UK's top court says legal definition of woman refers to biological sex
LONDON, April 16 (Reuters) - The United Kingdom's highest court ruled on Wednesday that the definition of a woman under equality legislation referred to "biological sex", but it said trans people would not be disadvantaged by its landmark decision.
The Supreme Court's judgment related to whether a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate, a formal document that gives legal recognition of someone's new gender, is protected from discrimination as a woman under Britain's Equality Act.
The landmark case is the latest example of the wider debate around transgender rights ending up before the courts.
Campaign group For Women Scotland had argued rights under the Equality Act should only apply based on a person's biological sex. It had challenged guidance issued by the devolved Scottish government that accompanied a 2018 law designed to increase the proportion of women on public sector boards.
Scottish ministers' guidance said a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate was legally a woman.
After For Women Scotland had lost in the Scottish courts, the Supreme Court ruled in the campaign group's favour after an appeal last November, a decision greeted by cheering outside the building.
More: Trans Day of Visibility is Monday - a day to raise awareness of transgender people
"The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms 'women' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex," Deputy President of the Supreme Court Patrick Hodge said.
"But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another - it is not," he added.
Critics of the Scottish law had said its definition could impact single-sex services for women such as refuges, hospital wards and sports.
But transgender campaigners had said if the court ruled in favour of For Women Scotland, it could lead to discrimination against those with gender recognition certificates, especially over employment issues.
"The correct interpretation of the EA (Equality Act) as referring to biological sex does not cause disadvantage to trans people, whether or not they possess a gender recognition certificate," Hodge said.
More: 'Passports taken by the government': How new State Department rule blocks trans travelers
"Trans people have the rights which attach to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment."
In the United States, legal challenges are underway after President Donald Trump issued executive orders that include barring transgender people from military service.
(Reporting by Sam Tobin and Michael Holden; editing by Giles Elgood, Kate Holton and Barbara Lewis)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
Rubio, Swiss president discuss trade ahead of tariff deadline
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter met to discuss trade on Wednesday, one day before President Trump's steep tariffs were slated to take effect. Keller-Sutter, who also serves as finance minister, and Vice President Guy Parmelin, who is also the economic minister, traveled to Washington this week in a last-ditch effort to strike a deal with the United States after Trump announced last week a 39 percent tariff rate on exports from Switzerland. When Trump initially unveiled his sweeping tariffs in April, it was lower, at 31 percent. In a readout of the meeting of the three officials, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce did not offer any details about a prospective deal but said Rubio met with the Swiss leaders 'to discuss the importance of a fair and balanced trade relationship that benefits the American people.' She said they also 'reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening bilateral defense cooperation.' Swiss companies are slated to face some of the steepest U.S. tariffs, with only Laos, Myanmar and Syria paying higher rates, at 40 percent to 41 percent. Ahead of the meeting, the nation's cabinet, the Federal Council, said in a statement, ='Switzerland enters this new phase ready to present a more attractive offer, taking U.S. concerns into account and seeking to ease the current tariff situation,' according to Reuters.
The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate Republican questions new Intel CEO's ties to China
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on Tuesday pressed the chair of Intel's board about its CEO's ties to China, voicing concerns about the integrity of the semiconductor firm and U.S. national security. In a letter to Intel board chair Frank Yeary, Cotton pointed to recent reporting on Lip-Bu Tan's investments in hundreds of Chinese tech firms, at least eight of which have ties to the Chinese military, according to Reuters. Tan was tapped to lead Intel in March, after former CEO Pat Gelsinger stepped down last December following a 'challenging year' for the company. Before joining Intel, Tan was CEO of Cadence Design Systems — another point of concern raised by Cotton. The software company produces electronic design automation (EDA) technology, which is used to design chips. It agreed to plead guilty and pay $140 million last month for violating export controls by selling the technology to a Chinese military university. 'Intel is required to be a responsible steward of American taxpayer dollars and to comply with applicable security regulations,' Cotton wrote, noting Intel's nearly $8 billion grant under the CHIPS and Science Act. 'Mr. Tan's associations raise questions about Intel's ability to fulfill these obligations,' he added. Cotton asked Yeary what measures Intel has taken to address concerns about Cadence's activities, which occurred during Tan's tenure, and whether it has required him to divest from China-linked semiconductor firms or other 'concerning entities.' The Arkansas Republican also questioned whether Tan has disclosed his China investments and ties to the U.S. government given Intel's involvement in a Pentagon program to build chips for defense and intelligence needs.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Voting rights protected by the historic Voting Rights Act threatened as law has its 60th anniversary
WASHINGTON (AP) — Wednesday is the 60th anniversary of the day President Lyndon Johnson made his way to the U.S. Capitol and, with Martin Luther King Jr. standing behind him, signed the Voting Rights Act into law. The act protected the right to vote and ensured the government would fight efforts to suppress it, especially those aimed at Black voters. For many Americans, it was the day U.S. democracy fully began. That was then. 7 President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 60 years ago. AP The law has been slowly eroding for more than a decade, starting with the 2013 Supreme Court decision ending the requirement that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get federal approval before changing the way they hold elections. Within hours of the ruling, some states that had been under the preclearance provision began announcing plans for stricter voting laws. Those changes have continued, especially since the 2020 presidential election and President Donald Trump's false claims that widespread fraud cost him reelection. The Supreme Court upheld a key part of the Voting Rights Act in 2023, but in its upcoming term it's scheduled to hear a case that could roll back that decision and another that would effectively neuter the law. Voting rights experts say those cases will largely determine whether a landmark law passed during a turbulent era decades ago will have future anniversaries to mark. 