Colorado parent groups sue state over controversial new transgender law enforcing 'compelled speech'
Colorado potentially faces a major lawsuit regarding a new law on transgender protections and how it could violate free speech and parental rights.
On Friday, Gov. Jared Polis signed into law the Kelly Loving Act, a bill that expands state anti-discrimination protections for transgender individuals by allowing a person's "chosen name" to qualify as a form of "gender expression" that is protected under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA).
Now that the bill has passed, the group Defending Education (DE) has sued the state on behalf of the Do No Harm, The Colorado Parent Advocacy Network and Protect Kids Colorado groups out of concerns that the law could violate their free speech rights.
"The Act's new definition of 'gender expression' is unconstitutionally overbroad," the lawsuit provided to Fox News Digital reads. "Because it covers any treatment based on the use of a 'chosen name' or other forms of preferred 'address,' it punishes many forms of constitutionally protected speech."
Colorado's 'Totalitarian' Transgenderism Bill Sparks Concerns From Parents
It continued, "When speakers refer to transgender-identifying individuals using biologically accurate terms, they advance a viewpoint about a hot-button political issue: gender ideology. That kind of speech lies at the core of the First Amendment. But the Act's definition of 'gender expression' makes all such speech discriminatory and unlawful."
Read On The Fox News App
The lawsuit added that since CADA prohibits the "publishing of discriminative matter," the new act could prohibit and potentially penalize individuals, including parents, for publicly disapproving of changing one's name and gender.
In a statement to Fox News Digital, Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President of Defending Education, said the law "muzzles" parents and doctors to protect the state's "preferred gender orthodoxy."
"Colorado can't seem to stop losing at the Supreme Court on constitutional challenges to its anti-discrimination laws. And yet, Governor Polis has nevertheless signed another patently unconstitutional iteration of its Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act—something that can only be described as an exercise of remarkable hubris," Perry said.
DE is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction on enforcing this new definition as a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments for using "unconstitutionally overbroad" language and enforcing "compelled speech."
"Do No Harm is proud to challenge Colorado's absurd so-called anti-discrimination act. Abridging American's constitutional right to freedom of expression in the name of radical gender ideology is wrong. We expect the court to reaffirm that the Constitution trumps progressive dogma," said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm.
Fox News Digital reached out to the governor's office for comment.
The Kelly Loving Act has come under fire by conservatives and Colorado parents since it was introduced in March. Among the protections in the original bill included a ruling that "deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual's gender-affirming health-care services" could be considered forms of "coercive control" that could affect a parent's custody over children.
After facing backlash, Colorado lawmakers eventually removed language regarding "deadnaming" and child custody, although opponents still criticized elements of the bill for broad language.
Colorado Parents Unload On Liberal Lawmakers, Prompting Changes To Controversial Gender Bill
Colorado has been at the center of several high-profile cases based on its anti-discrimination laws over the past few years. Most infamously, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips has been sued multiple times over his refusal to bake a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding or a gender transition.
In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against the state, finding that Colorado's anti-discrimination laws could not force a graphic designer to create wedding websites for same-sex weddings in violation of her beliefs.Original article source: Colorado parent groups sue state over controversial new transgender law enforcing 'compelled speech'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Wire
24 minutes ago
- Business Wire
Lieff Cabraser & Farella Braun + Martel Announce That University of California Researchers Have Filed a Class Action Lawsuit Against the Trump Administration for the Illegal and Unconstitutional Termination of Critical Research Grants
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Lieff Cabraser & Farella Braun + Martel Announce that a group of six University of California faculty and other researchers have filed a class action in federal court against the Trump Administration on behalf of all UC researchers whose previously approved agency grants were terminated pursuant to Executive Orders or other directives of President Trump, as implemented through the Department of Government Efficiency ('DOGE'). University of California Researchers File Class Action Suit Against Trump Administration for Illegal & Unconstitutional Termination of Critical Research Grants Plaintiffs seek a declaration that these grant terminations violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, and the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, as well as statutes that govern agencies' missions and grantmaking and the Administrative Procedure Act. As detailed in the Complaint, these abrupt cancellations of already awarded grants 'ignored or contradicted the purposes for which Congress created the granting agencies and appropriated funds, and dispensed with the regular procedures and due process afforded grantees under the Administrative Procedure Act, in implementing the Trump Administration's political 'cost-cutting' agenda and ideological purity campaign.' According to UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional law scholar and co-counsel on the case, 'President Trump and DOGE have arbitrarily cut off funding to researchers throughout the University of California system in clear violation of the Constitution and federal laws. There has not been a semblance of due process or compliance with the procedures required by federal statutes and regulations. This has caused great harm to a large number of faculty and other researchers and the UC research enterprise as a whole, with potentially grave consequences to everyone in society who benefits from the research in a myriad of disciplines." As described by Plaintiff Dr. Neeta Thakur, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at UCSF, 'The EPA has abruptly terminated a