Latest news with #MissoulaCountyDistrictCourt
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Judge takes up gender-affirming care arguments in Missoula County District Court
The Missoula County Court House pictured on December 20, 2020. Missoula County District Court Judge Jason Marks peppered questions at a lawyer for the State of Montana in a hearing Thursday about whether a bill that bans gender-affirming care for minors is constitutional. In 2023, the Montana Legislature adopted, and Gov. Greg Gianforte signed, Senate Bill 99, which banned gender-affirming care for minors in Montana. The bill also opened up providers to punishment and civil actions. A coalition of minors and providers sued the state, and in December 2024, the Montana Supreme Court found the District Court in Missoula was correct in temporarily blocking the law based on privacy rights in the state Constitution. Thursday, Marks heard arguments for summary judgment, or a decision without a trial based on the facts already presented. ACLU of Montana lawyer Alex Rate argued the case, Cross et al v. State of Montana, is parallel to abortion lawsuits in which courts have granted summary judgment based on the state's constitutional right to privacy. Those abortion cases have been unanimously upheld by the Montana Supreme Court. In a separate case regarding an executive order, Rate said, 'the federal court there said, quote, the evidence supporting gender affirming care for adolescents is as robust as the evidence supporting other pediatric treatments.' However, Michael Noonan and Thane Johnson for the State of Montana said a trial is warranted. Noonan said the parties disagree on many material facts, such as the harms of gender-affirming care, and experts are offering differing opinions that need to be sorted out. 'A trial is the appropriate time to evaluate the merits of the competing evidence presented in this case,' Noonan said. In his argument, Noonan said the state Constitution gives the state the power to protect minors in Article 2 Section 15, and SB 99 'clearly enhances the protection of minors.' He said care can leave people infertile or irreversibly physically damaged, it isn't proven to reduce the risk of suicide, and some countries in Europe, which had been the 'vanguard' of such treatments, have since reversed course. Meanwhile, Noonan said, some people in the U.S. end up rushed into gender-affirming care, without an adequate or even any psychological evaluation. When the government has a 'compelling interest,' such as protecting a minor, it can enforce a law designed to be narrow enough to address that interest. In one of many questions for Noonan, Marks said he wanted to know why the law bans the treatment altogether. Instead, Marks said, it could have required extra evaluations before allowing a patient to grant 'informed consent,' a voluntary decision to receive a medical intervention with knowledge of its risks and benefits. 'I don't see this as narrowly tailored to the problem you're addressing. Can you help me with that?' Marks said. Marks also said the idea that people under 18 can't give informed consent doesn't seem to be supported by Montana law. Noonan said Montana's approach in SB 99 aligns with Europe's approach, which starts with psychotherapy, but doesn't rush into gender-affirming care. He said in the U.S. minors are being hurried into treatments that might be unnecessary, and they don't get the 'full scope' of what might alleviate their gender dysphoria, the condition of feeling like one's gender is out of alignment with one's sex at birth. But Marks said under the law, even minors who had gone through an extensive evaluation and continued to experience gender dysphoria would not be able to receive gender-affirming care. 'Doesn't that seem problematic?' Marks said. The judge also said Montana offers a higher degree of privacy protection than other states. Additionally, Marks said he struggled with the idea that the legislature could ban a certain treatment because the possibility of a negative outcome, a conclusion he saw in the state's argument. For example: What about a concern stemming from a debunked claim that measles vaccines cause problems? Noonan argued the parallel didn't apply: 'There was one study that's been clearly debunked, and the medical consensus, at least I would say globally, is that vaccines are fine. We don't have the same facts here.' Marks, though, said he wrestled with the idea the state had a legitimate position in its blanket ban on gender-affirming care when minors already can give consent to treatments that can result in other serious harms or even death, such as surgery to remove a brain tumor. 'Under Montana law, this is literally the only treatment that a child cannot give informed consent to,' Marks said. ' … Why do you think that's a defensible position?' Noonan said adolescents don't always choose wisely, it's not a lifelong ban, and the decisions are heavy and consequential, such as infertility. 