#youth plaintiffs

[bumblebeeappletree]

‘Our land is sick … We need to care for it’ — 14 youth plaintiffs are suing Hawaii’s Department of Transportation. Here’s why.

Originally posted on YouTube on November 1st, 2023.

[progressivegraffiti]

"The win... could energize the environmental movement and reshape climate litigation across the country, ushering in a wave of cases aimed at advancing..."

[hope-for-the-planet]

Under what legal experts called a “historic” settlement, announced on Thursday, Hawaii officials will release a roadmap “to fully decarbonize the state’s transportation systems, taking all actions necessary to achieve zero emissions no later than 2045 for ground transportation, sea and inter-island air transportation”, Andrea Rodgers, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case, said at a press conference with the governor.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Christopher Wiggins at The Advocate:

In a major victory for transgender youth and their families, a federal judge in Maryland has blocked President Donald Trump’s executive orders that sought to strip away access to gender-affirming medical care for minors. The ruling, issued Thursday in Baltimore by U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson, halts enforcement of the ban nationwide, preventing the Trump administration from withholding federal funds from hospitals and providers that offer gender-affirming care to patients under 19. The decision comes after weeks of chaos and fear triggered by Trump’s orders, which led hospitals across the country to suspend care for trans youth, leaving thousands in limbo. The lawsuit, filed by Lambda Legal, PFLAG, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Maryland, and law firms Jenner & Block and Hogan Lovells, challenged the administration’s attempt to politicize and weaponize health care against transgender people. The court agreed, finding that the orders are likely unconstitutional and that Trump cannot impose such sweeping restrictions on medical providers. Brian K. Bond, CEO of PFLAG National, one of the plaintiffs in the case, called the ruling a moment of justice for families who had been forced to fight for their children’s basic medical care. “Good and decent parents of transgender kids should never be in the frightening position of having their child’s prescribed, medically necessary care canceled at the whim and threat of a politician,” Bond said in a statement. “But that’s exactly what President Trump’s executive order did to PFLAG families with trans youth and young adults nationwide. Today’s decision rights a grievous wrong to our nation’s families and children, and PFLAG families will be vigilant to ensure our transgender loved ones receive the healthcare they need—as this legal ruling demands.”

[...] The harm inflicted by Trump’s January 28 executive order, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” was immediate. The order barred federal funds from supporting gender-affirming care and forced hospitals and clinics to suspend treatment to avoid potential funding cuts.

[...] The Trump administration framed the order as protecting children, but transgender advocates and medical professionals swiftly condemned it as nothing more than a politically motivated attack on the most vulnerable.

In PFLAG v. Trump, Judge Brendan Hurson issued a nationwide ruling halting Donald Trump’s cruel and capricious anti-trans executive order (EO 14187) banning gender-affirming care for those under 19 from taking effect.

See Also:

The Guardian: Judge pauses Trump’s order restricting healthcare for transgender youth

LGBTQ Nation: Federal judge blocks Donald Trump’s ban on gender-affirming care nationwide

[spider-stark]

RECKLESS

paring | foggy nelson x reader

summary | statistically speaking, fucking your annoying coworker is never a good idea. but who cares about statistics?

warnings | MDNI 18+, sexual themes & situations, no real plot (just concepts & vibes bb), your yearly reminder that i can't write smut, not edited we die like foggy in dd:ba (fuck that show)

word count | 660+

// masterlist // send me your thoughts // comments & reblogs appreciated! //

“Holy shit, holy shit, holy–”  

“Foggy!” Your voice was sharp. His face—cheeks tinted rosy pink—was so close to yours that, with the slightest movement, your noses were at risk of bumping together. “Stop. Talking.”  

His breathing was erratic. His gaze flitted between your eyes and your lips, as if unsure of where to look. “Sorry.” A second of quiet, and then: “It’s just—are we doing this? Like, actually doing this?”  

You wanted to kiss him. You wanted to kill him.  

You wanted him to shut up and to never stop talking ever again.  

“Foggy?”  

“Yes?”  

“I mean this in the nicest way,” you told him, though your tone indicated otherwise, “but don’t you think now is a little too late to be asking that?”  

Your skirt was pushed up to your goddamn waist. Whatever skin wasn’t covered by the thin fabric of your panties was pressed to the smooth, cool varnish of his desk. His palms pressed flat against the side of your thighs, fingers occasionally flexing with the urge to squeeze, held back by a most infuriating sense of restraint. 

His hips were wedged between your legs. Even through the barriers that separated you—his slacks, your panties—you could still feel him pressing against your core.  

Hard.  

Thick.  

“Well, you know what they say.” He gave a little shrug, nervous and adorable. “No time like the present, amirite?”  

You couldn’t agree less.  

But this was what Foggy was good at, wasn’t it? Pushing your buttons, getting under your skin. The two of you were opposites. Oil and water, yin and yang. If you said down, he said up, if you said red, he said green.  

And if you said Let’s Fuck, Foggy Nelson was for sure the type of guy to look you dead in the eyes and say: Actually?  

