Latest news with #FourthCircuitCourt
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court to hear case on LGBTQ-themed storybooks and parents' right to opt out
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a closely watched case that could reshape the role of parental rights and religious freedom in public education. At issue is whether a Maryland school district violated the First Amendment by requiring elementary school students to engage with LGBTQ+ storybooks that include topics about gender transitions and same-sex relationships, without allowing parents to opt out. The policy was implemented to disrupt "cisnormativity" and promote inclusivity, according to Supreme Court documents. Initially, the school allowed parents to opt their children out of these lessons, but later reversed this decision, eliminating the opt-out option and not notifying parents when such content was being taught. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts Swoops In To Save Trump Firing Decision Parents, supported by religious freedom organizations, argue that this policy infringes upon their First Amendment rights by compelling their children to engage in instruction that contradicts their religious beliefs. The Fourth Circuit Court, a federal appeals court, ruled last year that there was no violation of religious exercise rights, stating that the policy did not force parents to change their religious beliefs or conduct and that parents could still teach their children outside of school. Thomas More Society attorney Michael McHale told Fox News Digital in a previous interview that "while there is an opt-out statute in state law, the school initially abided by it." Read On The Fox News App "The school decided to yank the opt-out exception, so to speak, and it really triggered the issue of whether the Constitution requires an opt-out in that circumstance," McHale said. Lawsuit Tracker: New Resistance Battling Trump's Second Term Through Onslaught Of Lawsuits Taking Aim At Eos "For the Fourth Circuit to say there was no religious burden, it really seems radical, and given how pressing that issue of school curriculum on sexual orientation, gender identity is, I think it raises an issue worth the Supreme Court's attention," he said. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump signed several executive orders related to gender policies in federal institutions. McHale said these actions could reduce legal conflicts involving religious rights, such as disputes over whether teachers must use students' preferred pronouns in schools. Scotus Rulings This Term Could Strengthen Religious Rights Protections, Expert Says Mahmoud v. Taylor is one of three major religious cases the Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for this year. Earlier this month, the high court heard a case brought by a Wisconsin-based Catholic charity group's bid for tax relief, which could alter the current eligibility requirements for religious tax exemptions. At issue in that case is whether the Wisconsin branch of Catholic Charities, a social services organization affiliated with Catholic dioceses across the country, can successfully contest the state's high court determination that it is ineligible for a religious tax exemption because it is not "operated primarily for religious purposes." The third case is about whether a Catholic online school can become the first religious charter school in the article source: Supreme Court to hear case on LGBTQ-themed storybooks and parents' right to opt out
Fox News
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Supreme Court to hear case on LGBTQ-themed storybooks and parents' right to opt out
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a closely watched case that could reshape the role of parental rights and religious freedom in public education. At issue is whether a Maryland school district violated the First Amendment by requiring elementary school students to engage with LGBTQ+ storybooks that include topics about gender transitions and same-sex relationships, without allowing parents to opt out. The policy was implemented to disrupt "cisnormativity" and promote inclusivity, according to Supreme Court documents. Initially, the school allowed parents to opt their children out of these lessons, but later reversed this decision, eliminating the opt-out option and not notifying parents when such content was being taught. Parents, supported by religious freedom organizations, argue that this policy infringes upon their First Amendment rights by compelling their children to engage in instruction that contradicts their religious beliefs. The Fourth Circuit Court, a federal appeals court, ruled last year that there was no violation of religious exercise rights, stating that the policy did not force parents to change their religious beliefs or conduct and that parents could still teach their children outside of school. Thomas More Society attorney Michael McHale told Fox News Digital in a previous interview that "while there is an opt-out statute in state law, the school initially abided by it." "The school decided to yank the opt-out exception, so to speak, and it really triggered the issue of whether the Constitution requires an opt-out in that circumstance," McHale said. "For the Fourth Circuit to say there was no religious burden, it really seems radical, and given how pressing that issue of school curriculum on sexual orientation, gender identity is, I think it raises an issue worth the Supreme Court's attention," he said. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump signed several executive orders related to gender policies in federal institutions. McHale said these actions could reduce legal conflicts involving religious rights, such as disputes over whether teachers must use students' preferred pronouns in schools. Mahmoud v. Taylor is one of three major religious cases the Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for this year. Earlier this month, the high court heard a case brought by a Wisconsin-based Catholic charity group's bid for tax relief, which could alter the current eligibility requirements for religious tax exemptions. At issue in that case is whether the Wisconsin branch of Catholic Charities, a social services organization affiliated with Catholic dioceses across the country, can successfully contest the state's high court determination that it is ineligible for a religious tax exemption because it is not "operated primarily for religious purposes." The third case is about whether a Catholic online school can become the first religious charter school in the U.S.
