Judge orders schools to provide single-sex toilets
A judge has ordered that Scottish schools must provide single-sex toilets for students after parents brought a case to court against Scottish Borders Council (SBC).
The local authority had installed only gender neutral toilets at the replacement Earlston primary school, which recently opened.
Parents Sean Stratford and Leigh Hurley complained to the council about the policy at the school their son had previously attended, but it was rejected.
But at the Court of Session in Edinburgh the council conceded that they had a legal obligation to provide male and female facilities.
The move comes after judges at the UK Supreme Court last week unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.
Rosie Walker, of law firm Gilson Gray which is representing the parents, said: "This case will have far reaching implications."
BBC Scotland News understands that the Scottish government is confident that the vast majority of schools in Scotland already offer single-sex lavatories.
Ministers are still considering the implication of the Supreme Court judgement and whether any changes will have to be made to toilet provisions.
Ms Walker said all schools in Scotland would now have to "urgently review" whether half of their toilets are for boys and half for girls, as is required by the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967.
She added: "This case, on top of the Supreme Court decision last week, gives focus to the importance of protecting sex-based rights and single-sex spaces."
A council spokesperson said: "Prior to the hearing, SBC had accepted and acknowledged the decision that was being sought was correct and therefore did not seek to defend this in court.
"Moving forward, SBC will revisit and reconsider the complaint and respond in due course."
The Scottish government said it would carefully consider the implications of that ruling.
A spokesperson added: "Local authorities have statutory responsibility for the school estate, including provision of toilets.
"The Scottish government is committed to ensuring that our Transgender Guidance for Schools remains up to date and fit for purpose.
"As with any significant legal or policy developments, we will consider whether the guidance requires to be updated to reflect upon these."
They added the social justice secretary and the health secretary will meet with the Equality and Human Rights Commission - which will soon publish guidance on the issue - on Thursday.
Starmer does not believe trans women are women, No 10 says
Supreme Court backs 'biological' definition of woman
Women's campaigners celebrate court win - but what will it change?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Texas Supreme Court Holds That Motions Are Not Within The Scope Of The TCPA In Ferchichi
The Supreme Court of Texas. Texas has a modern but non-uniform Anti-SLAPP law known as the Texas Citizens Participation Act ("TCPA") which operates to protect free speech and related rights from the perils of abusive litigation brought to silence or retaliate against the speaker. In fact, the TCPA was one of two Anti-SLAPP laws (the other was California's) that were primarily relied upon in the drafting of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act ("UPEPA") which has proven to be popular among state legislatures. There have been, however, criticisms of the TCPA arising not so much from the text of the statute itself but rather from misapplications of the TCPA by the lower Texas courts. Today, we see the Texas Supreme Court step in to correct the Texas Court of Appeals on one such issue. The culprit in this case is the phrase "legal action". The TCPA provides for the early dismissal of a legal action if that litigation is based upon the speaker's lawful exercise of their free speech and related rights. The phrase "legal action" is ordinarily understood to basically mean a cause of action, which is basically a vessel found within a petition or complaint that states sufficient facts as would entitle a party to relief. It is very common that several actions be pled within a single petition or complaint based on essentially the same facts, such as with an auto accident case against a teenage driver where one action for negligence might be pled against the driver and a second against his parents for negligent entrustment of the vehicle. There should not be much, if any, confusion as to what a "legal action" means, although the UPEPA decided to use the phrase "cause of action" instead just to eliminate even the possibility of any such misinterpretation. The TCPA defines a legal action as a "lawsuit, cause of action, petition, complaint, cross-claim, or counterclaim", but then goes on to include "any other judicial pleading or filing that requests legal, declaratory, or equitable relief." The purpose of that last phrase is to keep a litigant from filing something that states a legal action but attempting to call it something else, such as a Writ Of Mumbo Jumbo or something unusual. Nonetheless, it is that last phrase which stored up trouble, since a "filing" could be taken to mean a motion that requested some relief (although that is basically what every motion does). Some of the Texas Court of Appeals held in a number of cases that "legal action" could include certain motions, such as discovery motions or motions for sanctions where the party bringing the motion sought monetary relief. The rationale of these courts was along the lines that since one party was trying to get money out of the other, that constituted a "legal action" which brought into play the TCPA. The upshot was that a party faced with a discovery motion seeking monetary relief or a motion for sanctions could challenge the motion itself by bringing a TCPA special motion. The other of the Texas Court of Appeals basically just said, "No, a motion is not a legal action whether it awards monetary relief or not." Eventually, this split of opinions within the Texas Court of Appeals made its way up to the Texas Supreme Court which issued an opinion in Ferchichi v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC, 2025 WL 1350005 (Tex., May 9, 2025), which you can read for yourself here and which we will now examine. After reviewing the split of cases within the Texas Court of Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court then went on to examine the text of the TCPA on this point. Again, the TCPA defines a legal action as a "lawsuit, cause of action, petition, complaint, cross-claim, or counterclaim", but then goes on to include "any other judicial pleading or filing that requests