Theoretically this ruling applies to both government entities providing healthcare (like the sheriff's office) and to private entities offering healthcare to employees.
If the private employer aspect is upheld (which it should be), that's a game changer for so many people.
Yeah but then its going to go the Hobby Lobby route I would suspect. It was a mistake for the courts to open up the idea that religious orgs could violate any law that they disagree with.
True, that thought did cross my mind. And the recent ruling in favor of the Catholic school in NC (I think) that fired a gay teacher only exacerbates the Hobby Lobby issue.
Still, the majority of organizations are not overtly religious. So this still opens the door to private insurance covering trans healthcare more broadly and an avenue for people to pressure companies to include coverage.
It’s interesting that there are any law firms that would take up such cases too. Any of them even consider how defending a discriminatory position would affect their reputation? If they had any sort of decency it would be a easy decision to decline representing bigotry.
While this is good news, people need to understand that all of the positive rules/rulings that flow from Biden-era guidance are almost certain to be reversed, savagely and quickly, by a future Trump administration if it happens. A GOP congress would make that even easier and quicker for them. Athletics bans will seem almost quaint in such an era. Medical care, passports, civil rights, and more will all be on the chopping block. And unfortunately, the polls right now are rather grim - though admittedly in six months things could change. Given the dismal polls, I personally don’t think it’s too early to think about contingency planning (i.e. asylum/emigration/safe havens) for 2025 and later, especially when it is unknown if/how blue states would somehow continue to protect. However, I’m sure many disagree with me and feel more optimistic.
I'm planning on being out of the country before they take office if not before the election. What happens when the theocratic fascist president invalidates my passport and no longer considers me who I am while I'm out of the country and I need to cross a border or otherwise pass an ID validity check that actually electronically contacts the USA Department of State?
I just got legal advice about what happens when the Christofascists revoke my passport after I've fled the country in the absence of a second passport. While he put a great deal of spin on it to say that he didn't believe it would happen etc., the basic message was that it's all completely up to which way the political winds are blowing in whatever country I'm in when it happens. They could deport me, extradite me, grant asylum, leave me in stateless limbo, anything.
Did not expect a decision like this from the 11th circuit. This is the same court that allowed the Alabama Trans Minor medical ban to go into effect as the trial continues. Hopefully this is a good sign that the Trans Minor medical ban will be struck down.
If they specifically sited Biden’s Title VII guidance and we know that Trump plans to reverse those on day one, does this mean that victory is potentially very short lived if Trump gets reelected?
Not necessarily as they also site Bostock, a SCOTUS ruling.
Bostock is arguably the foundational ruling that if upheld in future SCOTUS rulings around sex protections = gender protections for legal reasoning, then these rulings would be upheld by SCOTUS. It would require a complete dismantling of Title VII and Title IX for the cases that revolve around those protections to reverse SCOTUS' interpretation.
Its like the Red Sea parting for the Hebrews, the courts are providing the way forward through the bigotry of agencies denying appropriate care for all categories of people protected by the US Constitution. Those agencies could save millions in court costs by acknowledging it as the law for ALL its citizens.
You're doing such amazing work on behalf of us sweetie! Thank you so much and thank your lovely fiancée Zooey as well for all her work on our behalf in Montana. Y'all are an amazing power couple! I hope you are also finding enough respite and play to counterbalance all the hard work.
Theoretically this ruling applies to both government entities providing healthcare (like the sheriff's office) and to private entities offering healthcare to employees.
If the private employer aspect is upheld (which it should be), that's a game changer for so many people.
Yeah but then its going to go the Hobby Lobby route I would suspect. It was a mistake for the courts to open up the idea that religious orgs could violate any law that they disagree with.
True, that thought did cross my mind. And the recent ruling in favor of the Catholic school in NC (I think) that fired a gay teacher only exacerbates the Hobby Lobby issue.
Still, the majority of organizations are not overtly religious. So this still opens the door to private insurance covering trans healthcare more broadly and an avenue for people to pressure companies to include coverage.
As usual Erin you have done a great job of explaining all the legal angles.
Transphobes really like funding the legal system. They want lawyers to get rich using our tax dollars.
It’s interesting that there are any law firms that would take up such cases too. Any of them even consider how defending a discriminatory position would affect their reputation? If they had any sort of decency it would be a easy decision to decline representing bigotry.
While this is good news, people need to understand that all of the positive rules/rulings that flow from Biden-era guidance are almost certain to be reversed, savagely and quickly, by a future Trump administration if it happens. A GOP congress would make that even easier and quicker for them. Athletics bans will seem almost quaint in such an era. Medical care, passports, civil rights, and more will all be on the chopping block. And unfortunately, the polls right now are rather grim - though admittedly in six months things could change. Given the dismal polls, I personally don’t think it’s too early to think about contingency planning (i.e. asylum/emigration/safe havens) for 2025 and later, especially when it is unknown if/how blue states would somehow continue to protect. However, I’m sure many disagree with me and feel more optimistic.
No, no, I'm a realist. What you said is all possible if this country lets that lunatic back in the White House.
I’m pretty sure I’m not more optimistic.
I'm planning on being out of the country before they take office if not before the election. What happens when the theocratic fascist president invalidates my passport and no longer considers me who I am while I'm out of the country and I need to cross a border or otherwise pass an ID validity check that actually electronically contacts the USA Department of State?
I just got legal advice about what happens when the Christofascists revoke my passport after I've fled the country in the absence of a second passport. While he put a great deal of spin on it to say that he didn't believe it would happen etc., the basic message was that it's all completely up to which way the political winds are blowing in whatever country I'm in when it happens. They could deport me, extradite me, grant asylum, leave me in stateless limbo, anything.
Interesting, if it persuades at the "higher level".
Did not expect a decision like this from the 11th circuit. This is the same court that allowed the Alabama Trans Minor medical ban to go into effect as the trial continues. Hopefully this is a good sign that the Trans Minor medical ban will be struck down.
Always grateful for your reporting. Extra grateful because my mother and a number of my other friends are Houston County, Georgia, voters.
If they specifically sited Biden’s Title VII guidance and we know that Trump plans to reverse those on day one, does this mean that victory is potentially very short lived if Trump gets reelected?
Not necessarily as they also site Bostock, a SCOTUS ruling.
Bostock is arguably the foundational ruling that if upheld in future SCOTUS rulings around sex protections = gender protections for legal reasoning, then these rulings would be upheld by SCOTUS. It would require a complete dismantling of Title VII and Title IX for the cases that revolve around those protections to reverse SCOTUS' interpretation.
OUR SCOTUS? Okay, I have no faith in them.
Majority (Obama, Clinton)
Dissent 1 (Trump)
This will likely go en banc and unfortunately the GOP judges are in the majority.
Above my legal jargon knowledge
The Right owns the courts. There's no way this ruling is going to stand for long. 😭
Its like the Red Sea parting for the Hebrews, the courts are providing the way forward through the bigotry of agencies denying appropriate care for all categories of people protected by the US Constitution. Those agencies could save millions in court costs by acknowledging it as the law for ALL its citizens.
You're doing such amazing work on behalf of us sweetie! Thank you so much and thank your lovely fiancée Zooey as well for all her work on our behalf in Montana. Y'all are an amazing power couple! I hope you are also finding enough respite and play to counterbalance all the hard work.
Now, THAT'S interesting.