“Franklin–” his nose scrunched at the use of his real name “–I can feel every inch of your dick pressing against my–”  

His grin widened. “How are you feeling about that by the way?”  

You sucked an agitated breath through your nostrils.

“Presently? Not so good, Franklin.” Your glare bored right through the soul of him, menacing as it was in any courtroom as you stressed, “Not. So. Good.”  

You hated this.  

You hated him.  

Just minutes ago, the two of you had been at each other’s throats—a common occurrence during late nights at the office. The catalyst had been stupid. For tomorrow’s opening statement, you wanted to present the teenaged client as wholly innocent. But Foggy—stupid, stupid Foggy!—wanted to paint them as misguided youth. That way, he argued, if the plaintiff brought forth enough evidence to prove the client guilty (which, to be fair, they definitely were), then the jury might still take pity on them if it seemed they’d been failed by a larger system.  

It was risky. Reckless. No better than a blatant admission of guilt, really.  

And that was exactly the point you’d been trying to make—your finger jabbing against his chest, his jaw clenched with frustration—when, suddenly, the Earth shifted on its axis and his lips crashed against yours.  

As a lawyer, you prided yourself on being a person of extreme logic.  

Facts and figures, reason over impulse. You valued sense. Statistics. You never made a move without ensuring that success was not only possible, but probable.  

And workplace relationships? Ugh…  

Let’s just say the numbers weren’t in your favor on that one.  

“Foggy,” you raked your fingers through his soft blonde locks. Tugged, relishing in the way his eyelids fluttered shut, plush lips parting with a sweet, almost whimpering, sound. “I’m only going to tell you this one more time.” Your voice was low, firm. “Stop talking and start fucking. Got it?”  

He was already nodding, already fumbling for his pants, before the last word had even left your tongue. “Yes ma’am,” he choked out, so dutiful and submissive that you forgot all about facts and figures, reason over impulse.  

Fuck statistics.  

You were doing this.  

Definitely, definitely doing this.

a/n - god. if i knew how to write smut? i'd love to continue this. such a fun concept (in my opinion). anyways, hope you all enjoyed this little short piece about the most precious human to ever live (count your days, born again).

as always, could be ooc, but I do my best so cut me some slack lmao

[mariacallous]

The US supreme court heard one of the most consequential LGBTQ+ rights cases in its history on Wednesday, with arguments that laid bare the conservative supermajority’s broad threats to civil rights, bodily autonomy and decades of legal precedent.

In US v Skrmetti, the court is weighing Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth, one of 24 state laws across the US prohibiting treatments that are part of the standards of care endorsed by every major medical association in the country.

The case originated with three trans youth and their parents who sued Tennessee, arguing the care – puberty blockers and hormone therapy – was medically necessary and “life-saving”. The Biden administration joined the case, asserting Tennessee’s law was unconstitutional.

The case hinges on the legal question of whether Tennessee’s healthcare ban constitutes a form of sex discrimination that merits “heightened scrutiny”, which would mean the case be returned to lower courts for a more rigorous review. But the oral arguments made clear that a ruling against the trans plaintiffs could have far-reaching implications for trans rights and anti-discrimination protections more broadly.’

The US and the ACLU argued that the law is discriminatory and bans treatments based on sex classifications; under Tennessee’s ban, cisgender boys with delayed puberty can be prescribed testosterone, but transgender boys are barred from accessing the same treatments for gender-affirming care. Tennessee argued that the law is an “across the board rule” to “protect minors” from “risky” medical interventions.

Elizabeth Prelogar, the US solicitor general, noted that the court would “turn its back on 50 years of precedent” if it sided with Tennessee’s arguments that the law does not constitute sex discrimination warranting closer scrutiny.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, repeatedly compared Tennessee’s ban with the prohibition on interracial marriage, overturned by the landmark Loving v Virginia decision in 1967: “Some of these questions … sound very familiar to me, [such as] the arguments made back in the day, the 50s and 60s, with respect to racial classifications.” Jackson later added: “I’m worried that we’re undermining the foundations of some of our bedrock equal protection cases.”

“I share your concerns,” responded the ACLU’s Chase Strangio, the first out trans lawyer to appear before the court. “If Tennessee can have an end-run around heightened scrutiny … that would undermine decades of this court’s precedent.”

Kate Redburn, co-director of Columbia Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, explained after the arguments that there was the potential for an outcome that “would authorize a much broader range of sex discrimination, which has been previously found unconstitutional.

“There could be situations where the government could distinguish between people by sex, and courts would not intervene,” they continued, saying a ruling in favor of Tennessee could make it easier for states to pass policies that discriminate on the basis of pregnancy or other reproductive choices, for example: “Regulations that we now would say are based on stereotypes – especially stereotypes about what women’s proper role is – depending on how expansive this opinion is, those stereotypes could be authorized.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another liberal, also noted that a decision declaring that the ban on care is not discriminatory could open the door to bans on gender-affirming healthcare for all trans people, not just youth: “You’re licensing states to deprive grown adults of the choice of which sex to adopt.”