three-year grant that was supporting research on how wildfire smoke affects the lungs, heart, and brain of all Californians. My colleagues and I at UCSF and UC Berkeley have worked on this important project for two years, and its sudden end — communicated through a simple form letter — puts our progress in danger. This decision disrupts our ongoing work with community-based organizations and stops us from generating life-saving information designed to improve public health and protect the well-being of all Californians, especially those living in at-risk communities.' Plaintiff Jedda Foreman, the Director of the Center for Environmental Learning at the Lawrence Hall of Science at UC Berkeley, explains, 'My team and I at the Lawrence Hall of Science earned NSF grants to make science education more accessible to all learners. Instilling a love of science is critical to envisioning and creating a better future for us all. In one day, we lost two projects, and nearly 75% of our funding, because of terminations by NSF. A week later, NSF terminated yet another one of our projects. These terminations haven't just affected our team, but also our longtime community partners and thousands of students across the United States.' These are just two of hundreds of examples of the damage wrought by the Trump Administration's illegal and unconstitutional terminations. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, seeks a return to the pre-Trump Administration process of orderly grantmaking that aligns with congressionally authorized purposes, and affords due process to grant-funded researchers. Plaintiffs seek, for themselves and the class of UC researchers who have suffered unlawful grant terminations, an injunction restoring their lost funding, providing them sufficient time to complete the work for which their grants were originally approved, and preventing further illegal grant terminations. Plaintiffs will be filing a motion for a temporary restraining order on June 5, 2025. The case, No. 3:25-cv-4737, is assigned to the Honorable Rita F. Lin. Background on the Lawsuit Each year, researchers in the UC system receive hundreds of millions of dollars in grants from the full spectrum of federal agencies, ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency, to the National Science Foundation, to the National Institutes of Health. These grants fund the production of new knowledge and fuel the development of discoveries that greatly benefit society at large. The grants have also been key to the innovation that has consistently earned the UC system pride of place among research institutions, including first place in the list of universities with the most utility patents. They have also made the UC Berkeley campus the number one ranked public research in institution in the world for nine of the past ten years. Before President Trump took office, federal grantmaking proceeded under the authority of Congress, which appropriated taxpayer funds for specific public purposes. For decades, agencies carried out these statutory directives and observed due process in making, renewing, and (only seldom) terminating grants. They each adhered to their own grant regulations and followed Administrative Procedure Act processes when modifying such regulations. On the rare occasions when agencies terminated grants, they did so pursuant to predictable, regularized processes and terminated grants only for reasons stated in the regulations. All of this changed abruptly on January 20, 2025 (Inauguration Day). After January 20, 2025, Defendants Donald J. Trump and DOGE, through a flurry of Executive Orders and other directives, commanded the Federal Agency Defendants to terminate scores of previously awarded research grants. As the Complaint notes, the 'abrupt, wholesale, and unilateral termination of these grants has violated the Constitution's bedrock principle of separation of powers and its guarantees of freedom of speech and due process; flouted the Impoundment Control Act limits on the Executive's ability to withhold or redirect congressionally appropriated money; ignored statutory requirements that agencies fulfill their substantive missions and fund congressionally specified activities; contravened agency-specific grant-making regulations that cannot by law be revised on an abrupt, unexplained, chaotic basis; and violated the Administrative Procedure Act through this arbitrary, capricious, and ultra vires conduct.' As further detailed in the Complaint, grounds the agencies have offered for such terminations were spurious. In some cases, agency correspondence to grantees asserted that grant termination would reduce public costs and promote government efficiency, although no evidence was provided to support this claim. In other cases, agency communications made it clear that grants were being terminated to further Defendant Trump's political objectives, which included the elimination of research on climate, environmental justice, 'gender ideology,' and 'DEI.' These grant terminations are occurring not because the grant-funded research departed from its originally approved purpose, but because that purpose now offends the political agenda and ideological requirements of the Trump Administration. In terminating these grants, the agencies have violated the Constitution, numerous federal statutes, and their own regulations. Plaintiff UC researchers have suffered concrete financial, professional, and other harms from Defendants' unilateral termination of grants for projects to which they have already dedicated time and effort; for research upon which they have staked careers and reputations; and for work with research teams through which they endeavored to train a next generation. These terminations have impaired and will impair the public-serving research mission of the UC system and the concern for public welfare that undergirds it. Named Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class will continue to suffer such harms on an ongoing basis, and will experience increasing and irreparable harm absent the court declaration and injunction they seek through this lawsuit.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
On a big decision day, the Supreme Court sent a message about unity
