Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

READ IT HERE: Response to stay request in transgender teen’s case filed at Supreme Court

Transgender Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court. Attribution: Jeff Kubina
The U.S. Supreme Court. Attribution: Jeff Kubina
The Gloucester School Board in Virginia plans to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue of bathroom use by transgender people. In GG v. Gloucester County School Board, a transgender teenager sued the school board after they created a policy specifically to block him from using the bathroom at school. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the student, and the school board wants the Supreme Court to decide the issue finally.

The appeals court had denied a request to stay the mandate, the formal judgment, pending the filing of a petition in the Supreme Court, so the school board asked the Court to issue a stay. The mandate has since gone into effect.

Today, the student’s lawyers responded to a request for a stay, writing that “[t]here is not a reasonable probability that a majority of this Court will agree with the Board’s arguments and vote to reverse the Fourth Circuit’s decision.”

The request went to Chief Justice John Roberts, in his capacity as circuit Justice for the Fourth Circuit. He called for the filing of this response, and he can decide whether to grant the stay himself or refer it to the full Court.

The filing is linked above.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. JayJonson  |  July 28, 2016 at 8:38 am

    I would be very surprised if SCOTUS wants to be involved in this case at this time. If they take up the issue at some point, it would be where there would be a full court.

  • 2. davepCA  |  July 28, 2016 at 9:13 am

    And I suspect that even then, they still wouldn't be eager to weigh in on this unless and until there is a circuit split.

  • 3. allan120102  |  July 28, 2016 at 6:55 pm

    7th circuit ruled against us even though they repeatly state it was unfair but they didnt have a choice. Gender is not the same as sexual orientation in which I do agree with them. We need congress to amend the laws or the supreme court to issue a ruling in which they issue a decision stating that sexual orientation can be cover on tittle 7 which mention gender.

  • 4. scream4ever  |  July 28, 2016 at 11:16 pm

    Which they presumably will have the chance if this gets appealed.

  • 5. allan120102  |  July 29, 2016 at 7:42 am

    After promising to legislate in favor of marriage equality Sinaloa will not discuss marriage equality this session and probably this year. Looks like another state where the supreme court will be needed to act.

  • 6. allan120102  |  July 29, 2016 at 7:43 am

    Conservative groups in Mexico award a judge who was against ssm in Zacatecas, he was the one against the marriage of the couple who get their amparo in May.

  • 7. allan120102  |  July 29, 2016 at 7:46 am

    A local deputy in Veracruz have propose a modification to the civil code to allow ssm and cohabitation for straight and gay couples. I doubt though that it will pass right now in a state that is really conservative but who knows.

  • 8. theperchybird  |  July 31, 2016 at 9:03 pm

    A PRD member from Hidalgo said she will submit a marriage bill so that means only Sonora doesn't have a pending proposal.

  • 9. chris2000X  |  July 29, 2016 at 10:14 am

    The School Board states It has stated that the school division has made "every effort" to accommodate Grimm, opening several unisex restrooms available to the entire school.

    Sarah L

  • 10. JayJonson  |  July 29, 2016 at 11:54 am

    The link you pasted seems to have nothing to do with the comment you have made.

  • 11. Sagesse  |  July 30, 2016 at 7:38 am

    She's BAAACK. From Maggie Gallagher. Not sure what I think of her argument. Would the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) really take away the tax-exempt status of the Human Rights Campaign and the Family Research Council? I should be paying closer attention.

    In principle, promising protections to supporters of same-sex marriage should be unobjectionable. [National Review]

  • 12. davepCA  |  July 30, 2016 at 8:05 am

    It's just another lie from her, same as always, and the article buys right into it. Her 'argument' is all about allowing people to have their BELIEFS without suffering any legal consequences, but the bill is actually about allowing people to ACT, based on those beliefs.

    Read the wording, It specifically refers to protecting how someone ACTS, in addition to what someone BELIEVES. It would allow Kim Davis type stunts, etc.

    People are already allowed to BELIEVE what they want. They just can't excuse their illegal or unconstitutional ACTIONS simply 'because their belief told them to do it'. And THAT absolutely MUST NOT CHANGE.

  • 13. Sagesse  |  July 30, 2016 at 8:57 am

    "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

    The purpose of all these legislative and judicial efforts is to change the definition of ACT and expand the list of ACTORS to whom religious beliefs and religious freedom applies, and to narrow the scope of 'freedom from religion'. It's scary, and it's everywhere.

  • 14. sfbob  |  July 30, 2016 at 8:08 am

    Despite some of the testimony, and while it is, on its face, a reasonable thing to think about, I very much doubt whether the list of horribles Gallagher and her friends project would actually happen under current law because they would represent point-of-view discrimination which is already illegal. Like most of what the Right proposes, FADA is a solution in search of a problem and would at best create issues where none currently exist.

  • 15. Sagesse  |  July 30, 2016 at 9:02 am

    "…point-of-view discrimination… is already illegal."

    I'm not so sure. Tell that to the female employees of Hobby Lobby and the employees and students of the University of Notre Dame whose access to reproductive health care (contraception) depends on the religious views of their employer.

  • 16. theperchybird  |  July 31, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    Sinaloa's Congress has reversed course and is now trying to squeeze the marriage bill into an extraordinary session held at the end of August or beginning of September. The new members of Congress will be sworn in October and with the Supreme Court breathing down their neck, they're really feeling the pressure. I'm keeping my fingers crossed as more politicians come out in favor, but no guarantee that it'll be enough. If it's not then the Court will invalidate the ban itself.

  • 17. theperchybird  |  July 31, 2016 at 9:13 pm

    The North Carolina trans case for immediate action (blocking the enforcement of the law) is being put before the judge that wanted to keep their strict Voter ID law…should I be worried?

