Latest news with #FourteenthAmendment
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
The Trump Administration Is Violating the Constitution. This Legal Theory Can Help Us Move Forward.
Stay up-to-date with the politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take In the coming months, the Supreme Court is likely to release decisions in a number of cases that will fundamentally impact the lives of millions. But we don't need to wait until nine elite lawyers in robes weigh in to know some basics about our rights and freedoms here in the US. For example, we know that stripping people born in the United States of their citizenship, as the Trump administration has proposed doing, is unconstitutional. It's right there in the Fourteenth Amendment: All persons born in the United States 'are citizens of the United States.' You don't need to be a Supreme Court justice to understand what that means. You don't even need a law degree to know without a doubt that the Constitution makes it clear that people born in the United States are citizens from birth. You also don't need to be a lawyer to say that the separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment means that parents shouldn't be able to use their religion to justify banning books from schools with LGBTQ+ characters. And you don't need any specialized training to know that when the Constitution says all people are entitled to 'equal protection under the law,' that should apply to trans people, who should not be denied health care based on their gender identity. In the United States, we're all governed by the 7,591 words in the Constitution and its amendments. But who decides what those words mean? The answer is us. We, the people, decide what the Constitution means and when it's being violated. This might not be what you were taught in school, where most of us were told that interpreting the Constitution is the exclusive job of judges and the Supreme Court justices. That's because Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, have largely embraced the idea of judicial supremacy: that judges are the ultimate authority when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. Under that view, the law is what judges say it is, leaving the people with almost no role at all in making meaning of the law. Letting judges and justices take exclusive control of interpreting the Constitution hasn't worked out well for most of us. Historically, white men have dominated the judiciary. And while it actually isn't a requirement that federal judges have law degrees, the last time a Supreme Court Justice was appointed without having attended law school was 1941. This matters because people who go to law school are disproportionately wealthy: a study by UCLA law professor Richard Sander found that 2% of law students come from the poorest quarter of American families, while 75% come from the richest quarter. The result of this unrepresentative judiciary is centuries of decision-making that have not served the people well. In just the last few years, the Supreme Court has decided the Constitution doesn't protect the right to abortion but does hold that guns should be easily accessible in our communities and that states can change their voting laws in ways that disproportionately impact Black voters and voters of color. As Harvard Law professor Niko Bowie summarizes it: People say that federal courts are critical for protecting the rights of minorities, but the truth is that throughout American history, 'the principal 'minority' most often protected by the Court is the wealthy.' Fortunately, we don't have to accept judicial supremacy. In fact, many of America's most admired leaders have rejected it, like Thomas Jefferson, himself a wealthy white man, wrote that the idea of 'judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.' And Abraham Lincoln argued that if we let judges make the most important decisions about what our Constitution requires, it would mean 'the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.' The opposite of judicial supremacy is defined by Larry Kramer of Stanford Law School as 'popular constitutionalism,' giving the people 'active and ongoing control over the interpretation and enforcement of constitutional law.' In other words, the people interpret the meaning of the Constitution — the foundational principles that govern every aspect of how we build this country — and ensure that meaning is enforced. This isn't an easy task under the best of circumstances, and it got significantly harder when Donald Trump retook power on January 20. It requires us to read and understand the Constitution and to make values-based judgements about what it requires, allows, and prohibits. Even harder, it then means we have to enforce our understanding of the Constitution by building the political power to act when we see the Constitution being violated and to ensure our meaning is the one that ultimately wins out. In a democracy, this requires building popular support for our views, and there are no shortcuts. And even reaching majority support for our constitutional interpretation isn't enough without action. Professor Kramer, in his book The People Themselves, describes how, since the early days of the United States, the people have enforced the Constitution against 'errant rulers' in a number of ways, many of which apply directly to our current moment. Enforcing the Constitution against our current errant rulers looks like voting them out of office, petitioning (calling and writing your elected representatives) and assembling (protesting), defending the rights of people unjustly targeted by law enforcement, engaging in jury nullification (finding somebody not guilty if they broke a law but the law was unjust), participating in consumer boycotts, and more. As we confront arguably the most errant ruler in the history of the United States, it is our obligation as citizens of a democracy to use these tactics to organize our communities around a vision of what the Constitution means and how it should shape our lives. We don't need to say that our Constitution is perfect in order to do this. Instead, embracing a constitutional vision for a true democracy enables us to do the work of building a better world in the here and now by fighting for what's best in the Constitution, like the promise of equal protection under the law for all people and the freedom to chart our own political future. At the same time, it also points us toward the structural reform that will eventually be needed to make the promises of our Constitution real. It's the difference between saying, 'This is the best we can ever do,' and saying, 'This is the very best that we can do now. And here is how we will change in order to do even better in the future.' Over the coming months and years, we're going to hear a lot about what Donald Trump thinks the Constitution means and what it lets him do, and a lot about what the Supreme Court thinks about those same things. But none of that matters as much as what we think the Constitution means — as long as we commit to making our meaning the one that prevails. Originally Appeared on Teen Vogue Want more U.S. government coverage? The Current Supreme Court Is Illegitimate What It's Like to Live In a State Run By Politicians You Can't Stand Mass Incarceration Is Cruel, Expensive, and Ineffective The True Story of a White Supremacist Insurrection in the U.S.