Matthew Rice, Tennessee’s solicitor general, responded that the “democratic process” was the “best check on potentially misguided laws”. Sotomayor interjected: “When you’re 1% of the population, or less, it’s very hard to see how the democratic process is going to protect you. Blacks were a much larger part of the population and it didn’t protect them. It didn’t protect women for whole centuries.”

“That was a chilling moment,” said Sydney Duncan, senior counsel at Advocates for Trans Equality, who sat in the courtroom. “Is the next step to ban adult healthcare? The state didn’t have a great answer there.” She noted that Tennessee’s law is rooted in “bad science” and misinformation. Doctors cited as expert witnesses for the state have repeatedly been discounted and rebuked by US judges for their lack of credentials and anti-trans bias, the Guardian recently reported.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative, asked Prelogar about bans on trans people in athletics: “If you prevail here … would transgender athletes have a constitutional right to play in women’s and girls’ sports?” Prelogar responded that the sports issue – which has become a focus of Republicans’ culture war – was related to a different legal question. Kavanaugh’s questions raised some concerns from advocates that the outcome could have broader impacts for LGBTQ+ rights beyond youth healthcare.

“The justices likely see this case as a potential harbinger of future litigation and constitutional questions about trans people’s equal protection,” Redburn said.

Rice also claimed that trans plaintiffs were seeking a “right to engage in nonconforming behavior”. Redburn said the remark was noteworthy and raised broader concerns about people’s rights to self-expression:

“You can see the motivation is not, as the state has suggested, to protect the health of children, which is something that states have a right to regulate, but instead is based on not only particular animus towards transgender individuals, but also a broader social vision that upholds a certain gender hierarchy.”

The conservative justices appeared reluctant to intervene and block Tennessee’s ban, which means the outcome next year could deliver a dramatic blow to trans rights at a time of escalating attacks on LGBTQ+ equality across the US.

“It’s so important that we understand this case as deeply connected to … laws on race and sex discrimination more broadly,” said Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of United for Reproductive and Gender Equity (Urge), an advocacy group. “These questions of what is privacy, what is autonomy, can we control our bodies and our families – these are all intertwined.”

The questions from Jackson and Sotomayor, she said, made clear that “the struggle for the recognition of trans people’s humanity cannot be separated from questions of race and gender equality that have long been cornerstones of this nation’s jurisprudence”, McGuire said.

She noted that anti-abortion and anti-trans activism were closely linked and that this case would probably be followed by efforts to ban adult gender-affirming care, birth control, IVF and other healthcare: “We have seen the right use marginalized people as the tip of the spear for a much larger attack … This voracious desire to be involved in our most personal, private decisions has no end.”

Imara Jones, a podcaster and CEO of the news organization TransLash, who sat in the room, noted that the healthcare under threat was long established: “If you eliminate gender-affirming care, you’re going to be shortening people’s lives and diminishing the quality of their lives. It’s a very real impact. This is not a constitutional or esoteric consideration for trans people. It’s as personal as it gets.”

Bamby Salcedo, a longtime activist and president of the TransLatin@ Coalition, said she and other advocates were bracing for a harmful ruling, but added: “For many of us as a community, hope is the last thing that will die. Regardless of the outcome, we as people are resilient … and we are going to continue to exist despite the oppression we may experience because of this decision. We are going to continue to fight like hell for all of us to be protected.”

[karl-marxs-ghost]

March 1st

A federal judge extended the pause on President Donald Trump‘s executive orders aimed at defunding transgender procedures for children and claimed that Trump had a “desire to harm” transgender youth in her decision.

The lawsuit brought forward by attorneys general from Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington argues the orders violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause and the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal authority over state medical practices. U.S. District Court Judge Lauren King, a Biden appointee, granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction on most of the lawsuit after a temporary restraining order expired.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from the Associated Press (AP):

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a petition filed by young climate activists who argued that the federal government’s role in climate change violated their constitutional rights, ending a decadelong legal battle that saw many of the plaintiffs grow from children and teenagers into adults.

The landmark case was filed in 2015 by 21 plaintiffs, the youngest 8 years old. They claimed the U.S. government’s actions encouraging a fossil fuel economy violated their right to a life-sustaining climate.

The case — called Juliana v. United States after one of the activists, Kelsey Juliana — was challenged repeatedly by the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, whose lawyers argued it sought to direct federal environmental and energy policies through the courts instead of the political process.

Julia Olson, chief legal counsel for Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit law firm that represented the plaintiffs, said the impact of the lawsuit “cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone.”

“Juliana sparked a global youth-led movement for climate rights that continues to grow,” Olson said in a statement Monday. “It has empowered young people to demand their constitutional right to a safe climate and future. We’ve already secured important victories, and we will continue pushing forward.”

What happened with the case?

The plaintiffs wanted the court to hold a trial on whether the U.S. government was violating their fundamental rights to life and liberty by operating a fossil-fuel based energy system.

The case wound its way through the legal system for years. At one point in 2018, a trial was halted by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts just days before it was to begin.

In 2020, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the case dismissed, saying the job of determining the nation’s climate policies should fall to politicians, not judges. But U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, Oregon, instead allowed the activists to amend their lawsuit and ruled the case could go to trial.

