
Jolyon Maugham: Why I think Supreme Court challenge would work in Scotland
The legal campaign group has previously said it believes the ruling means that the UK is now not complying with its international law obligations – the Human Rights Act and European Convention of Human Rights.
The Supreme Court ruled that under the Equality Act 2010 'woman' is defined by 'biological sex', and does not include a transgender woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
READ MORE: Scottish Government drops plans for misogyny bill
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) then released guidance excluding trans people from single-sex services, including toilets, dubbed 'segregation' by furious trans rights campaigners.
'I'm really clear in my own mind that our [UK] law is no longer compatible with our international law obligations,' Maugham told The National in an exclusive interview.
The group has launched a crowdfunder to take the case to the High Court, but is open to taking the case to Scotland, where Maugham told The National he believes could have a better chance of success.
The group will be seeking a declaration of incompatibility, and has also not ruled out taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Maughan told The National that the Good Law Project has a 'long history' of litigating in Scotland.
'When English courts have got stuff wrong and when English courts have been hostile, Good Law Project has worked north of the Border with the Scottish legal establishment, with members of the Scottish Faculty of Advocates to bring cases before Scottish courts,' he explained.
'The law should not be different, but English courts as a whole are in a very, very bad place when it comes to the protection of the rights and liberties of trans people.
'It would be my expectation that Scottish courts would do what courts are supposed to do, which is to apply the law, not to allow their personal prejudices to interfere with their judicial function.'
Asked if he believed the legal challenge would be more successful in Scotland, Maughan said: 'Our experience is that when you litigate in a country that believes X, you get X results. And when you litigate the same point in a country that believes Y, you get Y now.
READ MORE: Runcorn by-election signals key opportunity for SNP and indy movement
'That is true, even if the law is exactly the same in countries X and Y.
'And I think, as with Brexit, where the Good Law Project ran very successfully a number of cases in Scotland, that people were litigated in England and losing on, we ran them in Scotland and we won them.
'I don't think we won because we had a better legal team. I think we won because Scottish courts saw the issues differently to English courts.'
A legal team involving several KCs and at least one trans barrister has been put together, with support from policy specialists in equalities law.
Maughan added: 'If there are Scottish Advocates or solicitors out there who are profoundly troubled by the United Kingdom Supreme Court's decision to descend into the area of policy making when it comes to the protection of this incredibly vulnerable community, we would very much like to hear from them.'
Prime Minister Keir Starmer (below) said following the ruling that a 'woman is an adult female and the court has made that absolutely clear'.
The PM's spokesperson later said that Starmer does not believe a transgender woman is a woman, u-turning on his previous comments.
Maughan said the group's goal was to win a declaration of incompatibility and put 'enormous pressure' on the Labour government.
'If a court finds that it is ignoring its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, that is going to be quite a big deal,' he explained.
READ MORE: SNP hit out at Reform election gains in England
'Goodness knows what the Attorney General, who has really hung his flag on the mast of us observing international human rights laws, and even the Prime Minister has said, we are a country that abides by the rule of law.
'Well, if he ignores a declaration of compatibility, he will have to abandon perhaps the only principle he has left. That's what we are focused on.'
It comes after hundreds of protesters took to the streets outside of the EHRC offices in Glasgow calling for the interim guidance to be scrapped.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Trump abruptly nixes signing of executive order to punish American flag burners sparking White House confusion
President Donald Trump is apparently torn over whether to ignite a tinderbox over a plan to throw the book at American flag burners. Trump abruptly cancelled the signing of an executive order on Thursday seeking to punish Americans for burning the U.S. flag. According to multiple reports, Trump planned to sign an executive order directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to bring charges against individuals who burn the stars and stripes. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag during a protest is a protected form of free speech. Under Trump's order that's now on hold, the DOJ would review already existing cases of flag burning to see if other charges unrelated to the flag burning could be brought forward. For example, the order reportedly directed the DOJ to prosecute protesters for crimes such as public nuisance or disorderly conduct laws, according to a report from NewsNation. It is not clear if Trump plans to sign the executive order at a later date, or if it's being cancelled permanently. The Daily Mail reached out to the White House for comment. Since the start of his career in politics, Trump has advocated for imposing legal penalties on protesters who destroy the American flag despite the Supreme Court's prior ruling. In the past, the president has called for stripping the citizenship from naturalized American citizens who burn the flag and advocated for jail time as a punishment. Trump during the 2024 campaign season even floated the idea of introducing a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning as a form of protected protest. Amid the anti-ICE protests in LA, Trump called for throwing demonstrators in jail for a year for setting the flag on fire. 'These are animals, but they proudly carry the flags of other countries. They don't carry the American flag,' Trump told a crowd of servicemembers at Fort Bragg. 'They only burn it. Did you see a lot of the flags being burned?" He added, 'They weren't being burned by people from our country, or from people that love our country. People that burn the American flag should go to jail for one year.' Trump then claimed that he's working with lawmakers in DC to push through legislation outlawing flag burning. 'We'll see if we can get that done. We're going to try and get that done. We're working with some of your senators.'


Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court lets Trump cut diversity-related NIH grants
Aug 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court let President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday proceed with sweeping cuts to National Institutes of Health grants for research related to racial minorities or LGBT people, part of his crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and transgender identity. The justices granted the Justice Department's request to lift Boston-based U.S. District Judge William Young's decision in June that the grant terminations violated federal law, while a legal challenge brought by researchers and 16 U.S. states plays out in a lower court. The NIH is the world's largest funder of biomedical research. The cuts are part of Trump's wide-ranging actions to reshape the U.S. government, slash federal spending and end government support for programs aimed at promoting diversity or "gender ideology" that the administration opposes. The administration said Young's ruling required the NIH to continue paying $783 million in grants that run counter to its priorities. The administration repeatedly has sought the Supreme Court's intervention to allow implementation of Trump policies impeded by lower courts. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has sided with the administration in almost every case that it has been called upon to review since Trump returned to the presidency in January. After Trump signed executive orders in January targeting DEI and gender ideology, NIH instructed staff to terminate grant funding for "low-value and off-mission" studies deemed related to these concepts, as well as COVID-19 and ways to curb vaccine hesitancy. Young's ruling came in two lawsuits challenging the cuts. One was filed by the American Public Health Association, individual researchers and other plaintiffs who called the cuts an "ongoing ideological purge" targeting projects based on "vague, now-forbidden language." The other was filed by the states, most of them Democratic-led. The plaintiffs said the terminated grants included projects on breast cancer, Alzheimer's disease, HIV prevention, suicide, depression and other conditions that often disproportionately burden minority communities, as well as grants mandated by Congress to train and support a diverse group of scientists in biomedical research. Young, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan, invalidated the grant terminations in June. In a written ruling, the judge said they were "breathtakingly arbitrary and capricious," violating a federal law governing the actions of agencies. During a June hearing in the case, Young rebuked the administration for what he called a "darker aspect" to the case that the cuts represent "racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community." "I've never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable," the judge said. Young also said the cuts were designed to stop research that bears on the health of the LGBT community. "That's appalling," the judge said. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 18 denied the administration's request to put Young's decision on hold. The administration has argued that the litigation should have been brought in a different judicial body, the Washington-based Court of Federal Claims, which specializes in money damages claims against the U.S. government. That reasoning was also the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in April that let Trump's administration proceed with millions of dollars of cuts to teacher training grants also targeted under the DEI crackdown.


STV News
4 hours ago
- STV News
Swinney urges Starmer to recall Parliament over ‘genocide' in Gaza
Sir Keir Starmer has been challenged to recall Parliament so the 'toughest and most severe sanctions available' can be imposed on Israel in the wake of reports of attacks on Gaza City. Palestinians are said to be fleeing the area after the Israeli military began the first stages of a planned ground offensive. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stressed the need to 'reach immediately a ceasefire in Gaza', as he warned of the 'massive death and destruction that a military operation against Gaza would inevitably cause'. Scottish First Minister John Swinney meanwhile made clear his view that Israel's actions in Gaza 'amount to genocide', adding that 'the ground invasion of Gaza City only intensifies it'. He said: 'This latest action by Israel is an outrageous and unacceptable escalation which must be a further wake-up call to the international community. 'We must see serious action to hold Israel to account for this unjustifiable brutality and inhumanity.' He said the attacks will mean 'more innocent Palestinians are going to die', adding: 'What was already an intolerable level of human suffering will get worse, and we are getting even further away from securing a peace. 'I have made clear our grave concerns that Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide and today's offensive is only going to intensify the suffering we are seeing. 'The international community cannot look away from this – there must be a concerted global effort to put a stop to Israel's action, secure a ceasefire and hold (Israeli) Prime Minister (Benjamin) Netanyahu and his government to account.' He urged the British Prime Minister to recall MPs to Parliament so action can be taken. Mr Swinney demanded: 'Prime Minister Keir Starmer needs to recall the UK Parliament immediately so the toughest and most severe sanctions available can be imposed on Israel, and all UK arms sales to Israel ended. 'Every ounce of international influence the UK may have must be used towards putting an end to Israel's assault.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country