Yahoo
a day ago
- General
- Yahoo
DOJ threatens California public schools with legal action over participation of trans athletes
The U.S. Department of Justice has warned California's public schools that permitting transgender students to participate in girls' sports could result in legal consequences. Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, stated in a letter Monday that a bylaw from the California Interscholastic Federation, a state organization that oversees high school sports, permitting student-athletes to compete in CIF activities that align with their gender identity violates the 14th Amendment. 'The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Knowingly depriving female students of athletic opportunities and benefits on the basis of their sex would constitute unconstitutional sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause,' the letter said. In the letter, Dhillon stated that the public school district must certify in writing by June 9 that the CIF will not implement the bylaw, 'to ensure compliance and avoid legal liability.' 'Let's be clear: sending a letter does not change the law,' California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said in a statement. 'The DOJ's letter to school districts does not announce any new federal law, and state law on this issue has remained unchanged since 2013. California state law protects all students' access to participate in athletics in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity. We will continue to follow the law and ensure the safety of all of our athletes.' The latest back and forth between federal and state officials comes after President Donald Trump against 16-year-old AB Hernandez, a junior at Jurupa Valley High School, who won the girls' long jump and triple jump events at the California Interscholastic Federation's Southern Section Masters on May 24, qualifying for the state championships that will take place May 30-31, The Hill reported. Hernandez went on to win two gold medals and a silver medal at the state track and field finals on Saturday. In February, Trump signed an executive order that states that 'it is the policy of the United States to oppose male competitive participation in women's sports' and threatens to 'rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities.' California is one of 22 states that have laws requiring transgender students to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity. The law was signed by former Gov. Jerry Brown in 2013. According to Gov. Gavin Newsom's office, out of the 5.8 million students in the state's K-12 public school system, the number of active transgender student-athletes is estimated to be in the single digits. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Trump Administration Targets California After Trans Athlete Wins Track Events
The Trump administration is going after California following a 16-year-old trans athlete's victories in a state track and field championship over the weekend. The 16-year-old, AB Hernandez, a junior at Jurupa Valley High School in Riverside County, has made headlines and been at the center of protests in recent months simply for competing. Despite protests on Saturday, Hernandez won first place in the girls' high jump and triple jump at the State Track and Field Championships at Buchanan High School in Clovis, California. Hernandez also finished second in the long jump. But because of a new rule instituted by the California Interscholastic Federation, multiple other student athletes also received medals in the categories that Hernandez competed in. As such, Jillene Wetteland and Lelani Laruelle also won first place in the high jump, and Kira Gant Hatcher also won first in the triple jump. Brooke White also placed second in the long jump. 'A Biological Male competed in California Girls State Finals, WINNING BIG, despite the fact that they were warned by me not to do so. As Governor Gavin Newscum fully understands, large scale fines will be imposed!!!' the president wrote on Truth Social on Monday. On the same day, Harmeet K. Dhillon, the head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, sent a transphobic letter to public school districts in California claiming that the state's law allowing students to compete in sports based on their gender identity rather than the identity assigned to them at birth is 'facially unconstitutional.' 'The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex,' Dhillon, a legal adviser to Trump, an anti-voting rights and anti-LGBTQ rights extremist, argued in the letter. 'Knowingly depriving female students of athletic opportunities and benefits on the basis of their sex would constitute unconstitutional sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.' 'Scientific evidence shows that upsetting the historical status quo and forcing girls to compete against males would deprive them of athletic opportunities and benefits because of their sex,' she also wrote, without clarifying where to find the evidence. The letter gives California a week to fall in line with the Justice Department's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, which seems to complement Trump's February executive order. Trump's order aims to block 'male competitive participation in women's sports' and 'rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities.' In a letter to superintendents and administrators in the state on Tuesday, Tony Thurmond, the California superintendent of public instruction, reportedly said that the department would review the request and respond by June 9, but that the letter isn't the law. According to The Athletic, Thurmond argued that the Equal Protection Clause 'does not require that athletic teams be segregated by 'biological sex.'' 