Yahoo
18-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
"Asserting a right to stash residents": Appeals court rebukes Trump DOJ's Abrego Garcia defense
The Trump administration's latest bid to keep mistakenly deported Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia in an El Salvadorian prison was swatted down in a federal appeals court on Thursday, intensifying the legal pressure to facilitate the Maryland man's return. In a Thursday ruling, Fourth Circuit Court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III said the Trump administration was 'asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order.' 'This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear,' the Reagan appointee wrote in a seven-page opinion, joined by two other judges. Responding to the Trump administration's plea to stay an order that it 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return from El Salvador, judges called the motion 'extraordinary and premature,' noting the Supreme Court required that steps be taken. 'While we fully respect the Executive's robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court's recent decision,' he added. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with a lower court's ruling that the federal government must facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, though justices disagreed with the finding that the feds must 'effectuate' his return. Legal experts say the Trump administration's reaction to the ruling could have chilling consequences for Americans and their due process rights. Though Attorney General Pam Bondi has claimed Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang – or even a high-ranking leader, depending on the day you ask her – the government has been unwilling and unable to present evidence in any courtroom. The president has made attempts to distance himself from the case, claiming in a Thursday White House presser that he is "not involved in it." Wilkinson argued that the infighting between the judiciary and the executive branch will only serve to diminish both. "This is a losing proposition all around. The Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy," he wrote. "The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph."
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
West Virginia governor targets transgender women for the crimes of cisgender men
West Virginia Gov. Patrick's Morrisey's bill to ban transgender women from single space places can't be enforced if the Legislature passes it because of Fourth Circuit Court ruling. (Vladimir Vladimirov | Getty Images) Gov. Patrick Morrisey's 'gender definition' bill is wasting everyone's time. House Bill 2006 states it will 'reaffirm the longstanding meaning of sex, male and female in state law,' and 'preserve women's restrooms, multiple occupancy restrooms or changing rooms, and sleeping quarters for women in facilities where women have been traditionally afforded privacy and safety from acts of abuse, harassment, sexual assault, and violence committed by men.' There are no criminal penalties under this bill because doing so would be in violation of the ruling in Grimm v. Gloucester School Board, where the Fourth Circuit ruled that under Title IX protections, a student must be able to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. This bill only comes into play if that ruling is overturned. This is similar to the inaccurately named 'Women's Bill of Rights' that former Gov. Jim Justice pushed last year, but failed to go up for a vote on the final night of the regular session. The only difference is that Morrisey has added domestic violence shelters to the list of spaces. The West Virginia Coalition of Domestic Violence opposes this bill. 'Most of the women seeking shelter have been abused by their intimate partners, not men dressing up as women to gain access to vulnerable survivors,' the coalition said in a press release. 'Protection for women and girls is best provided by recognizing that most forms of violence are perpetrated against them within their homes.' This is the myth that Republicans try to sell — straight men will dress up as women to enter these spaces and abuse women. In states with an LGBTQ non-discrimination law, there's no record of behavior like that increasing. The problem here is cisgender men, not transgender women. This bill targets the wrong people. Let's look at some of the wording in this bill: '…in facilities where women have been traditionally afforded privacy and safety from acts of abuse, harassment, sexual assault, and violence committed by men.' Why aren't women afforded safety from men in all facilities? Women — cisgender and transgender — all deserve to feel safe. However, that's not how the world works. Domestic violence shelters are necessary. And transgender people may be more likely to experience intimate partner violence than cisgender people. Banning domestic violence shelters from serving transgender women would be 'a death sentence,' said Julie Britton, executive director of the YWCA Resolve Family Abuse Program in Charleston. 'There are no alternative facilities, and if we are not available, the only other option would be a homeless shelter or the streets,' she told lawmakers. 'I don't know if we're worried about women's safety putting trans women out on the street.' It's clear that these shelters want to continue to help transgender women — so why would the state prevent them from doing so? It's unnecessary government overreach. If Republicans really cared about keeping women safe from harassment and violence, there wouldn't have been bills in both the Senate (which was withdrawn) and House trying to remove rape and incest exemptions from the state's near-total abortion ban. How is it protecting a woman to make her give birth after a man forced himself on her and impregnated her? In West Virginia, a rapist's parental rights can only be limited or terminated if there's a conviction. Nationally, only about 31% of sexual assaults are reported, and of those only about 2.5% of sexual abusers will go to prison or jail. Only about 12% of child sexual abuse is reported to the police. In about 8 out of 10 incidents, the woman knew her rapist, according to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN — only about 19.5% of rapes are committed by a stranger, making it more difficult on the victim to report the incident for fear of more retaliation. Those incidents aren't happening in women's locker rooms or women's bathrooms. Another bill that will put women in danger is Senate Bill 299, which aims to ban hormone treatment for children diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Children with gender dysphoria