Scottish Government changes guidance that led to Supreme Court ruling
The Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act sparked the legal challenge from For Women Scotland (FWS) on the definition of a woman which led to the issue being heard in the UK's highest court.
Initially, the guidance stated that transgender women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) or those living as women would count towards gender balance on public boards.
The 2004 Gender Recognition Act, which introduced GRCs, used the terms sex and gender interchangeably. It said a GRC meant someone "becomes for all purposes the acquired gender".
READ MORE: Patrick Harvie and Angus Robertson face-off over Israel divestment
The anti-trans campaign group disagreed with this definition, and in 2022 took the Scottish Government to court. They initially lost a judicial review, but were then successful on appeal.
The Scottish Government then changed guidance to only include trans women with a GRC.
This led to FWS calling for a second judicial review, which they lost in December 2022.
The case then went to the Supreme Court, with judges ruling in April that women were defined by biological sex under the Equality Act 2010.
(Image: NQ staff) FWS raised thousands of pounds via a crowdfunder to take the case to the UK's highest court. They have recently said they would consider further legal action.
And now, the Scottish Government has updated the statutory guidance relating to public boards on its official website.
An update to the document reads: 'The meaning of 'woman' for the purposes of the Act.
'There is no definition of 'woman' set out in the Act with effect from 19 April 2022 and 22 March 2022.
'By virtue of section 11 and section 212(1) of the Equality Act 2010 references in the Act to a 'woman' or to 'women' are references to a biological woman or women.'
READ MORE: Labour U-turn on benefits cuts in bid to win over rebel MPs
In April, Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville announced the Scottish Government would make the change to the guidance.
She added that the ruling had sparked 'real anxiety' from trans and non-binary people.
'It is significant that the Supreme Court stated that their judgment that the rights of the trans community are enshrined in law and I want to reassure our trans community that you are valued and the Scottish Government is fully committed to protecting everyone's rights and that includes your community,' she said.
Following the judgment, the Equality and Human Rights Commissions (EHRC) issued guidance that banned transgender people from using the toilets of their acquired gender.
The EHRC has since been forced to change part of the guidance amid a legal challenge of its interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling.
It rescinded guidance that stated it was 'compulsory' for workplaces to provide single-sex toilets.
The Scottish Parliament, and more recently the House of Commons, have banned transgender people from using the toilets of their acquired gender following the Supreme Court's ruling.
Trans women were also banned from playing in women's football and cricket teams.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court decision hands Trump citizenship powers victory
The Supreme Court 's conservative majority, in a 6-3 ruling, limited federal courts' authority to issue nationwide injunctions that have blocked key parts of Donald Trump 's agenda. Written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the ruling stated that federal judges exceeded their authority by blocking Trump's executive order attempting to redefine who gets to be a citizen. Liberal justices, including Ketanji Brown Jackson, strongly dissented, warning the decision put the legal system and government in 'grave jeopardy'. Critics argue the ruling could lead to a patchwork system of constitutional rights and citizenship benefits, potentially denying citizenship to over 150,000 newborns annually under Trump's order. The administration sought to curb nationwide injunctions, which have significantly impeded its executive actions.
BBC News
41 minutes ago
- BBC News
US Supreme Court allows parents to opt out of lessons with LGBT books
The US Supreme Court has sided with parents in the state of Maryland who wanted to opt their children out of reading books with LGBTQ justices voted 6-3 in support of the group of parents who said a curriculum adopted in 2022 by the Montgomery County Public Schools for elementary age children violated their religious rights. The court's majority said the parents who brought the case are entitled to a preliminary injunction while it introduction of the books "along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents' rights to the free exercise of their religion", Justice Samuel Alito wrote. The ruling allowed the preliminary relief, arguing the parents showed their case is likely to succeed on its merits, they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in its absence and that an injunction would be in the public interest. The three liberal justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion that the result of the case will be "chaos for this nation's public schools"."Given the great diversity of religious beliefs in this country, countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parents' beliefs," she parents involved represent several different faiths, but all oppose their children being introduced to LGBTQ themes. The US Constitution's First Amendment protects the right to freely exercise one's religious beliefs, which the parents argued includes the right to pull their children out of lessons they find also pointed to school rules that allow parents to opt older children out of sex education. The books include Uncle Bobby's Wedding, which tells the story of a girl being told about her uncle's planned gay wedding, and Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, about a transgender boy. The parents argued they have no objection to the books being on the shelf or available in the County Public Schools, Maryland's largest school system, added the books in an effort to provide greater diversity in the stories children read. In 2023, it removed the opt-out option because it caused classroom disruption and could expose LGBTQ students to social stigma and a hearing for the case earlier this year, the justices appeared split along ideological lines. The court's conservative majority expressed sympathy for the group's argument. This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on X to get the latest alerts.