'The DOJ assertions are not in themselves law, and the letter by itself cannot be an enforcement mechanism,' Thurmond also reportedly said. The news comes after the California Interscholastic Federation, California's high school sports governing body, expanded eligibility for the 2025 CIF State Track and Field Championships rather than excluding anyone from the competition. 'The CIF values all of our student-athletes and we will continue to uphold our mission of providing students with the opportunity to belong, connect, and compete while complying with California law and Education Code,' the organization continued. On Sunday, Nereyda Hernandez, AB Hernandez's mom, told local outlet KCRA that she was a Trump supporter, but her daughter's perspective and treatment changed her views. 'Just talking to AB, and I started analyzing things differently,' Nereyda Hernandez said. 'It's too much for me because we're people and I don't feel we're being treated as such.' She also told KCRA that the protests during her daughter's big day were a little distracting, but that she was 'proud of her.' 'A kid is more mature than a lot of these adults putting her in this situation. So I'm just happy, yeah, I could brag. That's my baby,' she added. Representatives for the Jurupa Unified School District and the California Interscholastic Federation, respectively, did not immediately respond to HuffPost's request for comment. California Sports Org Expands Finals Eligibility After Trump Tantrum Over Trans Athlete California Is Investigating Paramount Over Its Alleged Settlement Offer To Trump Judge Rules Federal Prisons Must Continue Providing Hormone Therapy To Transgender Inmates
Yahoo
a day ago
- General
- Yahoo
Puerto Rico Supreme Court recognizes ‘X' as third gender for birth certificates in landmark decision
Puerto Rico's Supreme Court has mandated that the government include an 'X' gender marker on birth certificates in a ruling issued on Monday. A group of nonbinary Puerto Ricans filed the case, and the ruling allows for the representation of those who identify outside of the gender binary. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. 'Puerto Rico's current Birth Certificate Policy is not supported by a rational basis, and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,' the justices wrote in their 19-page decision. The court found that while the government might have a legitimate interest in maintaining an accurate record of each citizen's sex assigned at birth, lawyers for the government 'failed to articulate why this particular interest is furthered by treating nonbinary individuals differently than binary individuals.' RELATED: Trump's 'two genders' executive order will hurt millions of Americans: study A federal court in 2018 ordered Puerto Rico to permit transgender individuals to change their gender markers, but nonbinary individuals were left unable to accurately reflect their gender identity on official records. Six nonbinary plaintiffs filed suit in court, and the court on Monday ruled in their favor. 'Their request is simple: to be permitted to have a gender marker on their birth certificate that reflects their true gender identity, like everyone else,' the justices wrote of the plaintiffs in their decision. 'Specifically, Plaintiffs request the Court to order the Demographic Registry of Puerto Rico to modify its application to amend a Puerto Rican birth certificate, to include an option to change one's gender marker to an 'X.'' The justices found the government's current birth certificate gender identification policy discriminatory and that there was no rational reason to deny the plaintiff's request. RELATED: Texas AG tells agencies to ignore court orders on gender changes 'The current Birth Certificate Policy of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico arbitrarily distinguishes between binary and nonbinary individuals and subjects nonbinary individuals to disfavored treatment, without any justification for doing so,' the justices concluded in their ruling. 'In such cases, it is the duty of the federal courts to intervene, to guarantee the equal protection of all persons under the law.' Puerto Rico's Republican Governor Jenniffer González Colón indicated that she would consult with government lawyers before determining her future course of action. Puerto Rico Representative Jorge 'Georgie' Navarro Suárez announced he was introducing a non-binding resolution condemning the ruling. RELATED: Experience fun in the safe and sunny LGBTQ+ paradise of San Juan, Puerto Rico 'The Federal Court's ruling represents a challenge to the administrative and social stability of Puerto Rico,' Navarro Suárez said in a statement announcing the resolution. 'While we fully respect human dignity and rights, we firmly believe that traditional gender identification based on male and female provides essential clarity and consistency in the administrative processes of the Demographic Registry.' Navarro Suárez is a member of the New Progressive Party (PNP), which advocates for statehood with the U.S. Both of Navarro Suárez's brothers were recently arrested on federal corruption charges. Edgardo Navarro Suárez and Ricardo Luis Suárez were arrested in April and charged with financial fraud and money laundering of federal funds meant for relief during the global economic shutdown. Prosecutors claim the two brothers and a third man attempted to bribe a bank official to help facilitate over $2 million in allegedly bogus COVID-19 relief funds.