Last year, acting on a request from the Biden administration, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel issued an order requiring Aiken to dismiss the case, and she did. The plaintiffs then sought, unsuccessfully, to revive the lawsuit through their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our Children’s Trust, responding to new developments at the federal level, is now preparing a new federal action that is “rooted in the same constitutional principles that guided the Juliana case,” Olson said.

[eretzyisrael]

by Jessica Costescu

Several anti-Israel organizations that blocked major roadways in Washington D.C. last year were slapped with a class action lawsuit Friday by a legal group representing a traveler trapped in the traffic jam.

Left-wing groups, including Jewish Voice for Peace, the Palestinian Youth Movement and its fiscal sponsor, the Westchester Political Action Committee Foundation, among others, shut down access to several major roadways in D.C. on Feb. 1, 2024, for close to an hour. A total of 23 anti-Israel activists were arrested on charges of "crowding, obstructing or incommoding." Three were also charged with resisting arrest.

The keffiyeh-clad activists chained themselves together in the middle of highways while others linked arms with PVC pipes, forming human chains to block roads. Many of the activists held signs that said, "From the River to the Sea, Palestine Must be Free," and chanted slogans including "We Don’t Want No Jewish State" and "If We Don’t Get It, Shut It Down!"

The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute filed its lawsuit Friday on behalf of Daniel Faoro, who was trapped by the blockade. They called the traffic jam "perhaps the most disruptive action by anti-Israel activists" and said commuters "were trapped in their vehicles with no inkling as to when their freedom of movement would be restored."

"Thousands of commuters were late for work or school, or missed critical appointments and important events, some of which may have been scheduled weeks in advance," the complaint said. "Plaintiff Faoro and other innocent class members traveling into and around the District that morning had nothing to do with the conflict thousands of miles away, or the debate within Congress regarding support for Israel; many probably have no opinion at all on the issue."

Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute president Anna St. John told the Washington Free Beacon the lawsuit seeks accountability for those "who use intimidation and obstruction to push their agenda."

"Blocking roads is not free speech—it’s lawlessness. These activists disrupted daily life for countless individuals. HLLI's lawsuit seeks to ensure that those responsible face consequences and that this kind of behavior is not repeated," St. John said.

[she-is-ovarit]

Detransitioner news

I have been thinking about detransitioners lately and wanted to compile articles I have been seeing. This will be a longer post and reblogged for part II as I hope to copy and paste brief portions of the articles under each headline.

Law firm for detransitioners opens in Dallas

In all of the controversy around gender transition, there is one group that is persistently marginalized by both the right and left. They are known as detransitioners — people who decide that they want to return to their birth gender, often after receiving years of interventional care, including surgery, to treat their gender dysphoria. Now, the nation’s first law firm focused solely on representing these patients — many of whom feel abused by a medical system that encouraged their treatment — has opened its doors in Dallas. It could forever change how hospitals and doctors approach what’s known as gender-affirming care.

Archive link

Fenway Community Health Center in Boston, the largest provider of transgender medicine in New England and one of the leading institutions of its kind in the United States, was named a defendant in a lawsuit filed last month. The plaintiff, a gay man who goes by the alias Shape Shifter, argues that by approving him for hormones and surgeries, Fenway Health subjected him to “gay conversion” practices, in violation of his civil rights. Carlan v. Fenway Community Health Center is the first lawsuit in the United States to argue that “gender-affirming care” can be a form of anti-gay discrimination. The case underscores an important clinical reality: gender dysphoria has multiple developmental pathways, and many who experience it will turn out to be gay. Even the Endocrine Society concedes that many of the youth who outgrow their dysphoria by adolescence later identify as gay or bisexual. Decades of research confirm as much. Gender clinicians in the U.K. used to have a “dark joke . . . that there would be no gay people left at the rate [the Gender Identity Development Service] was going,” former BBC journalist Hannah Barnes reported. Rather than help young gay people to accept their bodies and their sexuality, what if “gender-affirming” clinicians are putting them on a pathway to irreversible harm?

Due partly to Shape’s lifelong difficulty in accepting himself as gay, his lawyers are not taking the usual approach to detransition litigation. Rather than state a straightforward claim of medical malpractice or fraud, they allege that Fenway Health has violated Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which bans discrimination “on the basis of sex” in health care. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that “discrimination because of . . . sex” includes discrimination based on homosexuality. Citing this and other precedents, Shape’s lawyers argue that federal law affords distinct protections to gay men and lesbians—upon which clinics that operate with a transgender bias are trampling. Shape grew up in a Muslim country in Eastern Europe that he describes in an interview as “very traditional” and “homophobic.” His parents disapproved of his effeminate demeanor and interests as a child. They wouldn’t let him play with dolls, and his mother, he says, made him do stretches so that he would grow taller and appear more masculine. At 11, Shape had his first of several sexual encounters with older men. “I was definitely groomed,” he recounts. Shape proceeded to develop a pattern of risky sexual behavior, according to his legal complaint. He told his medical team at Fenway Health about his childhood sexual experiences, calling them “consensual.” The Fenway providers never challenged him on this interpretation, he alleges. They never suggested that he might have experienced sexual trauma or, say, explored how these events might have shaped his feelings of dissociation. (The irony is that Fenway Health describes its model of care as “trauma-informed.”)