suffer from psychological distress because their gender identity doesn't match the gender they were assigned at birth. So much so, that they can sometimes feel suicidal. When doctors can prescribe hormone treatment, like puberty blockers, it relieves some of that distress. The medications temporarily pause puberty and are totally reversible. When the Senate discussed SB 299, they had virtual testimonies from people who tried to sell the story that minors receiving gender-affirming care are having major surgeries. They are not. A study by researchers at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health network found little to no gender-affirming surgeries on transgender minors in the U.S. In fact, cisgender minors and adults had substantially more gender-affirming surgeries, such as breast reductions surgeries for males. Gender-affirming care is most often used by cisgender people. If you aren't going to ban hair transplants and breast augmentation surgeries for cisgender people you're not serious about gender-affirming care. You're only serious about hurting transgender people. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
West Virginia governor targets transgender women for the crimes of cisgender men
West Virginia Gov. Patrick's Morrisey's bill to ban transgender women from single space places can't be enforced if the Legislature passes it because of Fourth Circuit Court ruling. (Vladimir Vladimirov | Getty Images) Gov. Patrick Morrisey's 'gender definition' bill is wasting everyone's time. House Bill 2006 states it will 'reaffirm the longstanding meaning of sex, male and female in state law,' and 'preserve women's restrooms, multiple occupancy restrooms or changing rooms, and sleeping quarters for women in facilities where women have been traditionally afforded privacy and safety from acts of abuse, harassment, sexual assault, and violence committed by men.' There are no criminal penalties under this bill because doing so would be in violation of the ruling in Grimm v. Gloucester School Board, where the Fourth Circuit ruled that under Title IX protections, a student must be able to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. This bill only comes into play if that ruling is overturned. This is similar to the inaccurately named 'Women's Bill of Rights' that former Gov. Jim Justice pushed last year, but failed to go up for a vote on the final night of the regular session. The only difference is that Morrisey has added domestic violence shelters to the list of spaces. The West Virginia Coalition of Domestic Violence opposes this bill. 'Most of the women seeking shelter have been abused by their intimate partners, not men dressing up as women to gain access to vulnerable survivors,' the coalition said in a press release. 'Protection for women and girls is best provided by recognizing that most forms of violence are perpetrated against them within their homes.' This is the myth that Republicans try to sell — straight men will dress up as women to enter these spaces and abuse women. In states with an LGBTQ non-discrimination law, there's no record of behavior like that increasing. The problem here is cisgender men, not transgender women. This bill targets the wrong people. Let's look at some of the wording in this bill: '…in facilities where women have been traditionally afforded privacy and safety from acts of abuse, harassment, sexual assault, and violence committed by men.' Why aren't women afforded safety from men in all facilities? Women — cisgender and transgender — all deserve to feel safe. However, that's not how the world works. Domestic violence shelters are necessary. And transgender people may be more likely to experience intimate partner violence than cisgender people. Banning domestic violence shelters from serving transgender women would be 'a death sentence,' said Julie Britton, executive director of the YWCA Resolve Family Abuse Program in Charleston. 'There are no alternative facilities, and if we are not available, the only other option would be a homeless shelter or the streets,' she told lawmakers. 'I don't know if we're worried about women's safety putting trans women out on the street.' It's clear that these shelters want to continue to help transgender women — so why would the state prevent them from doing so? It's unnecessary government overreach. If Republicans really cared about keeping women safe from harassment and violence, there wouldn't have been bills in both the Senate (which was withdrawn) and House trying to remove rape and incest exemptions from the state's near-total abortion ban. How is it protecting a woman to make her give birth after a man forced himself on her and impregnated her? In West Virginia, a rapist's parental rights can only be limited or terminated if there's a conviction. Nationally, only about 31% of sexual assaults are reported, and of those only about 2.5% of sexual abusers will go to prison or jail. Only about 12% of child sexual abuse is reported to the police. In about 8 out of 10 incidents, the woman knew her rapist, according to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN — only about 19.5% of rapes are committed by a stranger, making it more difficult on the victim to report the incident for fear of more retaliation. Those incidents aren't happening in women's locker rooms or women's bathrooms. Another bill that will put women in danger is Senate Bill 299, which aims to ban hormone treatment for children diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Children with gender dysphoria suffer from psychological distress because their gender identity doesn't match the gender they were assigned at birth. So much so, that they can sometimes feel suicidal. When doctors can prescribe hormone treatment, like puberty blockers, it relieves some of that distress. The medications temporarily pause puberty and are totally reversible. When the Senate discussed SB 299, they had virtual testimonies from people who tried to sell the story that minors receiving gender-affirming care are having major surgeries. They are not. A study by researchers at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health network found little to no gender-affirming surgeries on transgender minors in the U.S. In fact, cisgender minors and adults had substantially more gender-affirming surgeries, such as breast reductions surgeries for males. Gender-affirming care is most often used by cisgender people. If you aren't going to ban hair transplants and breast augmentation surgeries for cisgender people you're not serious about gender-affirming care. You're only serious about hurting transgender people. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
