily or without supportive evidence. Two weeks after the federal appeals court hearing, a Department of Homeland Security report was revealed to have found no evidence that citizens from the targeted countries posed a unique threat. However, Homeland Security officials argued that the report did not paint a full picture.

BARRED - Visitors, Students and Workers Without Current Visas

The new ban only applies to people from the six countries without current visas, like temporary, non-immigrant visas for students and workers. Students with valid F, M or J visas will be allowed. The original ban also affected current visa holders who would normally be allowed to travel and re-enter the country.

During the rollout of the first ban, many visa holders were stuck abroad or detained in American airports. Later, a State Department official said that “fewer than 60,000” visas had been provisionally revoked. Several judges who issued injunctions against the original order raised concerns that due process rights were being violated.

There were nearly 65,000 nonimmigrant, temporary visits by citizens from these six countries in the 2015 fiscal year including visitors, business travelers, students, temporary workers, fiancés of U.S citizens. 

BARRED - New Immigrants

Like the original order, the new ban also applies to people from the six countries newly arriving on immigrant visas, which are issued based on employment or family status. People issued immigrant visas become legal permanent residents on arrival in the United States and are issued a green card soon after.

In 2015, green cards were issued to 31,258 people from these six countries. In general, about half of recent new legal permanent residents are new arrivals to the country, and the other half had their status adjusted after living in the United States.

BARRED - Refugees

The ban on all refugees to the United States is still set at 120 days. Syrian refugees are no longer barred indefinitely, but now fall under the general ban. After the 120 days, the administration will determine which countries they will reinstate admissions from. Syrians made up the second-largest group of refugees to the United States in 2016.

In another change, refugees in minority religious groups will no longer be prioritized for acceptance once the program is reinstated. Although the original order did not explicitly mention Christians as a minority religion that would have been given preference, Trump said that was what he intended, prompting challenges claiming religious-based discrimination.

The order still allows case-by-case exceptions for some refugees. During the week when the initial refugee ban was in effect, just 15 percent of the 843 refugees who were admitted on a case-by-case basis were Muslim, compared with a weekly average of 45 percent in 2016. Only two refugees were allowed in from the seven originally targeted countries.

The new ban also still cuts the refugee program in half, capping it at 50,000 people for the 2017 fiscal year, down from the 110,000 ceiling put in place under Obama.

ALLOWED - Green Card Holders and Special Immigrants

The new order explicitly says that green card holders from the targeted countries will still be allowed. In the original order, green card holders were not explicitly cited as exempt, leading to uncertainty at airports. The administration later clarified that they were not affected.

From 1999 to 2015, 3.6 percent of new legal permanent residents were from the seven affected countries.

ALLOWED - Dual Nationals and Diplomats

The ban still does not apply to U.S. citizens, or to dual nationals who enter the United States presenting their passport from a country not under the ban. During the rollout of the original order, it was unclear whether dual nationals from the targeted countries were allowed.

People on certain types of diplomatic or government visas are also still exempted from the ban. Nearly 2,500 admissions from these countries were made on these visas in 2015. 

OTHER CHANGES

The new ban will go into effect in 10 days. The original ban was effective immediately after Trump signed it, causing significant confusion at airports across the country. The delay was likely also included to remove the potential for due process challenges.

(information gathered from here)

[bispinster]

Oh project 2025 isn’t going to happen you’re being paranoid-

What the absolute fuck is this then? This country is so fucked.

[maxwellyjordan]

Relist Watch

John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists.

After last week’s relist commotion, this week the changes are fewer, more subtle, and bad news for petitioners. Eight-time relist Newton v. Indiana, 17-1511, involving whether Miller v. Alabama applies to discretionary sentences of life without parole imposed for juvenile offenses, has been downgraded to a “hold” for last week’s grant in Mathena v. Malvo, 18-217, (itself relisted seven times) which basically covers the same issue. (The news isn’t that bad for Newton, who will get the benefit of any ruling in Malvo’s favor, but he loses the opportunity to make an oral argument and the ability to participate in the case as anything but an amicus.) And the Supreme Court denied without comment the intriguing new relist Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc., 18-728, involving a photo that is iconic for both Red America and Blue America – and more iconic still for red and black America.