Newsweek
a day ago
- General
- Newsweek
Biggest Supreme Court Cases To Be Decided This Month
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings in more than 30 cases before the end of June, weighing in on issues such as birthright citizenship and gender and sexuality instruction in schools. Why It Matters The Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has an opportunity to set precedents on various issues of national interest as the term comes to a close. Michael Gerhardt, the Burton Craige distinguished professor of jurisprudence at the University of North Carolina, detailed how the conservative majority could impact the decisions. "These are all major cases in which the Court's conservative majority will likely be further expanding parents' religious rights to opt out of events that offend their religious views; protecting American gun manufacturers from vexatious lawsuits; restricting federal courts from using nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration; and reinforcing its prior decisions mandating that government may not use race, in any way, as a basis for action," Gerhardt told Newsweek. The U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington. The U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington. zz/STRF/STAR MAX/IPx What To Know The Court typically issues decisions in all pending cases prior to the term's end. Trump v. CASA: Birthright Citizenship and Nationwide Injunctions This case centers on the legality of President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, impacting children born in the U.S. to certain non-citizens. The Supreme Court is tasked with determining whether presidential actions can narrowly limit citizenship rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and whether lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions to block federal immigration policies. During oral arguments of the case, several justices expressed concerns about Trump's order. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it violated "by my count, four established Supreme Court precedents." None of the justices voiced clear support for the legality of the order, but they took varied stances on the legality of nationwide injunctions. The decision is expected to clarify the constitutional scope of birthright citizenship and the extent of federal judicial authority in immigration cases. Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos: Gun Makers Sued by Mexico The Supreme Court will decide whether American gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, can be held liable under U.S. law for firearms trafficked into Mexico and used in cartel violence. The case challenges existing liability protections provided by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. If the Court rules in favor of Mexico, it could allow foreign governments to pursue claims against U.S. gun makers for alleged cross-border harms. Mahmoud v. Taylor: Gender and Sexuality in School Instruction The case concerns whether public schools in Maryland must provide opt-outs for families objecting on religious grounds to lessons featuring LGBTQ themes and relationships. Petitioners argue that denial of opt-outs infringes upon religious freedom and parental rights, while school officials assert the importance of comprehensive, inclusive instruction. The Court's upcoming decision will weigh religious liberty against anti-discrimination and educational standards, and could set national precedent for curriculum content and parental control. Louisiana v. Callais: Redistricting in African American-Majority Areas The case challenges the legality of Louisiana's new congressional voting map, which created a second majority-Black district in the state. The new map was drawn in response to a previous lawsuit in which plaintiffs argued that the prior map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority votes. Plaintiffs in the current case argue that the new map violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by prioritizing race in its creation. During oral arguments, the six conservative justices raised various concerns about the new map. A ruling could alter the criteria for racial fairness in redistricting and affect congressional representation in Louisiana and beyond. The decision comes amid a broader national debate over the scope of voting protections and electoral equity. United States v. Skrmetti: Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Youths This closely watched challenge examines whether Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors experiencing gender dysphoria violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause. The Biden administration argued that the law unlawfully discriminates against transgender youth. Major medical associations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have weighed in against such bans. The Supreme Court's decision may create a national precedent on the rights of transgender minors to receive hormone therapy and puberty blockers. What People Are Saying Michael Gerhardt, the Burton Craige distinguished professor of jurisprudence at the University of North Carolina, told Newsweek: "The Court generally issues rulings in all pending cases before the end of the term, though the Court rarely might hold a case over for the next term or declare that the writ of cert. was mistakenly granted." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is likely to rule on these cases before the current term closes at the end of June, but it is possible that rulings will be issued at a later date. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