Archive link

Ontario detransitioner who had breasts and womb removed sues doctors

An Ontario detransitioning woman who had her breasts and womb removed to change her gender to male is suing medical and health practitioners for failing to consider other treatments during her mental health crisis before ushering her on an irreversible journey she regrets. Michelle Zacchigna, 34, of Orillia, Ont., north of Toronto, names eight health professionals, including doctors, psychologists, a psychotherapist and a counsellor in a lawsuit filed in Ottawa. None of the defendants, who work or worked at various clinics and institutions in southern Ontario, responded to requests for comment on the lawsuit prior to deadline. Four of the defendants have filed notices of intent to defend against the suit in Ontario Superior Court, but no statements of defense have been filed. None of the claims have been tested in court. Zacchigna said she faces an uphill battle in her lawsuit. “I’ve been under the impression that all medical malpractice suits are challenging. Doctors win the majority of cases in Canada,” she told National Post. “It’s very much a David vs. Goliath undertaking.” In her statement of claim filed in court in November, Zacchigna says she had difficulty forming relationships with classmates in elementary school and was often bullied. By the time she was 11, she engaged in self-harming behaviour, including cutting her arm with a knife. This continued into early adulthood. When she was 20, she tried to kill herself and she was referred by her family doctor for psychotherapy, where she was treated for social anxiety and clinical depression. She remained unhappy and depressed, and her mental health decline led to her dropping out of university, according to her claim. About a year into therapy, she engaged with an online community around gender nonconformity. “Michelle came to believe that her biological sex of female did not match her true gender identity of male,” her claim says. “She further came to believe that this mismatch between her biological sex and gender identity was causing her feelings of depression, self-harming behaviour and unease in her body, a mental health condition commonly known as gender dysphoria,” her claim states. This was the first time Zacchigna felt she was born in the wrong body, and she had not previously identified as male, her claim says. “However, as a result of what she read on the internet, she became convinced that she was a transgender man, and that once she embraced this new identity, her depression would subside.” Zacchigna started attending a support group in Toronto for people considering gender transition. A counsellor there told her of opportunities to proceed through a medical transition, her claim says. Zacchigna was invited to apply for medical intervention in 2010. The counsellor wrote a recommendation letter outlining a medical history that didn’t fully match her real past, the claim says. The counsellor didn’t recommend any alternatives, or seek confirmation of Zacchigna’s own diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Her regular therapist also wrote a recommendation for transition treatment, saying Zacchigna was an “ideal candidate for hormone therapy,” even though the therapist had no previous transgender clients, according to the claim.

Part II incoming.

[posttexasstressdisorder]

Democracy Docket

Marc Elias

Wednesday, February 5

Senate confirms Pam Bondi as attorney general

The Senate confirmed Pam Bondi as U.S. attorney general last night. Her record as an election denier and loyalist of President Donald Trump raises serious concerns over her ability to uphold justice, protect democracy and lead the nation’s top law enforcement agency.

Building youth engagement in democracy goes beyond voting

The future of democracy relies on more than just young people voting. From voter education to community building, the youth's commitment to civic engagement is what will ultimately drive positive change, IGNITE National fellow Grace Edwards argued in a new piece.

We're currently tracking 23 lawsuits holding Trump accountable — with new developments happening quickly. If you know someone who wants to stay informed on these important updates, forward them this newsletter to ensure they're in the know.

THE OPPOSITION

Holding Trump Accountable

Federal unions sue DOGE over Department of Labor data access

Federal unions, represented by Democracy Forward, sued today to block Elon Musk’s DOGE from accessing sensitive Department of Labor data. This marks the latest lawsuit against the faux agency for attempting to unlawfully obtain government information.

Judge issues nationwide block on Trump’s birthright citizenship order

A federal judge in Maryland issued a nationwide block today on Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship as litigation continues, saying it "conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment."

Trump’s firing of NLRB member is being challenged in court

Gwynne Wilcox, who Trump fired from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), filed a lawsuit challenging her dismissal. She said the termination violated the National Labor Relations Act, which says NLRB members can only be fired for negligence or malfeasance after proper notice and the right to a hearing.

Hearings coming up tomorrow

A Washington state court is set to hear a lawsuit challenging Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. Democratic attorneys general in four states argued that the order violates the 14th Amendment. This is one of nine lawsuits challenging this order.

A hearing will be held in two lawsuits from FBI agents seeking to block the U.S. Department of Justice from creating a list of staff who worked on Trump's Jan. 6 cases. FBI employees argue that these actions violate the U.S. Constitution.

A hearing is scheduled in a Democracy Forward case challenging the Office of Personnel Management’s “Fork in the Road” directive giving federal government workers the option to resign by tomorrow but be paid until September. The plaintiffs argued it’s the “pretext for removing federal workers on an ideological basis.”