That underwhelming introductory paragraph is sadly all it takes to clear out all the old business this week. But at least we have twice as many new relists to discuss as last week.

Right now, 22% of next term’s docket is devoted to reviewing judgments of the Kansas Supreme Court, tying the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit as the still-nascent term’s most-reviewed court. That fact can’t be lost on the respondents in Kansas v. Glover, 18-556, the first of this week’s relists, who are probably wondering whether that figure might increase to 30% next Monday. A Kansas sheriff’s deputy ran a registration check on a pickup truck and learned that the registered owner’s license had been revoked. Although he observed no traffic violations, the deputy stopped the truck because he “assumed the registered owner of the truck was also the driver.” Sure enough, the owner — respondent Charles Glover Jr. — was driving, and the deputy issued him a citation for being a habitual violator of Kansas traffic laws. Glover successfully sought to suppress evidence of the stop in trial court, lost on appeal, but then won before the Kansas Supreme Court, which held that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment because there was no basis for reasonable suspicion – after all, many families have several drivers sharing vehicles registered in the names of only a single family member. The state now seeks cert, asking whether, for purposes of an investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle absent any information to the contrary. [Note: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondent in this case.]

That brings us to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Feliciano, 18-921. This one takes some explanation. Although the Holy See has overarching authority over the Catholic Church worldwide, the church is composed of distinct dioceses and parishes that possess their own juridic personality under canon law. There are six dioceses in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In 1979, the Archdiocese of San Juan sponsored a pension and trust fund to provide compensation and benefits for employees of Catholic schools and other Catholic entities in the archdiocese. Because of reduced birthrates and migration, attendance fell, and the trust fund found itself unable to pay full pensions. Employees and former employees of various schools brought suit against not just the archdiocese of San Juan, but also an entity they claim has authority over the entire Catholic Church in Puerto Rico, the “Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church in Puerto Rico.” The trial court held that despite how the Catholic Church organized itself, Catholic “church-schools, as well as the Archdiocese of San Juan and the Office of the Superintendent of Catholic Schools of San Juan, do not have their own legal personhood because they are part of the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, as an entity with its own legal personhood.” It further concluded that all Catholic entities in Puerto Rico (including the Archdiocese of San Juan) “belong[] to” the sole, unified “legal personhood held by the Catholic Church.” The court ordered what it concluded was the single and unified (but, the Archdiocese argues, nonexistent) “Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church in Puerto Rico” to “immediately and without any further delay proceed to continue to make payments to plaintiffs as provided in the pension Plan.” The court ordered the church to pay $4.7 million, and when the church did not comply, the court authorized the sheriff to seize any “assets and moneys of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church in an amount of $4,700,000 to secure the payment of plaintiffs’ pensions.” The court of appeals agreed with the defendants and reversed, holding that “it is firmly established” under the First Amendment that the courts “cannot exercise their jurisdiction to determine disputes regarding property rights related to a church when to do so it has to irremediably pass judgment over matters of teachings, discipline and faith of an internal ecclesiastical body.”

The Puerto Rico Supreme Court rejected the defendants’ argument that it must respect “the internal determinations of the Catholic Church[] as to how to administer its institutions,” and concluded that determining whether Catholic entities in Puerto Rico have distinct personhood is not the type of “state court action[] that result[s] in an inappropriate interference on the part of those courts regarding matters of organization or internal disputes” because that determination, it concluded, can be made pursuant to “neutral principles of law.” The trial court’s marshal began to seize property, and the Archdiocese of San Juan declared bankruptcy in an effort to seek protection. The Archdiocese of San Juan seeks review, supported by the schools and the Catholic Employees Pension Trust. While the petition was pending, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico, in reliance on the Puerto Rico Supreme Court’s decision, dismissed the Archdiocese’s bankruptcy petition, reasoning that it could not proceed because not all the Catholic dioceses covered by the decision were participating in the bankruptcy proceedings.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly denied cert on a number of cases that raise related issues of church property in the context of local congregations seeking to break away from national churches while retaining possession of their houses of worship. Perhaps this is the case in which the Supreme Court will once again wade into the thicket of property ownership by hierarchical church organizations.

That’s all for this week. Thanks to Tom Mitsch for compiling the relists.