'Can they even weigh what that means in the future, and will that matter to them?' Noonan said. Rate said the state offered claims about gender-affirming care from 'experts who don't treat gender dysphoria' and witnesses who don't have any connection to Montana. He said it had to look to Europe for its arguments, although no country offers a ban as 'draconian' as Montana's, and the two that the state identified are in the United Kingdom, which he said allows hormones at 16. He said the 'true justification for Senate Bill 99' is 'animus, plain and simple.' Rate, for the ACLU of Montana, said the case is actually simple and straightforward. Rate said the cases that offer the legal framework are abortion cases in Montana, which have been decided on summary judgment without trial 'almost without exception.' The plaintiffs are Phoebe Cross, a transgender minor, and parents Molly and Paul Cross; a couple of medical providers Juanita Hodax and Katherine Mistretta, on behalf of themselves and their patients; and a John Doe and Jane Doe. Their legal team also includes ACLU's National LGBT & HIV Project, Lambda Legal, and Perkins Coie. As for the legal framework, Rate said the right to privacy for abortion is parallel in this case for gender-affirming care, and privacy is protected in the Montana Constitution. 'Health care decisions should be made between an individual and their health care providers, not by the legislature, not by the executive, not by the courts,' Rate said. He said the state had argued that abortion comes with great risk of complications, and the state had a right to protect its citizens. But Rate said in Weems et al. vs. State of Montana and other cases, the court found the state could not show the laws were narrowly tailored to address the concern. He also pointed to rulings in Planned Parenthood vs. the state of Montana and Armstrong vs. the State of Montana. Additionally, he said, the state's argument about a high health risk didn't hold up when compared to abortion. In another parallel case, he said the court found a medical protocol — endorsed by major medical organizations — was prohibited for abortion care, but the identical protocol was allowed for miscarriages. But in that case, the court found there can't be 'a bona fide health risk' if the protocols are the same, he said. Rather, Rate said, 'the state made a values judgment that it doesn't like abortion.' In fact, he said, in another case about parental consent, the state argued a minor was not mature enough to decide to get an abortion, but the court struck down that law as well, finding the state's interest wasn't compelling, or narrowly tailored. The state argued some people regret gender-affirming care, and Rate said some people periodically regret abortion too, but that doesn't justify making it illegal. Even if the judge accepted the state's 'overly inflated' data point that 30% of people who experience such care regret it — 'which we vigorously dispute' — he said it would still mean 70% don't regret it, but would be banned from receiving it. Even in the Cross case, he said, the court has provided a clear roadmap to strike down SB 99 as unconstitutional. Rate also shared the results of gender-affirming care for one of the team's clients. 'Our client Phoebe Cross has flourished as a result of receiving gender affirming care,' Rate said.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Missoula judge continues pause Montana's ‘bathroom bill'
A sign outside one of the bathrooms in the Montana State Capitol. House Bill 121 would restrict access to bathrooms based strictly on biological sex. (Micah Drew/ Daily Montanan) Say a man who transitioned after being born a woman walks into a women's bathroom, as House Bill 121 would require him to do. The man has XX chromosomes but transitioned, and he outwardly presents as a man. Monday, Missoula County District Court Judge Shane Vannatta asked lawyers in a dispute about HB 121 how Missoula County, for instance, should enforce that situation. House Bill 121 requires public restrooms and changing areas exclusively for males or females, requires people to use bathrooms based on 'external genitalia present at birth,' and defines sex as strictly male and female. It says a library or prison or museum, for example, 'shall take reasonable steps' to provide individuals with privacy from members of the opposite sex. Also, it says an individual who 'encounters another individual of the opposite sex' in the restroom can file a civil lawsuit against the 'covered entity,' such as a prison, domestic violence shelter or school. In the court hearing on HB 121, Vannatta said in his hypothetical situation, a clerk who sees the transgender man walk into the bathroom might decide to sue the county. The bill allows individuals to sue for failing to 'take reasonable steps' to prohibit the other individuals from using the bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex. Then what? Thane Johnson, on behalf of the state, said it was the toughest situation he could think of related to the bill at issue in Perkins et al v. State of Montana. 