This is a daily newsletter that provides a quick and easy rundown of the voting and democracy news of the day. For questions about your subscription or general support, visit our FAQ page here.

[thehopefuljournalist]

Am I a little bit late for some of you? I might be. But anyways. Here's what went right around the world this past week :)

Youth climate activists won a huge climate lawsuit

Sixteens youths (aged five to 22) from Montana, US, have emerged victorious after suing state officials for violating their right to a clean environment.

In their lawsuit, they argued that Montana's fossil fuel policies contributed to climate change, which harms their physical and mental health. Montana is a major coal producer, with large oil and gas reserves. The state has rebuffed these claims, saying that their emissions were insignificant on a global scale.

Judge Kathy Seely, in a 103-page ruling, set a legal precedent for young people’s rights to a safe climate by finding in their favour. “Every additional tonne of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions exacerbates plaintiffs’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries".

This win marks the very first time a US court has ruled against a government for a violation of constitutional rights based on climate change. It will now be up to Montana lawmakers to bring state policies in line.

“As fires rage in the west, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, today’s ruling in Montana is a gamechanger that marks a turning point in this generation’s efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos.” - Julia Olson, executive director of nonprofit law firm, Our Children’s Trust, which represented the youths in this case.

Number of Mexicans living in poverty fell by millions

Thanks to a new minimum wage boost and increases to pensions, the number of Mexicans living in poverty fell by 8.9 million between 2020-2022, according to new data published by the country’s social development agency, Coneval.

Coneval’s statistics suggest that the number of people living in extreme poverty also fell – from 10.8 million in 2020 to 9.1 million last year – although that figure is still up from a pre-Covid 8.7 million recorded in 2018.

There is still a long way to go, and some critics do claim that during the current president, López Obrador's presidency has been characterized by austerity.

An organised crime group trafficking endangered species has been jailed

The Wildlife Justice Commission (WJC), a small European wildlife charity, is apparently busting kingpins behind as much as half of the world's illegal trade in pangolin scales. The traffickers began six-year jail sentences a few weeks ago.

The wildlife charity went undercover to expose three Vietnamese and one Guinean national, members of an organised crime group trafficking body parts of endangered species including rhinos. 

They were arrested in May 2022, following a four-year investigation by the WJC, and were accused of trafficking 7.1 tonnes of pangolin scales, as well as 850kg of ivory. Last month they pleaded guilty to smuggling and were jailed for six years.

All eight species of pangolin are listed as threatened animals, four critically endangered - they are protected by international law.

“There has not been a reported seizure of pangolin scales in Asia originating from Africa in more than 550 days,” said Steve Carmody, WJC’s director of programmes. “There is no clearer example of the importance of disrupting organised crime networks.”

AI gave conservationists a breakthrough

The use of AI-controlled microphones and cameras seems set to revolutionise

biodiversity monitoring in the UK following groundbreaking work by researchers at the Zoological Society of London (ZSL). They used the tech to record and analyse 3,000 hours of wildlife audio captured by monitors located near London railway lines.

The computers detected dozens of bird species, foxes, deer, bats and hedgehogs, and mapped their locations.

It’s hoped the innovation will help improve conservation and habitat management on Network Rail land.

This year is best ever for UK renewable energy installations

This years looks to be the best year so far for UK renewable energy installations, with record numbers of households fitting solar panels and heat pumps.

2023 marks the first time solar panel installations have topped an average of 20,000 a month, as homeowners look to harvest energy from the sun amid rising utility bills. 

Read the full story here.

The UK’s Tree of the Year shortlist was revealed

The Woodland Trust has announced the shortlist for its annual celebration of some of the UK’s most treasured ancient trees, and for 2023 the spotlight is on the urban landscape.

“Ancient trees in towns and cities are vital for the health of nature, people and planet,” said the charity’s lead campaigner Naomi Tilley. “They give thousands of urban wildlife species essential life support, boost the UK’s biodiversity and bring countless health and wellbeing benefits to communities.”

Article published August 17, 2023

Thank you so much for reading! Let me know what interested you, and if there's any specific topic you'd like me to dig into, my DM's are always open :)

Much love!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Erin Reed at Erin In The Morning:

In a stunning decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Idaho can ban transgender students from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity. The ruling prioritizes cisgender students’ “privacy concerns” over the harm faced by transgender students, effectively stripping them of Title IX protections in school facilities. It also contradicts recent precedent from both the 9th Circuit and other federal courts that have affirmed equal protection rights for transgender people. Even under heightened scrutiny, the court determined that transgender students could legally be excluded from bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity due to unspecified harm they may be hypothesized to cause cisgender students. In multiple instances, the decision also treats transgender students as their assigned sex at birth, setting a dangerous legal precedent with implications far beyond Idaho.

The court ruled that a “privacy interest” in excluding transgender students from bathrooms outweighs their equal protection rights. It stated that “not exposing students to the unclothed bodies of students of the opposite sex, and protecting students from having to expose their own unclothed bodies to students of the opposite sex” justifies barring transgender students from locker rooms, changing rooms, and bathrooms. It also stated that a person’s sex is “typically identified at birth” and treats “biological sex” as “sex assigned at birth” without justification. In doing so, the ruling explicitly categorizes transgender youth as the “opposite sex” in legal terms, setting a precedent that could further erode their protections under federal law.