  New Relists

Kansas v. Glover, 18-556

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondent in this case.

Issue: Whether, for purposes of an investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle absent any information to the contrary.

(relisted after March 22 conference)

  Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Feliciano, 18-921

Issue: Whether the First Amendment empowers courts to override the chosen legal structure of a religious organization and declare all of its constituent parts a single legal entity subject to joint and several liability.

(relisted after March 22 conference)

  Returning Relists

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 17-1618

Issue: Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of … sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.

(relisted after the January 4, January 11, January 18, February 15, February 22, March 1, March 15 and March 22 conferences)

  Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, 17-1623

Issue: Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of … sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.

(relisted after the January 4, January 11, January 18, February 15, February 22, March 1, March 15 and March 22 conferences)

  R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 18-107

Issues: (1) Whether the word “sex” in Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of … sex,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), meant “gender identity” and included “transgender status” when Congress enacted Title VII in 1964; and (2) whether Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins prohibits employers from applying sex-specific policies according to their employees’ sex rather than their gender identity.

(relisted after the January 4, January 11, January 18, February 15, February 22, March 1, March 15 and March 22 conferences)

  Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., 18-8

Issues: (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.

(relisted after the January 4, January 11, January 18, February 15, February 22, March 1, March 15 and March 22 conferences)

  Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 18-587

Issues: (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’ decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.

(relisted after the January 11 conference; now held)

  Trump v. NAACP, 18-588

Issues: (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’ decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.

(relisted after the January 11 conference; now held)

  Nielsen v. Vidal, 18-589

Issues: (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’ decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.

(relisted after the January 11 conference; now held)

The post Relist Watch appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/03/relist-watch-140/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[flauntpage]

The Challenges Ahead for Transgender Athletes and Title IX Under Trump

The White House announcement on Wednesday that transgender people would be banned from serving in the military, and the news that the Department of Justice filed a brief in federal appeals court claiming that employment discrimination against trans people is completely legal under Title VII, were just the latest reminder that the Trump administration is conducting an all-out assault against transgender Americans. And for the past six months, transgender students have had to fend for themselves, with Donald Trump's first strike against trans rights throwing them into an uncertain legal limbo.

Under Barack Obama, the Departments of Justice and Education mandated that federally funded schools honor the gender identity of transgender students under Title IX, but they revoked that guidance just a few weeks after Trump took office. "This is an issue best solved at the state and local level," Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos said in a statement, and did not supply any replacement guidance at the time.

Now the Department of Education appears to be moving forward in formulating new policies on Title IX, including for trans students. Earlier this month, transgender athletic activist Athena del Rosario met with Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and Candice Jackson, the acting assistant secretary for civil rights, in Washington, D.C. That same week, former Olympic gold medal winner Caitlyn Jenner appeared on The View, saying that she had also met with members of the Trump administration, including the Department of Education. While a lot of attention has been paid to settling Title IX bathroom facility policy for trans students, the DOE will also need to address the rights of transgender student athletes and ensure their fair access to sporting opportunities under the law. (VICE Sports' request for comment from the Department of Education was declined.)

After her meeting with del Rosario on July 13, DeVos responded to a reporter's question about the definition of "sex" in Title IX: "I think there's been a lack of clarity in this area and I think it's time for Congress to address this." A bill already has been introduced in the House, HR 2796, which would explicitly revoke any legal interpretation of federal civil rights law that would interpret gender identity to be protected against discrimination on the basis of sex.

According to Jennifer Levi, an attorney with GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the courts have already established that discrimination against trans kids is sex discrimination, with Gavin Grimm's suit against his district (Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board) and other cases forcing them to parse what constitutes "sex discrimination" under Title IX.

"The very definition of being transgender relates to a person's sex either because it turns on a person's assigned sex, lived sex, or gender transition," Levi said in an email to VICE Sports. "There is no way to understand a person being transgender without having some concept of their sex, sexual identity, or gender identity. Therefore, discrimination against a transgender person for being transgender is sex discrimination."