BBC News
42 minutes ago
- BBC News
US Supreme Court rule on birthright citizenship case
Di US Supreme Court today don issue ruling wey go curb judges' powers to block President Trump orders nationwide. Di case na from President Donald Trump order to end di constitutional right of birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants Almost everyone dem born on US territory dey granted automatic citizenship Afta plenti courts suspend Trump order, im administration bin appeal to Supreme Court, argue say lower judges no get di right to block presidential actions E bin get one conservative majority in di Supreme Court and na Trump appoint three of di nine justices. Justices split along ideological lines Di justices bin vote 6-3, wit di liberals dissenting. Di conservative justices bin stress say dem no dey address di merits of Trump attempt to end birthright citizenship for non-citizens and undocumented migrants. We dey read through di 119-page decision wey dem split along ideological lines. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, di senior most liberal justice, bin deliver different opinion wit justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson wey join. Here na wetin she write: Undeterred, di Government now ask dis Court to grant emergency relief, insist say e go suffer irreparable harm unless e fit deprive at least some children wey dem born in di United States of citizenship... Di gamesmanship in dis request dey apparent and di Government make no attempt to hide am. Yet, shamefully, dis Court dey play along. One majority of dis Court decide say dis applications, of all cases, provide di appropriate occasion to resolve di question of universal injunctions and end di centuries-old practice once and for all. For im rush to do so di Court disregard basic principles of equity as well as di long history of injunctive relief grant to nonparties. Justice Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court limit lower judges ability to block presidential orders Di Supreme court from dia rulling don limit di ability of judges in lower courts to block presidential orders nationwide. E appear to be win for di Trump Administration, wey don appeal to di Supreme Court say lower courts do no get di right to block presidential actions. According to di 119 pages long document, we di BBC bin read through. E show say e no go be clear upheld or rejected decision from di court. Trump win, but e fit be double-edged sword for future Republicans BBC chief North America correspondent, bin report from Washington DC Say di rulling na significant win for di Trump administration and di president. Nationwide injunctions on Donald Trump blizzard of executive orders don anger am and frustrate im agenda. And while dis injunctions no dey removed entirely, dia scope dey being significantly limited. E go dey harder for individuals and groups to prevent controversial policies like di ending of birthright citizenship to dey enforced. Importantly though, di challenges to dis policies go still proceed through di courts, potentially right up to di Supreme Court – and di merits or constitutionality of each case na separate question to wetin been dey decided today. To tok true, dis na issue wey administrations of both complexions don complain about, so expect Republicans to see dis as a double-edged sword. Wen and if a Democrat enter di White House, dey go enjoy di same legal advantages as Donald Trump go now make di most of. There go also be much more work for lawyers – and who no dey in favour of dat! Wetin dey di birthright citizenship case? On im inauguration day for January, President Trump bin issue one executive order to repeal birthright citizenship for babies wey dem born to pipo in di US temporarily and undocumented migrants. Many legal experts tok say di president no get di power to end birthright citizenship sake of say e dey guaranteed by di 14th Amendment of di US Constitution. Di amendment tok say "all pesins wey dem born or naturalise in di United States, and subject to di jurisdiction thereof, be citizens". Trump order argue say di phrase "jurisdiction thereof" mean say automatic citizenship no apply to di children of undocumented immigrants, or pipo in di kontri temporarily. Federal justices in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington, however, issue nationwide - or universal - injunctions wey block di order make e no dey enforced. Di injunctions, in turn, bin prompt di Trump administration to argue say di lower courts pass dia powers. Di administration ask di court to rule say di injunctions fit only apply to those immigrants wey dey named in di case or to di plaintiff states – wey go allow di government to at least partly carry out Trump order even as legal battles continue.