Supreme Court justices sent a message to the American public on Thursday: We're not as divided as you think. Of the six rulings that were released, four were unanimous, including the opinions in high-profile battles over reverse discrimination and faith-based tax breaks. Another decision was nearly unanimous, with just one justice peeling away on one part of the ruling. And the sixth decision had just one dissent, meaning that nearly all of the justices agreed with the plan to dismiss the case as 'improvidently granted.' Here's an overview of the six rulings released on Thursday — and a look at what's still to come from the Supreme Court in June. Ruling: Unanimous In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the court was considering whether members of a majority group, such as straight, white males, should have to meet a higher burden of proof in order to make an employment discrimination claim. The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a straight, white woman, who accused her former employer of privileging LGBTQ employees during the promotion process. Ames lost in front of lower courts, but the Supreme Court overturned those decisions on Thursday. The justices unanimously said that members of majority groups should not have to meet a higher burden of proof and sent Ames' case back to the lower courts for reconsideration. The question in this case is whether ... a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must also show 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' We hold that this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Smith & Wesson Brands v. Mexico, the court was asked to determine whether the Mexican government could sue seven gun manufacturers based in the U.S. over their role in unlawful gun sales in Mexico. The Supreme Court unanimously said on Thursday that the Mexican government's lawsuit cannot move forward 'because Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers.' 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales 'as in something that (they) wish to bring about,'' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the state of Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment's religious freedom protections by denying a faith-based tax break to a group of Catholic nonprofits. The nonprofits said their service to people in need was clearly motivated by Catholic teachings, but Wisconsin officials said they didn't qualify for the religious exemption to the state's unemployment tax because they did not seek to serve only Catholics or evangelize to their clients, as the Deseret News previously reported. State officials won in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which said that the Catholic nonprofits' work did not serve 'primarily religious purposes.' In Thursday's unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment by privileging certain religious beliefs and actions over others. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion.' There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In CC/Devas (Mauritius) v. Antrix, the justices were considering under what circumstances federal courts in the U.S. can assert jurisdiction over foreign states. The case stemmed from a conflict between a company that's active in the U.S. and a corporation owned by India. The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that federal courts did have jurisdiction over India in this dispute and reversed a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion. Ruling: Nearly unanimous, with one justice taking issue with one part of the majority opinion. In Blom Bank v. Honickman, the court was considering whether victims of terrorist attacks or their surviving family members could reopen their case against a bank that had allegedly aided and abetted terrorists by providing financial services. The Supreme Court ruled that the people who brought the case did not meet the high standard that must be cleared to reopen the case. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, was nearly unanimous. Eight of the justices, including Thomas, joined it in full, but Jackson only joined it in part. Ruling: Dismissed as improvidently granted, with one justice dissenting to the dismissal In Lab Corp v. Davis, the justices were considering whether a federal court can certify a class action suit if some of the parties in the suit lack legal standing. A majority of the justices decided to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, meaning that they felt the court should never have agreed to weigh in. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented to that decision, writing that he felt it was possible — and would be valuable — to rule on the case. The Supreme Court will release around two dozen more rulings throughout the month of June as it works to wrap up its 2024-25 term by early July. The justices have yet to announce their decision in four of the five cases that the Deseret News highlighted in its list of this term's highest profile battles. The Supreme Court's next decision day has not yet been announced, but it will likely be Thursday, June 12.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rules that Catholic groups were unlawfully barred from a religious tax exemption
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of Catholic Church-affiliated charitable groups, saying they were wrongly denied religious exemptions from a Wisconsin tax that funds unemployment benefits. The justices ruled unanimously that the state's decision unlawfully discriminated against the groups on the basis of religion under the free exercise clause of the Constitution's First Amendment. The court rejected a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that said that the groups operating under the Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior were not sufficiently religious in purpose. The state already provided exemptions for religious institutions. The First Amendment has long been interpreted to exempt religious entities from taxation. Writing for the court, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted the importance of the government remaining neutral when it comes to different religions. "When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny," Sotomayor said. But Wisconsin had "transgressed that principle," she added. The groups involved in the case — Headwaters, Barron County Developmental Services, Diversified Services and Black River Industries — primarily serve developmentally disabled people. Their programs are open to non-Catholics. The Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission had concluded the charitable groups were not 'operated primarily for religious purposes' under state law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2024 upheld the state commission's finding, saying the groups' activities were mostly secular in nature and that they do not 'attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials.' The Wisconsin unemployment compensation system was set up in 1932 to provide a safety net for people who lose their jobs. Similar programs in other states and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act also include religious exemptions. The Catholic groups had strong backing at the Supreme Court from other Christian sects and different religious faiths. This article was originally published on