Few sports issues are as controversial as trans women's participation in women's athletics. There are two cultural assumptions in play: the first is that men are inherently stronger, faster, and more athletic than women; the second is that trans women are really men who pretend to be women, which ignores the lived experience and physical changes that come with transitioning. While it's true that cisgender (meaning not trans) men have a hormonal advantage over cis women, this advantage doesn't apply to trans women who are on hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Of all the issues that fall under Title IX regarding protections for trans students, sports presents a unique challenge to policymakers in terms of balancing the need for equal access with concerns over any unfair competitive advantage.

When it comes to setting DOE Title IX regulations, DeVos does not require approval or input from either the White House or her department, which could explain why the DOE is so willing to listen to trans advocates while the rest of the executive branch is actively discriminating against them. The issues facing trans kids, and by extension trans athletes, aren't going away anytime soon. It's important that all transgender students are treated fairly and equally under the law, no matter what state they reside in, and it's an encouraging sign that a department in the Trump administration is at least willing to discuss potential national policy with advocates.

DeVos speaks with reporters about Title IX. Photo by Jasper Colt-USA TODAY NETWORK

Right now at the high school level, each individual state interscholastic athletic association has its own set of rules regarding transgender athletes. While each state is slightly different, they generally follow one of three models.

In the first, which exists in states like Texas, Indiana, and North Carolina, student athletes are required to compete in the sex categories according to what is listed on their birth certificates. In the second type of policy, called the "self declaration model", which 16 states follow, athletes are free to compete in the category of their gender identity as long as they are registered with the school as the sex of the category with which they wish to compete. Lastly, 20 states require some form of hormonal intervention for trans girls (students assigned male at birth who transition to female) to participate in girls' sports, while trans boys (students assigned female at birth transitioning to male) are allowed to play boys' sports without having to undergo medical treatment. This third model is also what the NCAA follows for college sports.

Trans athlete activists are decidedly split on which approach best protects the rights of students. One camp contends that trans girls should have medical intervention in order to compete, with no equivalent requirement for trans boys, so that there is a level playing field. The other explains that trans people are valid in their chosen genders regardless of medical transition status, and the fear is that introducing a medical test for sports may make it easier for schools to discriminate in other policies pertaining to trans students.

As a trans woman myself, I understand all too well what being forced to play on the boys' teams in high school can be like. But as an athlete, I can't help but consider the competitive imbalances potentially contained in both the birth certificate and open declaration models.

Relying on birth certificates to determine participation in sex-segregated sports ignores the effect of sex hormones on the human body, and therefore how hormone replacement therapy or puberty blockers for adolescents might affect athletic performance. Trans boys who are taking testosterone as part of their medical transition, like Texas wrestler Mack Beggs, will have the strength and build of an average teenage boy given enough time on the hormone. (The Texas University Interscholastic League, the governing body for the state's high school athletics, and a Texas state court both ruled that Beggs' testosterone treatments were not performance-enhancing because they have a legitimate medical use.) If those same trans boys are required to compete against girls, as Beggs was, it's not only a significant performance advantage—Beggs went 72-0 this past season, easily winning the Texas girls' state wrestling championship—but also a potential physical safety issue for their female opponents.

There are also legal considerations to the birth certificate approach. Most states still require genital reassignment surgery in order to change sex on a birth certificate, a procedure that in the U.S. is generally permitted only for those over the age of 18. Ohio, Idaho, and Tennessee do not allow sex to be changed on birth certificates at all. Classifying trans students according to their birth certificate sex would run afoul of the original intent of Title IX, which sought to guarantee equal access to educational opportunities across all genders.

Settling this balancing act between fair competition and equal access for transgender students under existing case law is the biggest challenge facing any DOE attempt to roll out new policies around school sports.

While the fairest approach might seem to be requiring a medical intervention for trans girls to compete, there is reason to believe it may not hold up under legal scrutiny. In Lusardi v Department of the Army, for example, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that "An agency may not condition access to facilities—or to other terms, conditions, or privileges of employment—on the completion of certain medical steps that the agency itself has unilaterally determined will somehow prove the bona fides of the individual's gender identity." In other words, government agencies cannot require a trans person to pass a medical test before they are treated according to their gender identity. The EEOC ruling was based on Title VII, which covers employment discrimination, but the same logic could potentially apply to Title IX.

"Title IX will not sanction some medical treatment litmus test for a transgender girl to play sports with all other girls. Nor should it," Levi said. But regardless of the law, when it comes to athletics, this can sometimes present competitive fairness issues.