legal, declaratory, or equitable relief." While noting that this last phrase is meant to be broadly interpreted, the Texas Supreme Court also noted that it is meant to be interpreted according to a doctrine of statutory construction known as ejusdim generis. This doctrine basically states that where the legislature has given examples of various things in a statute, and then tacked on something akin to "and like things" at the end, those "like things" must be in the same family as those things which have been listed. Applied here, it meant that the "other judicial pleading or filing" needed to be like a lawsuit, cause of action, petition, etc. To the contrary, the Texas Supreme Court noted: "The motions to compel and for sanctions at issue here, by contrast, are not remotely 'like' a 'lawsuit, cause of action, petition, complaint, cross-claim, or counterclaim.' Rather, they are based on conduct ancillary to the substantive claims in the case' and cannot stand on their own. [] It also did not matter to the Texas Supreme Court that a particular motion sought monetary relief, as that would not drag it under the coverage of the TCPA because those are procedural remedies not directly arising from the cause of action giving rise to the case: "As such, there is no reason to treat a motion to compel that does not seek monetary relief any differently from one that does, at least for purposes of determining whether it constitutes a legal action under the TCPA." Thus, the Texas Supreme Court held that motions did not fall within the ambit of the TCPA and a party cannot properly bring a TCPA special motion to try to get rid of the motion. Instead, a motion will be granted or denied without any regard to the TCPA. ANALYSIS There is not much to say about the Texas Supreme Court's ruling because it is right on target. The only criticism would be towards the particular Texas Court of Appeals which upheld the application of the TCPA to motions, which was frankly just silly from the outset. The good news is that this ruling in Ferchichi should get rid of a substantial number of misuses of the Texas TCPA, which has come under criticism because of these and similar misuses. The problem is not with the TCPA, of course, but with the lower Texas courts which entertain and sometimes endorse these misuses. The only way to stop that is for the Texas Supreme Court to do what is did here, which was to render a corrective opinion. Very likely, the Texas Supreme Court will have to hear a higher volume of TCPA appeals for a while before the Texas Court of Appeals finally gets on board with the program. Implicitly, the troubles of the Texas Supreme Court in herding the wet cats of the lower Texas courts onto the right track would be alleviated were Texas to adopt the UPEPA. This is because the UPEPA has the great benefit of uniformity, meaning that the lower courts could look to opinions from the appellate courts of other states to see what the right answer is, without falling for slick sounding but known to be incorrect arguments brought by creative litigants. But that is for another day.
UPI
7 hours ago
- UPI
Supreme Court to hear New Jersey pro-life free speech case
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a faith-based pregnancy center's request, challenging New Jersey over its claim the pro-life group misled women about offering abortion services. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for October. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI. | License Photo June 16 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a Christian-based pregnancy center's request, challenging New Jersey over its claim the pro-life group misled women about offering abortion services. The Supreme Court will decide later this year whether First Choice Women's Resource Centers can use federal courts to block the state's attorney general from investigating its donor, advertising and medical personnel records. First Choice, which provides parenting classes and free ultrasounds to women facing unplanned pregnancies, claims a 2023 subpoena violated its free speech rights. Attorney General Matthew Platkin "has made no secret of his hostility towards pregnancy centers," the pro-life group wrote in its petition to the Supreme Court, as it called Platkin's subpoena "invasive" for demanding access to records. "State attorneys general on both sides of the political aisle have been accused of misusing this authority to issue demands against their ideological and political opponents," lawyers for First Choice wrote. "Even if these accusations turn out to be false, it is important that a federal forum exists for suits challenging those investigative demands." Platkin argues that the subpoena he issued has yet to be enforced in state court. He also said the donor information he sought was from two websites, which he claimed may have misled people into thinking First Choice provided abortions. "Nonprofits, including crisis pregnancy centers, may not deceive or defraud residents in our state, and we may exercise our traditional investigative authority to ensure that they are not doing so -- as we do to protect New Jerseyans from a range of harms," Platkin wrote in a statement. The Supreme Court will focus on whether First Choice sued prematurely, not whether New Jersey's subpoena was valid, according to Platkin. "First Choice is looking for a special exception from the usual procedural rules as it tries to avoid complying with an entirely lawful state subpoena," Platkin added. "No industry is entitled to that type of special treatment -- period." Lawyers for First Choice said the group is not seeking special treatment and believes their free speech rights are being targeted. "New Jersey's attorney general is targeting First Choice simply because of its pro-life views," Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Erin Hawley said in a statement. "The Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from unjustified demands to disclose their identities, and First Choice is entitled to vindicate those rights in federal court." Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for October. "We are looking forward to presenting our case to the Supreme Court and urging it to hold that First Choice has the same right to federal court as any other civil rights plaintiff," Hawley added. "The First Amendment protects First Choice's right to freely speak about its beliefs, exercise its faith, associate with like-minded individuals and organizations, and continue to provide its free services in a caring and compassionate environment to people facing unplanned pregnancies."
