Federal Court Sides with Obama, Forces VA School to Let Transgender Student Choose Bathroom

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

The Associated Press

by WARNER TODD HUSTON20 Apr 2016Gloucester, VA481

This week a federal court sided with a transgender student who insisted that the Obama administration’s reading of federal Title IX rules would allow her to choose her own bathroom at her Virginia high school.

Gavin Grimm, 16, a student at Gloucester High School in Gloucester, Virginia, demanded the district allow her to use the boys restroom because she identifies as a male. School officials, though, denied the request in December.

After a period of public discussion, Gloucester school district officials decided in a 6-to-1 vote that school bathrooms should be used only by those students whose sex corresponds to the gender the facility is designated to serve.

But the student took the case to a federal court, citing federal Title IX sex discrimination rules. Grimm maintained that the federal government can force schools to allow transgender students to choose whatever bathroom they feel like using.

After hearing the case, in a 2-to-1 ruling the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the student, saying a lower court should have agreed with the student’s interpretation of the federal discrimination rules.

In a public statement the student said she felt “vindicated” by the newest ruling.

“Today’s decision gives me hope that my fight will help other kids avoid discriminatory treatment at school,” the student said.

In the same statement, the Virginia ACLU said the decision “reinforces” the Obama Department of Education’s interpretation of the policy.

“With this decision,” the VA ACLU said, “we hope that schools and legislators will finally get the message that excluding transgender kids from the restrooms is unlawful sex discrimination.”

The National Center for Transgender Equality also celebrated the ruling, saying the decision is “a very important decision that promotes fairness and dignity for all students.”

The Appeals Court ruling means that the original lower court will have to revisit its ruling to correspond to the upper court’s decision.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter@warnerthuston or email the author at igcolonel@hotmail.com

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Education, Social Justice,Education, ACLU, title ix, transgender bathroom bill, My Transgender Kids

Federal Court Bans Cross from Los Angeles Seal

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Wikipedia

by JOEL B. POLLAK8 Apr 2016686

A federal court ruled Thursday that the Los Angeles County supervisors violated the Constitution in 2014 when they voted to restore a small cross to the county seal. The cross appeared on a depiction of a historic mission building.

The plaintiffs, who included a coalition of liberal religious leaders, sued the county on the grounds that the cross violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court, agreed, and added that the seal violated the No Aid Clause of the California constitution, which prevents the government from conferring a “sectarian” benefit.

Judge Christina A. Snyder, a Bill Clinton appointee, presided.

 

The 2014 seal replaced one approved in 2004, which had dropped a cross from the seal after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) objected. After a contentious debate, the cross was added, as a supposedly historic symbol.

The U.S. District Court for the Western Division of the Central District of California granted a permanent injunction against the seal. The key was not just the presence of a cross on the seal — which might have been tolerable if it had been continued from an earlier use — but the fact that the Board specifically decided to add the cross. Though there was a secular reason for adding the cross, i.e. to show history, that did not blunt its sectarian meaning, the court said.

Judge Snyder rejected an argument by the plaintiffs that the Board had violated the No Preference Clause of the state constitution, but found that it did violate the federal Establishment Clause, noting that a “reasonable, objective observer” would see a sectarian purpose in the addition of the cross to the seal, regardless of the official explanation.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the Board of Supervisors was divided in its reaction to the ruling, with retired Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky hailing the decision.

 

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Breitbart California, Faith,Religious freedom, ACLU, Establishment Clause, Board of Supervisors, Cross, los angeles seal