In Connecticut, where students are allowed to play sports in accordance with their gender identity regardless of medical transition status, freshman transgender female sprinter Andraya Yearwood won the state championships in the girls' 100- and 200-meter sprints this past spring. According to media reports, the 14-year-old has yet to begin HRT or puberty blockers, something that could have contributed to an advantage over her cis female competitors this past year. Yearwood is gracious, explaining that she just wants to run, and would happily give back her medals to continue running with her teammates, but for many critics, she shouldn't have been allowed to compete in the first place.

With the expense of puberty blockers or other medical interventions, requiring them for trans sport participation would create a very real barrier to participation; blockers can be up to $1,200 per month, regular HRT is significantly cheaper. Additionally, all current transition-related medications are off label for use with transgender patients, and not all of them are consistently covered by insurance. Besides the cost, some trans people socially transition without hormonal intervention. It's clear there are legal access issues as well that come along with requiring a medical intervention simply to allow trans participation.

For all the arguments about hormone levels and competitive fairness, trans activists on this issue refer back to the original purpose of Title IX. The law was passed to ensure that everyone has equal access to educational opportunities, regardless of gender. That itself doesn't require a perfectly fair competitive environment, simply that the door of opportunity remains open to all.

"Participation in school-based sports is about supporting students in their development of strength, teamwork, collaboration, self-esteem, and beyond," Levi said. "Transgender boys and girls need to develop these skills alongside their non-transgender peers. They must be allowed to do so regardless of their individual medical needs relating to transition."

The ancient Greeks took a three-pronged approach to education: mind, body, and spirit. That philosophy has served as a foundation for organizations from the YMCA to the NCAA. Trans activists are simply asking for the same chance as everyone else has at all three.

The Challenges Ahead for Transgender Athletes and Title IX Under Trump published first on http://ift.tt/2pLTmlv

[featheroftruth-blog]

What a Trump Presidency Could Bring

    Well, ladies, gentlemen, and that weird rhino thing in the back, the day is finally upon us. Some of us believe this to be the greatest thing in the world, and others, the worst possible outcome. I am speaking, of course, of the inauguration of one Donald Trump.

Trump’s presidency has many thrilled and many worried. Your opinion of him is yours alone, and I make no move to change that. I’m only here to present the facts for those who don’t know or want to know more. Hopefully this will clear up some of the controversy and misunderstandings from both sides.

Now, I honestly cannot predict what Trump will actually do while in office. Anything I write here is based off of things that he has said in the past. Basically, his known stance on things, and his advisors stances. Let’s start off with an important issue, climate change.

Climate Change

-Trump has said, and I quote, “Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air- not the same old climate change (global warming) bullshit! I am tired of hearing this nonsense.” I feel like that shows his stance on it pretty well.

-According to National Geographic, Trump wants to revoke the Clean Power Plan. This plan puts limits on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fuel using power plants. His reasoning for this is that it puts a limit on business.

-On his website, Trump states that he wants to protect clean air and clean water, and unleash an energy revolution

-He has also stated that he wants to continue use of fossil fuels, instead of moving on to greener energy sources, which many scientists have suggested we do.

-He also wants to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement, an agreement in which 195 countries pledged to reduce carbon emissions.

-To put this into perspective, scientists estimate that the overall temperature of the globe will rise by 2 degrees C if we don’t clean up our act. This might not sound bad, but it would melt the ice caps, cause droughts, make coastal cities uninhabitable, etc. And that could be a best case scenario

-The United States is the second largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world  

The Economy   

The way Trump will impact the economy is difficult to predict, and is honestly giving me a headache to research about. To put it simply, it could go either way.

-There’s currently the assumption that Trump will put policies into place that businesses will benefit from. The dollar has been strengthened because of this.

-The aforementioned policies would include cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and investing in infrastructure

-The reducing regulations thing could tie into climate change  

-He has pledged to create new jobs. So that’s a thing.

Trade, Immigration, and International Relations

-He plans to begin dismantling the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement signed by twelve Pacific rim (it is notable that China is not one of them). The TPP is meant to strengthen the economic ties between the twelve, and potentially create a new single market. There was some controversy surrounding it, as people said it could intensify competition countries’ labour forces, give companies a way to sue governments, and there was the possibility of secret negotiations. There were also concerns about climate change not being covered.

