Court ruling leaves sports bodies with ‘no excuses' on trans rules, says charity
Sports bodies now have 'no excuses' for continuing to allow transgender women to compete in female categories after a landmark ruling by the UK's Supreme Court, a human rights charity has said.
Wednesday's ruling found that a gender recognition certificate does not change a trans person's legal sex under the 2010 Equality Act, with Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge insisting the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Act referred to 'a biological woman' and 'biological sex'.
A number of sports' UK governing bodies, including athletics, cricket, rugby league and rugby union, have already adopted policies banning athletes born male or who have gone through male puberty from female events.
Some sports, however – including football – still allow trans women to compete against and alongside biological women, provided they meet reduced testosterone levels.
The Football Association recently updated its existing transgender and non-binary inclusion policy which included adding a formal process allowing it to exercise ultimate discretion to refuse or remove eligibility to players on grounds of safety or fairness.
Judgment has been given this morning in the matter of For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) UKSC 2024/0042: https://t.co/QGmrliNOsG pic.twitter.com/f2qlAD2JMV
— UK Supreme Court (@UKSupremeCourt) April 16, 2025
Fiona McAnena, the director of campaigns at Sex Matters, told the PA news agency on Wednesday: 'There are now no excuses for sports governing bodies that are still letting trans-identifying men into the women's category.
'The judges mentioned fairness in sport this morning. The law was always clear that everyone male can be excluded to provide fair, safe sport for women and girls, but some people claimed it was unkind or complicated to do so.
'It's neither of those: it's essential for fairness and safety for everyone female.'
The 88-page Supreme Court ruling included a section devoted to the interpretation of Section 195 of the Equality Act, which provides an exemption allowing competitors be excluded from a 'gender-affected' sport or activity based on their sex.
The ruling states: 'We consider that this provision (Section 195) is, again, plainly predicated on biological sex, and may be unworkable if a certificated sex interpretation is required.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Jesse Watters Trots Out Dehumanizing Analogy for Kilmar Abrego Garcia's Return
Fox News host Jesse Watters criticized the Trump administration for bringing Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the United States, saying the wrongly deported man's return was like taking a rental car to the car wash. 'I don't think they should have brought him back,' Watters said on The Five, shortly after news broke that Abrego Garcia is facing two counts of human smuggling in Tennessee. 'This is a national security situation. The guy is a designated terrorist. He belongs somewhere else. What are we going to do? We're going to spend two years and $50 million trying this guy and imprisoning this guy, feeding him, giving him healthcare, and then flying him home?' Watters said incredulously. 'This is like renting a car and taking it to a car wash before you return it,' he added. 'What's the point? It's not your car, and it's going back anyway.' Attorney General Pam Bondi said Abrego Garcia would first serve time in a U.S. prison if convicted, then be removed from the country once again. Garcia had been held in El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center even after the Trump administration admitted his deportation was an 'administrative error.' When the Supreme Court ordered that it 'facilitate' his return, the White House insisted that it was powerless to do so. Friday's events proved the administration was lying, The Five co-host Jessica Tarlov said Friday. '[White House Press Secretary] Karoline Leavitt—as well as other members of the administration, from the president himself to Kristi Noem—lied to the American people when they said they couldn't bring him back,' Tarlov said. 'Well, I guess you could get him back.' Andrew Rossman, a lawyer for Abrego Garcia, made the same point. 'Today's action proves what we've known all along—that the administration had the ability to bring him back and just refused to do so,' he told The New York Times. 'It's now up to our judicial system to see that Mr. Abrego Garcia receives the due process that the Constitution guarantees to all persons.' Abrego Garcia was sent to Tennessee, where the indictment was filed in May and unsealed Friday. The Times reports that an imprisoned man's information about Abrego Garcia moved the case forward. Prosecutors couldn't agree how to proceed, however, and one ended up resigning.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court to consider use of multiple IQ tests in case of Alabama death row inmate
WASHINGTON − More than two decades after the Supreme Court said inmates who are intellectually disabled can't be executed, the court will consider how to deal with multiple intelligence tests in evaluating close calls. The court on June 6 said it would take up the case of Alabama death row inmate Joseph Smith, who was convicted and sentenced to death for a brutal murder in 1997. Smith's IQ scores have ranged from 72 to 78. Because IQ tests have an error range, lower courts said Smith's IQ could be below 70, one of the factors for defining intellectual disability. But the state argues that when five test scores are all above 70, it's unlikely that Smith's IQ is 70 or below. The Justice Department similarly told the Supreme Court that some lower courts are confused about how to evaluate multiple IQ tests under Supreme Court rules for what counts as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. "That confusion prevents states from implementing lawful capital punishment," lawyers for the Justice Department wrote in a brief urging the court to get involved. Lawyers for Smith countered that the Supreme Court has previously said there's no precise math equation for determining an intellectual disability. Related: Alabama sets date to execute Gregory Hunt This isn't the first time the high court has considered a request from Alabama to take up Smith's case. After sitting on the case for more than a year, the court in November ordered the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to clarify why it backed the trial judge's determination that Smith is intellectually disabled and can't be executed. Related: Alabama executes James Osgood for 2010 rape and murder In a brief opinion, the court said it couldn't tell if the appeals court used a holistic approach to weighing the evidence about Smith's disability or relied primarily on his lowest-possible IQ score. The justices noted that the Supreme Court hadn't previously said how courts should evaluate multiple IQ scores. In response, the appeals court said it considered the entire record. In addition to IQ, other factors that define intellectual disability are 'significant or substantial deficits in adaptive behavior' and the onset of those qualities before age 18. 'Clinicians who attempt to diagnose whether an individual has significantly subaverage intellectual functioning do not limit themselves to IQ tests,' the appeals court wrote. Multiple IQ tests with similar results are not sufficient, the court said, because the test itself may be consistently flawed or improperly given. Smith was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of Durk Van Dam, who received 35 blunt force injuries and wounds from a saw on his neck, shoulder and back. U.S. District Judge Callie V. S. Granade called the evaluation of Smith's mental functioning a 'close case' but wrote 'the evidence indicates that Smith's intelligence and adaptive functioning has been deficient throughout his life.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court to consider use of IQ tests in Alabama death row case