San Francisco Chronicle
8 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court to hear appeal from Chevron in landmark Louisiana coastal damage lawsuits
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear an appeal from Chevron, Exxon and other oil and gas companies that lawsuits seeking compensation for coastal land loss and environmental degradation in Louisiana should be heard in federal court. The companies are appealing a 2024 decision by a federal appeals court that kept the lawsuits in state courts, allowing them to move to trial after more than a decade in limbo. A southeast Louisiana jury then ordered Chevron to pay upwards of $740 million to clean up damage to the state's coastline. The verdict reached in April was the first of dozens of lawsuits filed in 2013 against leading oil and gas companies in Louisiana alleging they violated state environmental laws for decades. While plaintiffs' attorneys say the appeal encompasses at least 10 cases, Chevron disagrees and says the court's ruling could have broader implications for additional lawsuits. Chevron argues that because it and other companies began oil production and refining during World War II as a federal contractor, these cases should be heard in federal court, perceived to be friendlier to businesses. But the plaintiffs' attorneys — representing the Plaquemines and Jefferson Parish governments — say the appeal is the companies' latest stall tactic to avoid accountability. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit already rejected similar arguments from Chevron. 'It's more delay, they're going to fight till the end and we're going to continue to fight as well,' said John Carmouche, a trial attorney in the Chevron case who is behind the other lawsuits. He noted that the companies' appeal 'doesn't address the merits of the case.' The court's decision to hear the appeal offers the chance for 'fair and consistent application of the law' and will 'help preserve legal stability for the industry that fuels America's economy,' said Tommy Faucheux, president of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, in an emailed statement. In April, jurors in Plaquemines Parish — a sliver of land straddling the Mississippi River into the Gulf — found that energy giant Texaco, acquired by Chevron in 2001, had for decades violated Louisiana regulations governing coastal resources by failing to restore wetlands impacted by dredging canals, drilling wells and billions of gallons of wastewater dumped into the marsh. 'No company is big enough to ignore the law, no company is big enough to walk away scot-free,' Carmouche told jurors during closing arguments. Louisiana's coastal parishes have lost more than 2,000 square miles (5,180 square kilometers) of land over the past century, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, which has also identified oil and gas infrastructure as a significant cause. The state could lose another 3,000 square miles (7,770 square kilometers) in the coming decades, its coastal protection agency has warned. Chevron's attorneys had argued that land loss in Louisiana was caused by other factors and that the company should not be held liable for its actions prior to the enactment of a 1980 environmental law requiring companies to obtain permits and restore land they had used. The fact that the lawsuits had been delayed for so long due to questions of jurisdiction was 'bordering on absurd,' the late-federal judge Martin Leach-Cross Feldman remarked in 2022 during oral arguments in one of the lawsuits, according to court filings. He added: 'Frankly, I think it's kind of shameful.' Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, a longtime oil and gas industry supporter, nevertheless made the state a party to the lawsuits during his tenure as attorney general. 'Virtually every federal court has rejected Chevron's attempt to avoid liability for knowingly and intentionally violating state law,' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement. 'I'll fight Chevron in state or federal court—either way, they will not win.' ___ ___ This story has been corrected to show that Chevron's counsel was 'pleased' with the decision by the Supreme Court, not the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
