Posted on 04/20/2016 7:35:57 AM PDT by Morgana
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A Virginia high school discriminated against a transgender teen by forbidding him from using the boys' restroom, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in a case that could have implications for a North Carolina law that critics say discriminates against LGBT people.
The case of Gavin Grimm has been especially closely watched since North Carolina enacted a law last month that bans transgender people from using public restrooms that correspond to their gender identity. That law also bans cities from passing anti-discrimination ordinances, a response to an ordinance recently passed in Charlotte.
In the Virginia case, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — which also covers North Carolina — ruled 2-1 to overturn the Gloucester County School Board's policy. The court said the policy violated Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination in schools. The ruling also said a federal judge who previously rejected Grimm's discrimination claim ignored a U.S. Department of Education rule that transgender students in public schools must be allowed to use restrooms that correspond with their gender identity.
"We agree that it has indeed been commonplace and widely accepted to separate public restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities on the basis of sex," the court wrote in its opinion. "It is not apparent to us, however, that the truth of these propositions undermines the conclusion we reach regarding the level of deference due to the department's interpretation of its own regulations."
(Excerpt) Read more at tristateupdate.com ...
arth ping moralabsolutes ping
The State should tell the “Inferior” court to GO POUND SAND,
A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
Bathrooms for freaks over education.
How far we have sunk.
I agree.
At some point in five years....some kid will challenge the laws over ages and claim he should be able to get a license at 12 years old, and claim discrimination. A year later, after he wins...he’ll challenge drinking laws that anyone of 13 years old....should be able to drink as well.
There’s no limit to this business.
I think a whole lot of judges need impeachin’.
The 4th was once very conservative. Then Bush started tilting it toward the left.
“The State should tell the “Inferior” court to GO POUND SAND,”
Fat chance. We have a Yankee governor.
This crap confuses the heck out of me... is Gavin Grimm really a “her” but the dipstick “reporter” is referring to her as a “him”?
Under liberalism, society must now go along with all mentally ill fantasies. I’m Napoleon - where’s my throne?
What is the point of governments when courts really control all
275 more days of Caligula.
You have it right. As I read it, the court based its ruling on a Department of Education rule governing the confused and mentally ill’s use of school bathrooms. Therefore a DOE rule interpretation trumps state law.
Remember that this election and remind all the idiots in your own family tree.
While terrorists want to kill us, Democrats are arguing over which bathrooms you can pee in.
As for the poor unfortunate confused people who don’t know what sex they are, give them a medical pass to use a single person toilet open only to the mentally ill.
FRC PRAISES CRUZ DE-REG PLANS TAKING GOVERNMENT OUT OF RELIGION
America’s Christian bakers and florists and wedding planners will be safe under a Ted Cruz presidency. “I am absolutely convinced in my discussions with the senator that religious liberty will be a lot better off in America with a Cruz administration,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and Chair of Cruz’s Religious Liberty Advisory Council emphsized when endorsing Cruz.These are the policies that he is going to pursue,” Perkins announced. “He is absolutely committed to the issue of religious liberty
The council was calling on Cruz to direct a review of the IRS’ treatment of religious organizations and to direct federal agencies to respect the free exercise of religion. Cruz said he will Defend and protect small business owners facing assault for refusing to violate their religious beliefs.
“ Rescind Executive Order 13672 – an order that requires certain federal contractors to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; - Direct all federal agencies to stop interpreting “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and/or “gender identity.” - Direct the Department of Health and Human Services to eliminate its requirement that all employers include coverage for all FDA-approved contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures;.
“As president, I have pledged on my first day in office to rescind every single one of President Obama’s unconstitutional executive actions, and to direct every federal agency to respect and protect the religious liberty of every American ,” This was the Cruz response to the claim of running for pastor ridicule made by the Trump campaign which does not seem to realize there is a war declared on religious values by the Godless democrats
Simple solution... just eliminate all segregation based on gender. Let your teen age daughter share locker facilities with the football team, college dorm roommate assignments should be made without any regard to gender and all public restrooms should be shared by everybody. Of course we would have to maintain separate facilities for Muslims least they be offended by the sight of a female
Title IX does NOT forbid requiring people to use their birth sex in determining which bathroom to use. There apparently is an Dept of Ed regulation that does so. That regulation expands the law in an unconstitutional fashion and should be ignored.
Reason #9,876 for Home Schooling
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.