Joanna Cherry slates 'snide' Nicola Sturgeon's response to Supreme Court ruling
JOANNA Cherry has hit out at Nicola Sturgeon's response to the Supreme Court verdict that women are defined by biology.
The top court's ruling was seen as a major defeat for the trans rights movement – and the former SNP first minister broke her silence on the issue on Monday.
Sturgeon said the judgment, which said women were defined in law by biology and which has triggered a roll-back in trans rights, could make trans people's lives 'unliveable'.
Cherry, one of the former FM's fiercest critics within the SNP, accused Sturgeon of 'fatuous hyperbole'.
She said 'To say that The Supreme Court judgment means we are 'at risk of making the lives of trans people almost unliveable' is the sort of fatuous hyperbole that she has indulged in in relation to these issues from the outset and it is deeply irresponsible for any politician to so misrepresent the judgment.'
Nicola Sturgeon reacts to UK Supreme Court judgement on the definition of a woman. Warns equalities watchdog guidance could make trans lives 'unliveable'. pic.twitter.com/YZcVEVusoa
— Craig Meighan (@craigymeighan) May 6, 2025
The former SNP MP, who lost her seat at last year's General Election, also claimed Sturgeon was trying to 'rewrite history' by saying that all sides of the debate had been listened to when drawing up controversial trans rights laws, which have since been shelved.
ADVERTISEMENT
The SNP's Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which sought to make the process of getting a Gender Recognition Certificate easier, was criticised by gender critical feminists for promoting 'self-ID' practices, which they said would mean anyone who claimed to be a woman would be considered one in law.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon breaks silence on Supreme Court gender ruling
Cherry added: 'It's simply not true to say that all opinions were taken account of in this debate.
'She branded the views of those of us who pointed out the implications for the rights of women, including lesbians, as 'not valid' and she called us transphobes bigots, racists and homophobes.'
Speaking to reporters in Holyrood as John Swinney prepared to set out the SNP's legislative agenda, Sturgeon (below) also claimed that the Supreme Court ruling had contributed to the Scottish Government shelving its plans to make misogyny a specific hate crime.
ADVERTISEMENT
(Image: Andrew Milligan)
Cherry said: ''Her snide suggestion that the Supreme Court judgement has stymied the Misogyny Bill has no basis in fact unless, of course, she is referring to the fact that misogyny was going to be defined as including hatred against men.
'She seems also to be forgetting that it was her Government that prevented sex being included as a protected characteristic in the Hate Crime Bill.
'Nicola Sturgeon is trying to rewrite history in relation to these matters, but those of us who fought her every inch of the way in her attack on the rights of women and LGB people will not let her do so.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
30 minutes ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court hands down some incomprehensible gobbledygook about canceled federal grants
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Late Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court handed down an incomprehensible order concerning the Trump administration's decision to cancel numerous public health grants. The array of six opinions in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association is so labyrinthine that any judge who attempts to parse it risks being devoured by a minotaur. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writes in a partial dissent, the decision is 'Calvinball jurisprudence,' which appears to be designed to ensure that 'this Administration always wins.' SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The case involves thousands of NIH grants that the Trump administration abruptly canceled which, according to Jackson, involve 'research into suicide risk and prevention, HIV transmission, Alzheimer's, and cardiovascular disease,' among other things. The grants were canceled in response to executive orders prohibiting grants relating to DEI, gender identity, or Covid-19. A federal district court ruled that this policy was unlawful — 'arbitrary and capricious' in the language of federal administrative law — in part because the executive orders gave NIH officials no precise guidance on which grants should be canceled. As Jackson summarized the district court's reasoning, ''DEI'—the central concept the executive orders aimed to extirpate—was nowhere defined,' leaving NIH officials 'to arrive at whatever conclusion [they] wishe[d]' regarding which grants should be terminated. According to Jackson, 'the court found, as a factual matter, 'an unmistakable pattern of discrimination against women's health issues' and 'pervasive racial discrimination'—indeed, 'palpable' racial discrimination of a sort the judge had 'never seen' in 40 years on the bench.' The question of whether this judge was correct to deem the Trump administration's policy arbitrary and capricious, however, was not before the Supreme Court. Instead, the case hinged on a jurisdictional dispute. Which court is supposed to hear this case? As a general rule, lawsuits alleging that a federal policy is illegal are heard by federal district courts, while suits alleging that the federal government breached a contract are heard by the Court of Federal Claims. In NIH, the plaintiffs alleged that the broader policy that led to their grants being canceled was illegal, so that suggests that this case should have been brought in a district court (which is where it was actually brought). But the case also bears some superficial similarity to a breach of contract suit, because it involved the government's decision not to pay money that it had previously agreed to pay. Four justices — the three Democrats plus Chief Justice John Roberts — concluded that these plaintiffs were right to bring their suit in the district court. Four other justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — concluded that the case must be brought in the Court of Claims. That would mean that these plaintiffs would have to start over again in the claims court, and possibly that they would have to bring individual suits seeking to reinstate individual grants, rather than seeking a broad order attacking the entire grant cancellation policy. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, cast the deciding vote. She claims that this suit must be split between the two courts. In her view, the district court was the proper venue for the plaintiffs to argue that the overall policy is illegal, but the claims court is the proper venue for them to actually seek the money they would have received if the grants are not canceled. If that sounds confusing, it gets worse. Barrett's opinion states that federal law bars the claims court from hearing 'claims pending in other courts when those claims arise from 'substantially the same operative facts.'' So these plaintiffs likely must wait until after they have fully litigated the question of whether the Trump administration's broad policy is illegal in district court, before they can actually try to get any money in the claims court. That could take years, especially if the first question is heard by the justices again. Moreover, as Jackson warns in her opinion, by the time the first round of litigation is finished, the plaintiffs may be unable to seek relief in the claims court because the statute of limitations for doing so will have expired. The bottom line is that, because there are five votes for the proposition that some parts of this case go to the district court, and also five votes for the proposition that other parts of it go to the claims court, Barrett's opinion controls the case. By the time this mess gets sorted out, it is likely that most — if not all — of the research at issue in NIH will be lost, even if the plaintiffs do prevail. As Jackson writes, without any money to fund their operations, the grant recipients will need to 'euthanize animal subjects, terminate life-saving trials, and close community health clinics.' There are actually even more complexities in this case, but rather than engage in the Sysiphean task of trying to list all of them, I will simply repeat Jackson's summary of what appears to be going on here: In a broader sense, however, today's ruling is of a piece with this Court's recent tendencies. '[R]ight when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law's constraints,' the Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible. This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Gov. Cox worries about what will be lost in national redistricting battle
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said on Thursday the redistricting battle taking place in states across the country ahead of the 2026 midterm elections could backfire in the long term. Referencing the principle of 'Chesterton's Fence,' Cox said it is unwise to eliminate a system without fully understanding why it was established in the first place. 'Sometimes, I think we make changes to long-standing norms and policies, not realizing the consequences of those changes to those norms and policies,' Cox said. 'I fear that this may be one of those.' Speaking at his monthly PBS news conference, Cox returned to a regular theme of his, emphasizing the deep divides in U.S. politics, and worrying that a redistricting race to the bottom will only make it worse. On Wednesday, the Texas House approved new district maps at the behest of President Donald Trump that will increase the number of congressional seats Republicans are likely to win in the state. The California Legislature is poised to approve its own map changes this week that could secure them an extra five seats next year — the same number Republicans are expected to flip in the Lone Star State — as long as voters approve the maps in November. 'We just see the escalation that continues to happen,' Cox said. 'It just continues to ratchet up the toxicity — and the stakes, quite frankly — and so I would be very cautious about doing that.' A gerrymandering arms race Since Trump called on Texas Republicans last month to break with redistricting tradition, Democrats have accused the GOP of gerrymandering tactics that border on election interference, and have threatened to retaliate in kind. Meanwhile, Republicans have cited Democrats' history of gerrymandering in blue states, and recent Supreme Court rulings that allow for politically motivated redistricting in what is fundamentally a political process. The finger-pointing by both sides could accelerate a worrying trend toward norm breaking and partisan tribalism, according to Cox, who gained recognition for his Disagree Better campaign as National Governors Association chair. 'We are so polarized as a country with the trust in institutions falling,' Cox said. 'I can't see a scenario where every two or four years we're redistricting, I can't see a scenario where that makes life better for anybody.' Utah's congressional boundaries are currently being litigated in federal court over allegations that state lawmakers violated the Utah Constitution by ignoring recommendations from an independent redistricting commission created by voter initiative. The maps approved in 2021 redrew the Beehive State's congressional districts in a way that split up Democratic voters between the state's four House districts and made it more difficult for a Democrat to represent the state in Congress. Shifting the census consensus Republicans have partially justified their redistricting revolution by alleging the 2020 census may have undercounted in Republican-led states and overcounted Democratic-held states by including noncitizens. The U.S. Constitution mandates a national census every decade to count all residents. Earlier this month, Trump announced his administration will work on a new census that excludes 'People who are in our Country illegally.' On Thursday, Cox said there are questions about whether noncitizens should be factored into the distribution of Electoral College votes. But he said the census should still count every resident to provide the best data. In an interview with the Deseret News earlier this month, Utah Rep. Mike Kennedy, of the state's 3rd Congressional District, said he agrees with the president that 'citizens should be counted, not undocumented individuals.' 'Citizens are what the Founders intended,' Kennedy said. 'I don't believe the founders ever foresaw the possibility that our country would have tens of millions of people in this country that are living illegally in this country.' Modern technology has made it possible to conduct a census at least every five years, according to Kennedy, which he said would help elected officials govern better amid a rapidly changing population. Not all mail-in voting created equal On Monday, Trump also took on the form of voting used by a majority of Utahns, announcing he would lead an effort to 'get rid of mail-in ballots' by signing an executive order to 'help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections.' Utah Sen. Mike Lee responded in favor of Trump's initiative while Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson reiterated that the 'constitutional right' of states to decide how to 'conduct secure elections is a fundamental strength of our system.' 'The Constitution is very clear that it's in the purview of the states and not the federal government,' Cox agreed, during Thursday's press conference. 