Though the ruling acknowledges that the transgender plaintiff, Rebecca Roe, “alleged that excluding her from those facilities would jeopardize her social transition, imperil her mental and physical health, and “out” her to her peers as transgender when she entered a new school in seventh grade,” the ruling does not find that harm compelling. That is because the ruling determines that despite the harm done to Roe, the state has a “compelling interest” to protect cisgender students from Roe in intimate spaces.

The ruling acknowledges that Idaho’s bathroom ban discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status, triggering heightened scrutiny as required by 9th Circuit precedent. Yet, despite this recognition, the court still ruled against the transgender plaintiffs. It determined that the state’s interest in “preventing schools from requiring students to share restrooms and changing facilities with members of the opposite biological sex” advances “privacy and safety objectives” and prevents “potential embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury” to cisgender students. This, the court concluded, was sufficient justification to override the documented harms experienced by transgender students. The ruling further denied equal protection claims, asserting that “excluding all students, including transgender students who have not undergone gender-realignment surgery, from locker rooms and shower rooms designated for students of the opposite ‘biological sex’ is substantially related to the same privacy interest.”

To justify this decision, the panel had to address the fact that the state failed to produce any evidence of harm caused by transgender students using bathrooms or changing rooms. Rather than confront this gap, the court sidestepped the issue by creating what effectively amounts to a transgender injury exception. It ruled that “common experience” is enough to assume harm to cisgender students, stating: “SAGA overlooks that this is an unusual situation in which the State’s privacy justification is easily corroborated by common experience… That some students in a state of partial undress may experience ‘embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury’ in the presence of students of a different sex is neither novel nor implausible.” In doing so, the court required no actual evidence of harm to justify the ban under heightened scrutiny. The court sidestepped strong precedent affirming transgender people’s equal protection rights, including a case which states that “the mere presence” of a transgender person does not violate cisgender students’ privacy in shared spaces. To do so, it reframed the issue, claiming that the “mere presence” of transgender students in bathrooms was not at issue in the case. Instead, the ruling asserts that transgender people are not being discriminated against for their presence, but rather are simply being told they must be treated as their assigned sex at birth—a distinction that functionally erases transgender identity in legal protections. [...] This ruling sets a devastating precedent for transgender rights. Issued by a majority Democratic-appointed panel in the 9th Circuit, it marks the first significant decision in which Democratic-appointed judges have ruled against transgender protections. By prioritizing cisgender discomfort over the tangible harm faced by transgender people, the court has effectively sanctioned a legal framework in which transgender individuals can be forced to live as their assigned sex at birth. Even more troubling, this decision comes at a critical moment—just ahead of a looming Supreme Court case that will determine whether transgender people have equal protection under the law at all. That such a ruling emerged from the historically progressive 9th Circuit signals that courts may be increasingly willing to uphold laws restricting transgender people’s rights, potentially paving the way for a wave of anti-trans legislation to be deemed constitutional in the months ahead.

Bad ruling from the 9th, but this is just a 3-judge panel.

[cultivating-wildflowers]

"The leader of the long-running study said that the drugs did not improve mental health in children with gender distress and that the finding might be weaponized by opponents of the care."

And from Wikipedia:

In December 2024, Olson-Kennedy was sued by a 20-year old female detransitioner, alleging she had caused permanent harm by a rushed diagnosis of gender dysphoria "mere minutes" after first seeing the plaintiff at age 12, who went on to receive puberty blockers and a double mastectomy at age 14. The lawsuit also names the St. Francis Hospital in San Francisco and a second doctor as defendants, alleging that the latter had "rubber-stamped" the mastectomy. The same day, a group of Republican senators announced an inquiry into her unpublished NIH study. All senators involved except for one had previously sponsored a ban on youth gender-affirming care.

Worth noting: The leader of this study, Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, is married to a trans-identifying "therapist" who runs a gender clinic.

[catdotjpeg]

Highlighting the double standards in how US sends military aid: W/ Ukraine, "State Dept put geographical limitations on a reg basis." Yet, no such efforts to "stop the flow even though the vast majority of weapons being used to further the genocide are coming from the US"

Important reminder from the legal team: "We bring this case BECAUSE the court of law is part of the system. We may win/lose in the court of law. But in the court of public opinion, we have already won"

Plaintiff team [The Center for Constitutional Rights, Defense for Children Palestine, and al-Haq:] "Joe Biden has said that NO ONE is above the law. Well, that applies to you POTUS too. We will hold you accountable"

Today is also the last day of appeal for Leonard Peltier The First Nation Delegation here to strengthen the solidarity for land, dignity, and justice against cop city and militarism

Bringing this home, Indigenous Justice connecting the ties between Cop City and IOF. Our own SFPD implementing the same policing and surveilling techniques against community organizing

