Latest news with #10thU.S.CircuitCourtofAppeals
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal court dismisses appeal of injunction issued against Biden-era Title IX rule change
A change in presidential administrations has resulted in the dismissal of an appeal by the federal government of an injunction granted to Oklahoma over a new interpretation of Title IX. Last May, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond filed a lawsuit against then-U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona and the U.S. Department of Education concerning a new Title IX rule interpretation announced by the federal agency the previous month. The interpretation, under the administration of former President Joe Biden, added gender identity as a protected class under the law. Cardona had announced the new Title IX rule interpretation on April 19. In his lawsuit, Drummond argued that interpretation was unconstitutional and ignored the language within Title IX, a law passed in 1972 that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any educational program that receives financial assistance from the federal government. U.S. District Judge Jodi Dishman — an appointee of President Donald Trump during his first term — agreed and issued an injunction against the rule's enforcement in Oklahoma. Cardona and the federal agency appealed that ruling to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. However, now under Trump's current administration, that appeal was dropped on Friday. 'I appreciate President Trump's willingness to dismiss the misguided appeal filed by the Biden Administration,' Drummond said in a statement. 'Oklahoma students can now rest assured they will be protected from invasions of privacy and other unnecessary harm, thanks to this responsible resolution.' The Oklahoma State Department of Education, led by state schools Superintendent Ryan Walters, filed a separate lawsuit over the new Title IX rule interpretation on the same day as Drummond. Dishman dismissed that lawsuit in January, '(b)ecause Plaintiff did not timely serve Defendants within 90 days of the filing of this action and did not comply with the Court's order giving Plaintiff additional time to effect service.' Nicole McAfee, the executive director of Freedom Oklahoma — an LGBTQ+ advocacy organization — expressed disappointment in Drummond's statement about the dismissal of the appeal. "It's a shame to see our attorney general and other state leaders celebrate a decision that will further harm some of our most vulnerable youth, when we know that allowing gender-based violence against 2STGNC+ students is deadly," McAfee said. "I wish the politicians putting out celebratory statements like this cared about all kids, including the thousands of trans youth who call Oklahoma home, as much as they do their personal, political platforms." This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Federal court dismisses appeal of injunction over Title IX rule change
CBC
11-03-2025
- Politics
- CBC
U.S. Supreme Court to hear challenge to Colorado ban on conversion therapy for minors
Social Sharing The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a case from Colorado to decide whether state and local governments can enforce laws banning conversion therapy for 2SLGBTQ+ children. The conservative-led court is taking up the case amid actions by President Donald Trump targeting transgender people, including a ban on military service and an end to federal funding for gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The justices also have heard arguments in a Tennessee case over whether state bans on treating transgender minors violate the Constitution. But they have yet to issue a decision. Colorado is among roughly half the states that prohibit the practice of trying to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity through counselling. The discredited practice has been denounced in the fields of psychology and counselling in Canada and the United States. The issue is whether the law violates the speech rights of counsellors. Defenders of such laws argue that they regulate the conduct of professionals who are licensed by the state. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the state law. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has struck down local local bans in Florida. In 2023, the court had turned away a similar challenge, despite a split among federal appeals courts that had weighed state bans and come to differing decisions. At the time, three justices, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, said they would have taken on the issue. It takes four justices to grant review. The nine-member court does not typically reveal how justices vote at this stage of a case so it's unclear who might have provided the fourth vote. The case will be argued in the court's new term, which begins in October. The appeal on behalf of Kaley Chiles, a counsellor in Colorado Springs, was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative legal organization that has appeared frequently at the court in recent years in cases involving high-profile social issues. Chiles has had to turn away clients because of the law, ADF lawyer Jim Campbell said Monday on a conference call for reporters, though he declined to say how many. Chiles said the law, with potential fines of $5,000 US and licence suspension or even revocation, "interferes with my ability to serve my clients with integrity." WATCH | MPs unanimously pass ban on conversion therapy in late 2021: House unanimously passes ban on conversion therapy 3 years ago Duration 2:02 One of ADF's earlier cases was a 5-4 decision in 2018 in which the justices ruled that California could not force state-licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centres to provide information about abortion. Chiles's lawyers leaned heavily on that decision in asking the court to take up her case. They wrote that Chiles doesn't "seek to 'cure' clients of same-sex attractions or to 'change' clients' sexual orientation." In arguing for the court to reject the appeal, lawyers for Colorado wrote that lawmakers acted to regulate professional conduct, "based on overwhelming evidence that efforts to change a child's sexual orientation or gender identity are unsafe and ineffective." WATCH | One man's fight against conversion therapy: 'Exhausting and heartbreaking': one man's fight against conversion therapy 5 years ago Duration 5:41 Victor Szymanski looked like he had everything. But starting the summer after Grade 11, he was coerced into 'reparative therapy' sessions aimed at 'curing' his homosexuality. Now he's pushing for legislation that 'rightfully addresses conversion therapy as a form of emotional and psychological abuse.'