'And I think states should defend that.' However, Cox said Trump is right to be 'extremely cautious when it comes to mail-in voting' because, unlike Utah, most states implemented a vote-by-mail system 'virtually overnight' in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Utah started rolling out vote by mail in 2012 before implementing it statewide in 2019. The Legislature continues to enhance safeguards for the process, voting in 2025 to implement ballot deadlines and a new identification measure. For this reason, many of the criticisms levied toward mail-in ballots do not apply to Utah, according to Cox. When skeptics get a chance to view the process, Cox said they come away with increased confidence in election security. 'We can do both things,' Cox said. 'We can defend the role of the states and be very serious about voter integrity. And I think more states need to be more serious about voting integrity.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court clears way for cancellation of NIH grants tied to diversity, gender
Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the Trump administration to proceed with the cancellation of National Institutes of Health research grants tied to issues like gender identity and diversity, equity and inclusion. In a 5-4 decision, in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided in part with the majority, and Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the minority, the high court lifted a lower court order that required the NIH to restore hundreds of research grants that had been canceled because they were tied to these issues. The legal challenge from over a dozen states and a coalition of research groups will continue to play out in the lower court. Barrett wrote that the District Court lacked the jurisdiction to order the restoration of the grants, while Roberts said in his dissent that "falls well within the scope of the District Court's jurisdiction," and "if the District Court had jurisdiction to vacate the directives, it also had jurisdiction to vacate the 'Resulting Grant Terminations.'" Justice Neil Gorsuch, voting with the majority, said in his opinion, "Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court's decisions, but they are never free to defy them." He pointed to the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in the Department of Education v. California, granting a stay "because it found the government likely to prevail in showing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order the government to pay grant obligations." The divided decision from the high court enables the administration to pull back awards that it says do not align with its policy objectives. Since returning to the White House for a second term, President Trump has directed federal agencies to cancel DEI-related grants or contracts and ensure federal funds do not go toward initiatives involving gender identity. The dispute before the Supreme Court arose after the Department of Health and Human Services and the head of NIH issued a series of directives in February that led to the cancellation of grant awards that were connected to DEI or gender identity, as well as research topics including vaccine hesitancy, COVID and climate change. NIH has a $47 billion budget and is considered the world's largest funder of biomedical research. More than 1,700 grants were canceled nationwide, including more than 800 awarded to public universities, state instrumentalities and local governments in 16 states that challenged the move. Lawyers for the Democratic state attorneys general told the Supreme Court in a filing that the sudden cancellation of the grants forced their universities to lay off or furlough employees, cut student enrollment and withdraw admissions offers. The states and research groups challenged the grant terminations in April, arguing the move violated the Constitution and a federal law governing the agency rulemaking process. The plaintiffs sought to block NIH from ending grants and to have funding that had already been axed restored. A federal judge in Massachusetts held a bench trial and ruled in June that the grant terminations were unlawful. The judge, William Young, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, ordered that the directives from the Trump administration and resulting grant terminations be set aside. Young found that NIH engaged in "no reasoned decision-making" in rolling out the grant terminations, and wrote there was "not a shred of evidence" to back up the administration's claims that DEI studies are used to support discrimination on the basis of race and other protected characteristics. The Trump administration asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit to pause the district court's decision, which it declined to do. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the high court for emergency relief last month. In his emergency appeal, the solicitor general argued that the Supreme Court had a chance to "stop errant district courts from continuing to disregard" its decisions. Sauer pointed to an April order from the justices that cleared the way for the Department of Education to halt millions of dollars in teacher-training grants that it said funded programs that involve DEI initiatives. The high court said in that case that the Trump administration was likely to succeed in showing that the federal district court that oversaw the dispute lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under federal law. The solicitor general said the judicial system does not rest on a "lower-court free-for-all where individual district judges feel free to elevate their own policy judgments over those of the Executive Branch, and their own legal judgments over those of this Court." But the public health groups warned that even a brief stay of the district court's decision reinstating the grants would invalidate crucial multiyear projects that have already been paid for by Congress, "inflicting incalculable losses in public health and human life because of delays in bringing the fruits of plaintiffs' research to Americans who desperately await clinical advancements." They warned that pulling the grants would do irreversible harm to public health, halting biomedical research that Congress directed NIH to fund. "That, and the obvious harm to those who suffer from chronic or life-threatening diseases and their loved ones, must be balanced against NIH's ill-defined monetary interests and any asserted incursion on its policymaking latitude," the research organizations wrote in a filing. Sen. Eric Schmitt on his new book, "The Last Line of Defense: How to Beat the Left in Court" Unsealed video shows TikTok employees' concerns about its impact on teens Hurricane Erin bringing coastal flooding to New York as it churns off East Coast