-On his website, as part of his ten point plan, he claims that an impenetrable wall will be built between the US and Mexico, and that Mexico will pay for the wall. It’s worth pointing out that the Mexican president said that no, Mexico would not be paying for anything. It’s possible that the wall is meant as a metaphor, though by a lot of his wording, it seems to me that he means it literally.

-Anyone who enters the country illegally will be subject to deportation

-Sanctuary cities, cities that protect undocumented immigrants by not turning them in, will be put to an end

-Make sure that jobs are offered to Americans before immigrants, and prioritize the jobs, wages, and security of the American people

-Protect the economic well-being of immigrants living and working in the US legally

-Trump has criticized NATO quite a bit

-Who knows how relations with Russia will go at this point. On one hand, it could go very well. On the other, there’s the election debacle, and the possibility that Russia holds compromising material on Trump, which could potentially be used for blackmail.

-The possibility of a 35% tariff being put on goods made in Mexico

-The possibility of withdrawing the US from the North American Free Trade Agreement, and from the World Trade Organization.

-One China could be under negotiation, which China itself has said is non-negotiable

-Though he says he will talk and negotiate, his previous comments about China could have already done some damage and strained relations

-He wants to dismantle the Iranian nuclear accord, but also doesn’t want to specify what exactly he will do

-Dismantling that could cause some shit in the Middle East, which it honestly doesn’t need any more of right now, the situation over there is already complicated enough      

Gay Rights, Abortion Rights, and Women’s Rights

-The White House’s LGBT page was taken down after Trump was sworn in, which is making many people uneasy

-Pence is notorious for supporting conversion therapy, and opposing the repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Act. He has also spoken out against gay marriage in the past

-Marriage equality will most likely remain in place. That was a Supreme Court ruling, and would take a hell of a lot to overturn. I can’t speak for anything else regarding gay rights though. Only time will tell.

- He has pledged to sign the First Amendment Defence Act, which “Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”

-In other words, you can discriminate against someone because of your religion, and you won’t get in trouble for it

-The First Amendment Defence Act could also thin the line between church and state, which we have tried to keep separate

-Trump openly opposes abortion, but at this point in time can’t really do anything to affect it. That’s a Supreme Court decision, and while Trump will nominate a new justice to replace Antonin Scalia, they don’t tend to like overruling their own past decisions

-The Supreme Court does have the potential to change a lot, though. If Trump were to nominate two new justices, things could drastically reverse. That would be the point when the matter of abortion might be sent back to the states.

-If abortion becomes a state issue, there are 21 states likely to ban abortion almost immediately, 20 would preserve abortion rights, and 9 would be stuck in a battle of what to do

-Abortion clinics may also be shut down, even without the repeal of Roe. This is something Texas has done.

-It’s worth noting here that cutting off a woman’s way to get legal abortions doesn’t stop abortions from happening at all. In countries where abortion is illegal, women get illegal abortions instead, often in unsafe conditions. The health and safety of women should be taken into consideration here.

-Trump has also said, when asked if he thought abortion should be punished, that yes, he thinks there should be some form of punishment for the women. He did not specify what kind of punishment.

-He is very pro-life and anti-abortion, that’s something that has been made abundantly clear

-The “grab them by the pussy” remark is very well known at this point. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions from that.

-He wants to provide six weeks of paid leave to new mothers before they return back to work

-He plans to give employers an incentive to provide childcare

-He also wants to rewrite the tax code to allow working parents to deduct from their income taxes for child care, or care for the elderly

Well, it’s late, I’m tired, and there’s still a good bit more that I haven’t covered. That should be posted some time in the next few days. I intend to cover what he plans on doing to the Affordable Care Act, how his presidency could affect the current situation in the Middle East, and want to do some digging to see if he’s said anything on stem cell research. If anyone has questions, comments, or wants me to cover a specific topic in more detail, feel free to contact me.