'We're at a critical juncture right now,' said Demetria McCain, director of policy at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. 'And, let's be clear, our democracy is only about to turn 60 when the Voting Rights Act anniversary gets here. I say that because there are so many attacks on voting rights, particularly as it relates to Black communities and communities of color.' Native Americans celebrate a win that could be temporary The reservation of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians is about 10 miles (16 kilometers) from the Canadian border, a region of forests, small lakes and vast prairie land. Its main highway is a mix of small houses, mobile homes and businesses. A gleaming casino and hotel stand out, not far from grazing bison. In 2024, the tribe and another in North Dakota, the Spirit Lake Tribe, formed a joint political district for the first time. They had filed a lawsuit arguing that the way lines were drawn for state legislative seats denied them the right to elect candidates of their choice. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Peter Welte agreed and put a new map in place. 7 The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and another tribe in North Dakota, the Spirit Lake Tribe, formed a joint political district for the first time in 2024. AP State Rep. Collette Brown ran for the legislature because she wanted to see more Native American representation, and she won under the new map. 'It felt surreal. I felt accomplished, I felt recognized,' said Brown, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and the Spirit Lake Tribe's Gaming Commission executive director. 'I felt, OK, it's time for us to really start making change and really start educating from within so that we're not silenced.' Brown, a Democrat, co-sponsored several bills on Native American issues that became law, including aid for repatriation of remains and artifacts and alerts for missing Indigenous people. 7 The future of the tribes' district is in the hands of the Supreme Court. AP This year's anniversary of the Voting Rights Act 'forces you to look at how far we've come,' from Native Americans to women, said Jamie Azure, chairman of the Turtle Mountain tribe. Now the future of their district is in the hands of the Supreme Court. Will individuals be allowed to file voting rights challenges? The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers North Dakota and six other states, overturned Welte's decision 2-1, saying the tribes and entities such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU do not have a right to sue over potential violations of voters' constitutional rights. That ruling expanded on an earlier 8th Circuit opinion out of Arkansas that rejected a different challenge on the same grounds. Late last month, a 3rd Circuit court panel ruled in a separate case out of Arkansas that only the U.S. attorney general can file such cases — not private individuals or groups. 7 The University of Michigan Law School Voting Rights Initiative found that since 1982 nearly 87% of claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act were from private individuals and organizations. AP Those decisions upended decades of precedent. The Supreme Court has stayed the ruling for the tribes while it decides whether it will take the North Dakota case. The University of Michigan Law School Voting Rights Initiative found that since 1982 nearly 87% of claims under that part of the Voting Rights Act, known as Section 2, were from private individuals and organizations. Leaving individuals without the ability to file challenges is especially troublesome now because the Justice Department under Trump, a Republican, seems focused on other priorities, said Sophia Lin Lakin, who heads the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! 7 Voters waiting in line to cast their ballots in Fort Defiance, Ariz., on Election Day in 2024. AP The government's voting rights unit has been dismantled and given new priorities that, she said, have turned enforcement 'against the very people it was created to protect.' The Justice Department declined to answer questions about its voting rights priorities, cases it is pursuing or whether it would be involved in the voting rights cases coming before the nation's highest court. Supreme Court weighs another case on race and congressional districts Two years ago, voting rights activists celebrated when the Supreme Court preserved Section 2 in a case out of Alabama that required the state to draw an addition congressional district to benefit Black voters. Now it's poised to rehear a similar case out of Louisiana that could modify or undo that decision. 7 The Justice Department declined to answer questions about its voting rights priorities, cases it is pursuing or whether it would be involved in the voting rights cases coming before the nation's highest court. AP The court heard the case in March but did not make a decision during the term. In an order on Friday, the court asked the lawyers to supply briefs explaining 'whether the State's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' Robert Weiner, the director of voting rights for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said while it is a 'matter of concern' that the court is asking the question, the fact the nine justices did not reach a decision during the last term suggests there weren't five votes already. 'They wouldn't need re-argument if the sides had already been chosen,' he said. Trump's Justice Department shifts focus on voting issues At a time when the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act are under threat, the Justice Department has shifted its election-related priorities. Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, it has dropped or withdrawn from several election- and voting-related cases. The department instead has focused on concerns of voter fraud raised by conservative activists following years of false claims surrounding elections. 7 Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Justice Department has dropped or withdrawn from several election- and voting-related cases. AP The department also has sent requests for voter registration information as well as data on election fraud and warnings of election violations to at least 19 states. In addition to the shift in focus at the Justice Department, federal legislation to protect voting rights has gone nowhere. Democrats have reintroduced the John Lewis voting rights bill, but it's legislation they failed to pass in 2022 when they held both houses of Congress and the White House and needed some Republican support in the Senate. Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order seeking to overhaul voting in the states, which includes a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voting form, though much of it has been blocked in the courts. The GOP-controlled House passed a bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. And gerrymandering state legislative and congressional districts remains prevalent. The slow chipping away at the 60-year-old law has created a nation with an unequal distribution of voting rights, said Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the voting rights center at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. Some states have been active in expanding access to voting while others have been focused on restricting the vote. 'The last five to 10 years,' he said, 'the experiences of voters increasingly depend on where they live.'
