The New Reality
On the second day of Jeff Sessions the DoJ filed notice in the Fifth Circuit that it is withdrawing its request that a nationwide injunction against pro-transgender policies be limited to the states that sought the injunction.
Then, in a joint request with the states challenging the policy, the states and the Justice Department both requested that the oral arguments on that issue be removed from the court’s calendar.
The parties are currently considering how best to proceed in this appeal.
The argument, advanced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and later by the Justice Department and other federal agencies, is that existing civil rights law bans on sex discrimination should be read to include a ban on anti-transgender discrimination because it is a type of sex discrimination.
Despite the Justice Department move, the EEOC — an independent federal agency — appeared to be keeping its fight for the pro-transgender interpretation of the law proceeding in court.
This was unexpected after Trump appointed a new acting chair of the agency.
The EEOC filed a brief yesterday in a case in the Sixth Circuit:
Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination ‘because of … sex’ encompasses discrimination based on transgender status and/or transitioning. This conclusion is based on the text of Title VII, as well as decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court that have long recognized that Title VII forbids gender from playing a role in employment decisions.
Notably, the appeal — in a case brought by the EEOC against a funeral home that it alleges discriminated against an employee because she is transgender — also makes the argument that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not provide a defense to the funeral home’s actions here.
Comments
I have withdrawn the remark
as it has clearly backfired. No offence intended.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
WTF?
You choose to tarnish the image of transfolk? Why would you do that?
I suppose this ruling is a kind of legal double-negative
By saying the govt won't litigate against an injunction, means effectively that the current policies will remain in place. I am not a lawyer, so am not sure if my interpretation is correct.
By the way, you should warn your readers when you are linking to GOS (gag! retch! yecch!)
It's confusing, but no.
It's confusing, but no. That's not the effect of what DOJ just did.
To (hopefully) make a long story short, what's happened is this:
The feds (EEOC, etc.) under Obama had announced that existing federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex would now be applied to discrimination on the basis of being transgendered.
Several states, including Texas, filed suit contesting this interpretation of the law. Those states contend that sex discrimination does not include discrimination against transgendered people.
Those states also asked that an injunction be issued, ordering EEOC not to enforce its pro-transgender interpretation of the law while the lawsuit is being litigated. In other words, the states want to retain the right to discriminate against the transgendered pending the outcome of the lawsuit.
The trial court in Texas not only granted that injunction, but made the injunction nationwide. This means that the pro-transgender policy cannot be enforced anywhere in the US while the lawsuit is proceeding.
DOJ (still under Obama at that point) appealed the "nationwide" aspect of the injunction. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is the federal appellate court over the state of Texas. DOJ asked that the injunction be limited to apply only in the specific states involved in the lawsuit. That would leave all other states free to act against transgender discrimination.
At the time Trump took office, the 5th Circuit had not yet rendered a decision on the DOJ's appeal of the nationwide scope of the injunction.
What DOJ under Sessions has just done is withdraw its appeal. In other words, DOJ is signalling that it no longer objects to a nationwide ban on enforcement of the pro-transgender policy.
This would seem to be a clear sign that DOJ is backing off, or at least reconsidering, its commitment to protect the civil rights of transgender people.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Thank you for the clarification.
I obviously completely misunderstood the legal maneuvering. It's a taste of things to come. Thanks, Tinyhands for your compassionate A.G.
This is the sort of thing I
This is the sort of thing I feared if Pence became VP. Pence and Sessions are likely to egg each other on.
A lot of people who say they are against rights for minorities (often for religious reasons) do not include their cousin or bowling team buddy among the people they want to discriminate against. Hopefully many will change when they see that real people are being hurt.
In the 1980s there were people who actually thought AIDS was a good thing because it got rid of THEM. I even saw a horrible t-shirt that said, "Thank God for AIDS". When people found out that Rock Hudson had it, that their son was dying, and that some of the basketball stars were infected they changed their minds. Finally.
Your work humanizing trans people is very important although it needs to somehow get to the people who cannot get past labels to see another human being.
The central issue for everything people at c99 care about is how to get the necessary information to the people who are watching 'reality' shows on cable TV. Most of them would be on our side if we had some way to get the truth to them.
Great, but...
I don't trust this. I feels as though I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I hope I am unduly suspicious, but that is rare.
"No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up." Lily Tomlin