[flauntpage]

The Challenges Ahead for Transgender Athletes and Title IX Under Trump

The White House announcement on Wednesday that transgender people would be banned from serving in the military, and the news that the Department of Justice filed a brief in federal appeals court claiming that employment discrimination against trans people is completely legal under Title VII, were just the latest reminder that the Trump administration is conducting an all-out assault against transgender Americans. And for the past six months, transgender students have had to fend for themselves, with Donald Trump's first strike against trans rights throwing them into an uncertain legal limbo.

Under Barack Obama, the Departments of Justice and Education mandated that federally funded schools honor the gender identity of transgender students under Title IX, but they revoked that guidance just a few weeks after Trump took office. "This is an issue best solved at the state and local level," Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos said in a statement, and did not supply any replacement guidance at the time.

Now the Department of Education appears to be moving forward in formulating new policies on Title IX, including for trans students. Earlier this month, transgender athletic activist Athena del Rosario met with Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and Candice Jackson, the acting assistant secretary for civil rights, in Washington, D.C. That same week, former Olympic gold medal winner Caitlyn Jenner appeared on The View, saying that she had also met with members of the Trump administration, including the Department of Education. While a lot of attention has been paid to settling Title IX bathroom facility policy for trans students, the DOE will also need to address the rights of transgender student athletes and ensure their fair access to sporting opportunities under the law. (VICE Sports' request for comment from the Department of Education was declined.)

After her meeting with del Rosario on July 13, DeVos responded to a reporter's question about the definition of "sex" in Title IX: "I think there's been a lack of clarity in this area and I think it's time for Congress to address this." A bill already has been introduced in the House, HR 2796, which would explicitly revoke any legal interpretation of federal civil rights law that would interpret gender identity to be protected against discrimination on the basis of sex.

According to Jennifer Levi, an attorney with GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the courts have already established that discrimination against trans kids is sex discrimination, with Gavin Grimm's suit against his district (Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board) and other cases forcing them to parse what constitutes "sex discrimination" under Title IX.

"The very definition of being transgender relates to a person's sex either because it turns on a person's assigned sex, lived sex, or gender transition," Levi said in an email to VICE Sports. "There is no way to understand a person being transgender without having some concept of their sex, sexual identity, or gender identity. Therefore, discrimination against a transgender person for being transgender is sex discrimination."

Few sports issues are as controversial as trans women's participation in women's athletics. There are two cultural assumptions in play: the first is that men are inherently stronger, faster, and more athletic than women; the second is that trans women are really men who pretend to be women, which ignores the lived experience and physical changes that come with transitioning. While it's true that cisgender (meaning not trans) men have a hormonal advantage over cis women, this advantage doesn't apply to trans women who are on hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Of all the issues that fall under Title IX regarding protections for trans students, sports presents a unique challenge to policymakers in terms of balancing the need for equal access with concerns over any unfair competitive advantage.

When it comes to setting DOE Title IX regulations, DeVos does not require approval or input from either the White House or her department, which could explain why the DOE is so willing to listen to trans advocates while the rest of the executive branch is actively discriminating against them. The issues facing trans kids, and by extension trans athletes, aren't going away anytime soon. It's important that all transgender students are treated fairly and equally under the law, no matter what state they reside in, and it's an encouraging sign that a department in the Trump administration is at least willing to discuss potential national policy with advocates.

DeVos speaks with reporters about Title IX. Photo by Jasper Colt-USA TODAY NETWORK

Right now at the high school level, each individual state interscholastic athletic association has its own set of rules regarding transgender athletes. While each state is slightly different, they generally follow one of three models.

In the first, which exists in states like Texas, Indiana, and North Carolina, student athletes are required to compete in the sex categories according to what is listed on their birth certificates. In the second type of policy, called the "self declaration model", which 16 states follow, athletes are free to compete in the category of their gender identity as long as they are registered with the school as the sex of the category with which they wish to compete. Lastly, 20 states require some form of hormonal intervention for trans girls (students assigned male at birth who transition to female) to participate in girls' sports, while trans boys (students assigned female at birth transitioning to male) are allowed to play boys' sports without having to undergo medical treatment. This third model is also what the NCAA follows for college sports.

Trans athlete activists are decidedly split on which approach best protects the rights of students. One camp contends that trans girls should have medical intervention in order to compete, with no equivalent requirement for trans boys, so that there is a level playing field. The other explains that trans people are valid in their chosen genders regardless of medical transition status, and the fear is that introducing a medical test for sports may make it easier for schools to discriminate in other policies pertaining to trans students.