'You raise a good hypothetical. I can't deny that,' Johnson said. But he also said the bill is 'a little bit bigger' than being just a 'bathroom bill.' He said the bill aims to protect women and young girls in facilities 'where they have no choice,' such as detention centers. 'I think there are other issues that are dealt with by this bill that are important, and that's my point,' Johnson said. But Alex Rate, with the ACLU of Montana, said that situation is one of the 'fatal problems' with the 'disingenuous' law, and it's one way harm starts to pile up for the clients of the ACLU and Legal Voice. The plaintiffs allege the bill is illegal and violates the rights of clients under the state constitution, including 'the rights to equal protection, privacy, to pursue life's basic necessities, and due process.' Rate said the clerk would sue Missoula County for failing to enforce HB 121, discovery would happen, and the transgender man just wanting to use the bathroom would be caught in the middle. 'That individual — who is doing nothing wrong and who is entirely removed from the dispute between the individual and the covered entity — would be dragged into a lawsuit,' Rate said. In his remarks to the court, Rate also said the enforcement was problematic in that it created a 'bounty hunter system.' 'It turns our state into a vigilante state, where ordinary citizens are incentivized to file lawsuits against state and local governments if they perceive that somebody is using the, quote, incorrect public facility,' Rate said. Rate said the harm to people who are transgender and intersex starts immediately, although Johnson countered that the law needs time to be implemented. However, the lawyers agreed to Vannatta's request for time to issue an order. The bill landed in court on the same day Gov. Greg Gianforte signed it, and Vannatta issued a temporary restraining order soon after, halting implementation of the bill, but only for a matter of days. With approval from the lawyers, however, Vannatta said Monday that he wanted to extend that expiring order through May 16 in order to give himself time to craft a new decision on the request to stop the bill through a final court decision. The ACLU had asked for an order from the bench, or an immediate and verbal ruling, but Vannatta said he wanted to issue one in writing so the parties would have a rationale they could appeal. In recent years, the Montana Legislature has approved numerous bills that affect people who are transgender, and in his arguments Monday, Rate said HB 121 is the most recent volley in a trend since 2018. 'This case challenges the latest manifestation of this state's peculiar obsession with singling out transgender and intersex Montanans for discrimination and harassment,' Rate said. Rate said the bill includes a definition of sex from an earlier bill, Senate Bill 458, which the same district court found had unconstitutionally treated cisgender individuals — whose gender aligns with their sex at birth — differently than transgender and intersex individuals. But Rate said HB 121 is 'particularly bigoted' because it bans trans people from using public restrooms, changing rooms and sleeping quarters — at domestic violence shelters — that correspond with their gender identity. 'It forces trans people to out themselves by using public facilities according to their sex assigned at birth,' Rate said. He said it prevents intersex people from using public facilities altogether. Rate said the case reminded him of the fight over a different bill, one that eliminated Election Day registration. He said the purported government interest was to prevent voter fraud, but the state's lead witness had to search historical records to find any. In the current case, he said, nearly 60% of people who are transgender report avoiding public restrooms to avoid confrontation given they are already vulnerable to violence, and his client's declaration included evidence of fear. And laws already on the books address other protections. 'We've got laws criminalizing indecent exposure,' Rate said. 'We've got laws criminalizing sexual assault and violence. 'So there's no need to adopt a law as draconian as HB 121 when individuals in public facilities are already protected.' On behalf of the state, Johnson, however, said the law was the 'Safe Space for Women and Girls Act,' a protection that resonated with his own experience. Johnson said he recalled serving as a tribal court judge and seeing the number of young girls that became victims of sexual assault, and because federal prosecutors were slow in prosecuting, he saw juvenile offenders who were young girls. 