Politico
10-03-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Supreme Court will take up state bans on conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children, in a Colorado case
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday in a case from Colorado to decide whether state and local governments can enforce laws banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children. The conservative-led court is taking up the case amid actions by President Donald Trump targeting transgender people, including a ban on military service and an end to federal funding for gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The justices also have heard arguments in a Tennessee case over whether state bans on treating transgender minors violate the Constitution. But they have yet to issue a decision. Colorado is among roughly half the states that prohibit the practice of trying to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling. The issue is whether the law violates the speech rights of counselors. Defenders of such laws argue that they regulate the conduct of professionals who are licensed by the state. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the state law. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has struck down local local bans in Florida. In 2023, the court had turned away a similar challenge, despite a split among federal appeals courts that had weighed state bans and come to differing decisions. At the time, three justices, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, said they would have taken on the issue. It takes four justices to grant review. The nine-member court does not typically reveal how justices vote at this stage of a case so it's unclear who might have provided the fourth vote. The case will be argued in the court's new term, which begins in October. The appeal on behalf of Kaley Chiles, a counselor in Colorado Springs, was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that has appeared frequently at the court in recent years in cases involving high-profile social issues. Chiles has had to turn away clients because of the law, ADF lawyer Jim Campbell said Monday on a conference call for reporters, though he declined to say how many. Chiles said the law, with potential fines of $5,000 and license suspension or even revocation, 'interferes with my ability to serve my clients with integrity.' One of ADF's earlier cases was a 5-4 decision in 2018 in which the justices ruled that California could not force state-licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion. Chiles' lawyers leaned heavily on that decision in asking the court to take up her case. They wrote that Chiles doesn't 'seek to 'cure' clients of same-sex attractions or to 'change' clients' sexual orientation.' In arguing for the court to reject the appeal, lawyers for Colorado wrote that lawmakers acted to regulate professional conduct, 'based on overwhelming evidence that efforts to change a child's sexual orientation or gender identity are unsafe and ineffective.'
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court takes up challenge to Colorado conversion therapy ban
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to a law in Colorado that bans 'conversion therapy' aimed at young people questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity. With more than 20 states with similar bans, the court's eventual ruling is likely to have nationwide implications. The justices took up an appeal brought by Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist, who argued that the restriction violates her free speech rights under the Constitution's First Amendment. Favored by some religious conservatives, the practice is aimed at encouraging gay or lesbian minors to change their sexual orientations and transgender children to identify as the gender identities assigned to them at birth. Chiles often has clients who are Christians, some of whom have questions about their sexual orientation and gender identity amid concerns that they are unable to live their lives in accordance with their faith, according to court papers. As such, they seek counseling to suppress unwanted sexual attractions or to resolve conflicts about their gender identity. "The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors, nor should a counselor be used as a tool to impose the government's biased views on her clients," Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian advocacy group representing Chiles, said in a statement. Chiles' lawyers cite in part the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling that struck down on free speech grounds a California law that required anti-abortion pregnancy clinics to notify clients about abortion access. The lawyers argue that the bans have 'devastating real world consequences' including on rare cases of 'detransitioners' — the small proportion of transgender people who change course and wish to identity as the gender they were assigned at birth. Limiting counseling options communicates to 'countless minors they have no choice but to medically transition,' the lawyers said. Colorado officials wrote in their brief that the state measure regulates conduct, not speech. "States have long regulated medical practices to protect patients from harmful professional conduct," Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, said in a statement. "Colorado's law protecting young people from unscientific and cruel gay conversion therapy practices is human, smart, and appropriate.' A federal judge and the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the state. The Supreme Court has on several occasions refused to take up challenges to similar conversion therapy bans, most recently in December 2023, when it left a law in Washington state in place. Three conservative justices said at that time they would have taken up the case. The new case will be argued and decided in the court's next term, which starts in October and ends in June 2026. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court takes up challenge to Colorado conversion therapy ban
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to a law in Colorado that bans 'conversion therapy' aimed at young people questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity. With more than 20 states with similar bans, the court's eventual ruling is likely to have nationwide implications. The justices took up an appeal brought by Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist, who argued that the restriction violates her free speech rights under the Constitution's First Amendment. Favored by some religious conservatives, the practice is aimed at encouraging gay or lesbian minors to change their sexual orientations and transgender children to identify as the gender identities assigned to them at birth. Chiles often has clients who are Christians, some of whom have questions about their sexual orientation and gender identity amid concerns that they are unable to live their lives in accordance with their faith, according to court papers. As such, they seek counseling to suppress unwanted sexual attractions or to resolve conflicts about their gender identity. "The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors, nor should a counselor be used as a tool to impose the government's biased views on her clients," Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian advocacy group representing Chiles, said in a statement. Chiles' lawyers cite in part the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling that struck down on free speech grounds a California law that required anti-abortion pregnancy clinics to notify clients about abortion access. The lawyers argue that the bans have 'devastating real world consequences' including on rare cases of 'detransitioners' — the small proportion of transgender people who change course and wish to identity as the gender they were assigned at birth. Limiting counseling options communicates to 'countless minors they have no choice but to medically transition,' the lawyers said. Colorado officials wrote in their brief that the state measure regulates conduct, not speech. "States have long regulated medical practices to protect patients from harmful professional conduct," Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, said in a statement. "Colorado's law protecting young people from unscientific and cruel gay conversion therapy practices is human, smart, and appropriate.' A federal judge and the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the state. The Supreme Court has on several occasions refused to take up challenges to similar conversion therapy bans, most recently in December 2023, when it left a law in Washington state in place. Three conservative justices said at that time they would have taken up the case. The new case will be argued and decided in the court's next term, which starts in October and ends in June 2026. This article was originally published on