"We will not allow our govt to continue to support this genocide. It's the people who are taking Joe Biden to court to say NO BUSINESS AS USUAL." - from our ED Lara Kiswani

Bay Area community members are drawing 40,000 seeds to represent the martyrs "The seeds also represent the seeds of resistance. There will be free Leonard Peltier and a free Palestine" - Lara Kiswani

"All this suffering and destruction is made possible by US backing. 68% of Israel's weapons are from the US. From arms shipment to backing at the UN, this genocide is completely dependent on US support." Palestinian Youth Movement

"How do we materially disrupt the US war machine?" Logistics companies like Maersk make a killing from killing. Palestinian Youth Movement calling for Mask Off Maersk campaign Day of Action tmrw

"Do not let anyone tell you this genocide has nothing to do w you. It has everything to do w you" GABRIELA Oakland connecting the military ties that enable fascist govts from Israel the Philippines to India and the US.

International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network reaffirming that anti-Zionist Jewish people will not allow their identity to be weaponized for Israel's fascist, racist project. "Zionism is racism. So anti-zionism is anti-racism"

-- Arab Resource and Organizing Center (AROC), 10 Jun 2024 11:57am PDT

[tomorrowusa]

Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton have drawn additional attention to what a terrible governor Ron DeSantis is.

“Florida isn’t safe with DeSantis at the helm of our state government,” said Matthew Grocholske, 20, campaign strategy lead with the Orlando, Florida, chapter of the youth-led Sunrise Movement. [ ... ] Florida environmentalists say that DeSantis’s policies to boost fossil fuels, suppress carbon-free energy and ignore global heating have fueled the climate crisis that has exacerbated such hurricanes. [ ... ] Hurricanes – including Helene – are becoming more dangerous due to the climate crisis, caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels. DeSantis’s policies have fueled that crisis with his policies and rhetoric, climate advocates say. “When it comes to our climate crisis, Ron DeSantis is easily the worst governor in Florida’s history,” said Delaney Reynolds, 25, a PhD student in climate resilience at the University of Miami and lead plaintiff in a 2018 youth-led climate lawsuit against the state government. DeSantis’s opposition to climate action began early in his career. One day after taking office in 2013, the then representative voted against a measure proposed after Hurricane Sandy to guarantee people could collect on federal flood insurance claims. During his 2018 run for governor, he pledged to protect Florida’s Everglades and waterways. But though he admitted that “human activity contributes to changes in the environment”, he also said: “I am not a global warming person.” More recently, he has gone further, slamming climate action as “woke”. There is ample evidence that warmer ocean temperatures fuel more powerful storms, and preliminary studies show Helene’s strength was made far more likely by global heating. Yetas Florida was battered by record-breaking rain this past June, DeSantis staunchly denied any potential link to the climate crisis. “This clearly is not unprecedented,” he said at a news conference at the time. “I think the difference is, you compare 50 to 100 years ago to now, there’s just a lot more that’s been developed, so there’s a lot more effects that this type of event can have.”

D'oh! Of course it's "unprecedented". That's what the climate crisis is all about. Weather keeps getting more extreme.

DeSantis is doing his best to destroy the state's response to climate change.

In August, DeSantis’s administration sparked outcry for its so-called Great Outdoors Initiative, which included plans to pave over thousands of acres at nine state parks and erect 350-room hotels, golf courses and pickleball courts. In May, the governor made headlines for signing legislation scrubbing most references to climate change from state law. The policy, which took effect on 1 July, restructured the state’s energy policy to nullify goals to boost wind and solar, instead focusing on hardening energy infrastructure against “natural and manmade threats”. [ ... ] During his run for president in the 2024 Republican primary, DeSantis also promised to ramp up domestic oil and gas production and fend off electric vehicle mandates, moves that climate experts warned would have boosted greenhouse gas emissions. His promises rhymed with his state policies. This past legislative session, DeSantis reportedly quietly helped craft a ban on wind energy infrastructure in Florida. And he also signed a far-reaching energy omnibus bill boosting the gas industry and increasing the barriers to purchasing electric vehicles. [ ... ] Last year, DeSantis turned down federal aid for energy efficiency, electrification and slashing carbon pollution. In 2022, he vetoed from the state budget a $5m allocation for a hurricane shelter in a north-east Florida town, and barred the state’s pension fund from making investment decisions that consider the climate crisis. The previous year, he adopted a bill banning Florida’s cities from adopting 100% clean energy goals. Such policies have exacerbated the climate crisis, which fuels hurricanes like Milton and Helene, Grocholske said. “The catastrophic level of this hurricane is directly due to the policies our state government is passing,” said Grocholske. “It’s clear that [DeSantis’s] administration has been one of the biggest threats to climate justice our state has faced in its history.”

Ron DeSantis is actively inviting the destruction of much of his own state.

DeSanctimonious is not on the ballot this year. But there are elections for the Florida legislature.

Florida State Legislature

Look up your legislative districts. If you live in ones represented by MAGA Republicans, contact your state or county Democratic Party to find out how you can help defeat them.

Find Your Legislators Look your legislators up by address or use your current location.