'They acted out as a result of being a victim of sexual crime,' Johnson said. He said he acknowledges people who are transgender are vulnerable, but he said they are not the only ones in that situation. He pointed to young girls, and especially those in a juvenile detention center, which the bill includes. Johnson also said the Montana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court could help if they decided whether sex discrimination includes transgender discrimination, but the question is still an open one. At the same time, Johnson said, some of the fixes are simple, such as privacy for bathrooms. He said at one campus, 'single use' simply meant creating privacy in the form of porta potties and ensuring locks on doors. Vannatta, though, imagined what might happen during a game if the University of Montana decided to turn a bathroom with multiple stalls into a single-use restroom with 40 people waiting in line. However, the judge also said the issue Johnson raised about safety in corrections facilities resonated with him. Vannatta said he had talked to many judges who are 'perplexed' when it comes time to sentence people to jail or prison who are trans or in the midst of a transition in ways that keep them safe and keep the broader population safe. The judge also asked Johnson questions about a couple of situations the lawyer raised, including a Helena girl scared by a man who followed her into a bathroom. 'Was that a trans man or transgender individual?' the judge said. Johnson said he didn't have any indication the person was transgender, but he said the person assaulted the girl. Vannatta also asked if Johnson had evidence that trans individuals have committed sexual assault in bathrooms or changing areas, the areas the bill is intended to protect. Johnson said not in Montana, but outside the state. In response to the judge's request for statistics, Johnson said he believed a person in North Carolina was sexually assaulted in a school bathroom by a person who had claimed to be transgender. However, he said he believes 'there are probably statistics developing,' and if the case proceeds, the state would compile them as best it could. In general, Johnson said it was too early to see how the law was working, and he urged the court to take a step back and allow it to take effect. 'My bottom line, your honor, is this case cries for some factual development. Let's see how it plays out,' Johnson said.
CBC
28-03-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Indigenous 2SLGBTQ+ advocates brace for changes under Trump
Social Sharing Indigenous people who advocate for 2SLGBTQ+ communities are questioning how their rights may change under the Trump administration in the U.S. In January, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an order that the United States will recognize only two sexes, male and female, that are unchangeable. Alex Wilson from Opaskwayak Cree Nation in Manitoba, an activist for queer, transgender, and two-spirit rights, said she sees growing anti-transgender sentiments brewing south of the border. "It's a cycle that happens when there's policy that allows for the continuation of violence or that kind of condones it, then we see people picking it up and acting out those behaviours," Wilson said. "They're not acknowledging that there is a gender diversity or even sexual diversity. And we're seeing that trickle over here, too." Wilson sees these policies as a danger to Indigenous sovereignty. "It negates the reality that we have had many genders, not just two, three, but many understandings of gender and many sexualities in our nations since the beginning. And it's even part of some of our creation stories." Montana bill ruled unconstitutional David Herrera, co-founder and executive director of the Montana Two Spirit Society, is of Mestizo and adopted Blackfeet background and an advocate and educator for 2SLGBTQ+ communities. In 2023, the Montana Two Spirit Society along with members of the transgender, intersex community filed a lawsuit in Missoula County District Court challenging Montana Senate Bill 458, which would define "male" and "female" as binary based on the presence of XY or XX chromosomes. They argued it would infringe on the rights of members of the 2SLGBTQ+ community, as well as the cultural and spiritual importance of two-spirit people. Last month, the plaintiffs won and the bill was declared unconstitutional. "It's definitely part of the colonization that has occurred and the attempt to erase the two-spirit culture," said Herrera. He said policies like these are nothing new and have played a culturally detrimental part in colonial history that has tried to erase Indigenous 2SLGBTQ+ identities. "We are not going to go away. We are going to continue," said Herrera. Charlie Amáyá Scott grew up in the Navajo Nation and now works as an educator focusing on what it means to be queer, trans, and Indigenous. "I think what I'm seeing within my community is that there is a lot of fear of what this really means in the long run," Scott said. "There's a lot of fear of the violence that could occur, whether it's being detained at the borders, whether it's being questioned about who you really are or whether it's you're being arrested, which all of that specifically would lead to incarceration." Her focus is ensuring that people and their stories are protected. "If I'm being quite frank, my concern is about myself right now and has been about my community ensuring their survival. I have been really focused on ensuring that my trans siblings and my relatives, whether they're two-spirit or part of the LGBTQ community, survives," said Scott.