As a trans woman myself, I understand all too well what being forced to play on the boys' teams in high school can be like. But as an athlete, I can't help but consider the competitive imbalances potentially contained in both the birth certificate and open declaration models.

Relying on birth certificates to determine participation in sex-segregated sports ignores the effect of sex hormones on the human body, and therefore how hormone replacement therapy or puberty blockers for adolescents might affect athletic performance. Trans boys who are taking testosterone as part of their medical transition, like Texas wrestler Mack Beggs, will have the strength and build of an average teenage boy given enough time on the hormone. (The Texas University Interscholastic League, the governing body for the state's high school athletics, and a Texas state court both ruled that Beggs' testosterone treatments were not performance-enhancing because they have a legitimate medical use.) If those same trans boys are required to compete against girls, as Beggs was, it's not only a significant performance advantage—Beggs went 72-0 this past season, easily winning the Texas girls' state wrestling championship—but also a potential physical safety issue for their female opponents.

There are also legal considerations to the birth certificate approach. Most states still require genital reassignment surgery in order to change sex on a birth certificate, a procedure that in the U.S. is generally permitted only for those over the age of 18. Ohio, Idaho, and Tennessee do not allow sex to be changed on birth certificates at all. Classifying trans students according to their birth certificate sex would run afoul of the original intent of Title IX, which sought to guarantee equal access to educational opportunities across all genders.

Settling this balancing act between fair competition and equal access for transgender students under existing case law is the biggest challenge facing any DOE attempt to roll out new policies around school sports.

While the fairest approach might seem to be requiring a medical intervention for trans girls to compete, there is reason to believe it may not hold up under legal scrutiny. In Lusardi v Department of the Army, for example, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that "An agency may not condition access to facilities—or to other terms, conditions, or privileges of employment—on the completion of certain medical steps that the agency itself has unilaterally determined will somehow prove the bona fides of the individual's gender identity." In other words, government agencies cannot require a trans person to pass a medical test before they are treated according to their gender identity. The EEOC ruling was based on Title VII, which covers employment discrimination, but the same logic could potentially apply to Title IX.

"Title IX will not sanction some medical treatment litmus test for a transgender girl to play sports with all other girls. Nor should it," Levi said. But regardless of the law, when it comes to athletics, this can sometimes present competitive fairness issues.

In Connecticut, where students are allowed to play sports in accordance with their gender identity regardless of medical transition status, freshman transgender female sprinter Andraya Yearwood won the state championships in the girls' 100- and 200-meter sprints this past spring. According to media reports, the 14-year-old has yet to begin HRT or puberty blockers, something that could have contributed to an advantage over her cis female competitors this past year. Yearwood is gracious, explaining that she just wants to run, and would happily give back her medals to continue running with her teammates, but for many critics, she shouldn't have been allowed to compete in the first place.

With the expense of puberty blockers or other medical interventions, requiring them for trans sport participation would create a very real barrier to participation; blockers can be up to $1,200 per month, regular HRT is significantly cheaper. Additionally, all current transition-related medications are off label for use with transgender patients, and not all of them are consistently covered by insurance. Besides the cost, some trans people socially transition without hormonal intervention. It's clear there are legal access issues as well that come along with requiring a medical intervention simply to allow trans participation.

For all the arguments about hormone levels and competitive fairness, trans activists on this issue refer back to the original purpose of Title IX. The law was passed to ensure that everyone has equal access to educational opportunities, regardless of gender. That itself doesn't require a perfectly fair competitive environment, simply that the door of opportunity remains open to all.

"Participation in school-based sports is about supporting students in their development of strength, teamwork, collaboration, self-esteem, and beyond," Levi said. "Transgender boys and girls need to develop these skills alongside their non-transgender peers. They must be allowed to do so regardless of their individual medical needs relating to transition."

The ancient Greeks took a three-pronged approach to education: mind, body, and spirit. That philosophy has served as a foundation for organizations from the YMCA to the NCAA. Trans activists are simply asking for the same chance as everyone else has at all three.

The Challenges Ahead for Transgender Athletes and Title IX Under Trump published first on http://ift.tt/2pLTmlv