  • 18. JayJonson  |  August 1, 2016 at 6:53 am

    Yes, we should be worried. But the Fourth Circuit has been pretty clear on trans issues. Their recent action on the Virginia Grimm case sent a warning that I suspect all district courts will have to follow.

  • 19. JayJonson  |  August 1, 2016 at 6:57 am

    Essay at New Civil Rights Movement by Claude Summers on Pepperdine University's request to withdraw its Title IX religious exemption to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Summers relates it to the Human Rights Campaign's call for the Department of Education to make requests for exemptions public, to a recent lawsuit against Pepperdine by lesbian basketball players, and a California bill working its way through the legislature that would subject religious colleges and universities to disclosure requirement and, in some cases, to discrimination laws.

  • 20. JayJonson  |  August 1, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    Report on today's hearing about HB2 in Winston-Salem. Judge Schroeder appeared skeptical of the need for the law.

  • 21. guitaristbl  |  August 1, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    I was just reading the relevant article on LGBTQnation :

    Schroeder did not seem like the kind of judge who would rule in favour of trans rights but Bowers's performance seemed so incredibly bad (not surprised) that it may have set Scroeder's mind on that. Especially given this exchange :

    “How on earth is that supposed to work? So we are now going to have people dressed as women using the men’s room?” he said.

    Bowers responded: “My guess is that some transgender people will use restrooms they always have and no one will notice.”

    He literally commited suicide here. He basically admitted the law in unenforcable and does not solve anything. I think its truly comical his defense was that trans people can just break the law as long as no one notices. Is this guy even a lawyer ? He makes the tennesse assistant AG who argued for question 2 in Obergefell in favour of the states seem like a mastermind..

  • 22. allan120102  |  August 1, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    Central American news.
    Good news coming from Guatemala where small paces are being achieve specially in transgender rights. Yuppi. Anti discrimination laws might be pass in protection in work, hospital and housing.
    Meanhile in CR the civil union law could be vote as soon as Wednesday. Though I am not sure if it will be pass after suffering a negative dictamen from a commision of deputies, though if pass it will be an enormous achieve for CA as a whole, as it might influence its more conservative neightbors in doing it.

  • 23. allan120102  |  August 1, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    Hate crime laws have been pass in Dominican Republic. Anyone who kill gays or lesbians will be convicted between 30 to 40 years in prison and 60 if torture was done.

  • 24. allan120102  |  August 1, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    Great news coming from all parts of America as lgbt in Bolivia are tired of waiting and have ask the senate to legalize a civil union law in Bolivia. They make sure the trans accomodations where approve and now are in sights of legalizing civil unions.

  • 25. allan120102  |  August 1, 2016 at 9:28 pm

    Belize decision now expected for August 10. I hope they are good news but I am having my doubts.

  • 26. Fortguy  |  August 1, 2016 at 11:39 pm

    How 'bout the best (or worst) exchange between a judge and a defendant in court?:

    David Lat, Above the Law: The Best Transcript Of All Time? You Be The Judge.

    Sorry, I'm speechless. I have nothing further to add to this discussion other than to say that the courtroom banter made itself into an animation presented at San Diego Comic Con.

    Joe Patrice, Above the Law: Greatest Transcript Ever Turned Into Greatest Cartoon Ever

    Nothing more to say. Seriously, I don't even know where to begin.

  • 27. JayJonson  |  August 2, 2016 at 5:45 am

    It is disturbing that the judge does not seem to have any more self-control than the obviously mentally deranged defendant.

  • 28. VIRick  |  August 2, 2016 at 10:28 am

    DC Gay Man Wins First Round in Common-Law Marriage Dispute

    On 7 July 2016, the DC Court of Appeals ruled that a DC gay man who believes he’s entitled to a share of the estate of his deceased partner can petition the District’s courts for a declaration of common-law marriage between himself and his partner, even though the partner was a resident of Rehoboth Beach DE at the time of his death.

    The appeals court ruling overturned an earlier ruling by the DC Superior Court, which granted a motion to dismiss James Spellman’s petition for a common-law marriage declaration between him and Michael Kelly, his partner of 17 years, on grounds that the Superior Court didn’t have personal jurisdiction over Kelly’s estate and relatives in Delaware.

    The ruling remands the case back to the DC Superior Court, which must now make a determination on the merits of whether a common-law marriage existed between Spellman and Kelly. Spellman’s attorney, Ugo Colella, has said his client’s relationship with Kelly meets the legal criteria for a common law marriage – the two lived together and acted as married spouses.

    At stake in Spellman’s common-law marriage petition is whether he would be entitled to some if not all of Kelly’s assets as Kelly’s legal spouse. D.C.-area attorney Michele Zavos, who specializes in LGBT family law, said spousal probate laws differ from state to state but if a person who dies has a will that predates his or her ceremonial or common-law marriage, the surviving spouse is entitled to a “spousal statutory share” of the estate.

  • 29. VIRick  |  August 2, 2016 at 8:43 pm

    Belize Supreme Court Expected to Rule in Sodomy Law Case

    During the first week of August 2016, the Belize Supreme Court is expected to announce a ruling in a case that is challenging the country’s sodomy law. The case focuses on Section 53, a statute in the Belize criminal code that criminalizes anyone convicted of “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” faces a sentence of up to 10 years imprisonment. Section 53 is an artifact of Belize’s colonial past that dates back to the 1880s.

    The Belize Supreme Court heard the case in May 2013, but is still awaiting ruling from Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin.

    Caleb Orozco is a Belizean gay activist and executive director of the United Belize Advocacy Movement or UniBAM, a public health advocacy group in Belize for the LGBT community. Orozco became an outspoken gay rights activist at the age of 31 after attending a workshop for gay men and people living with HIV/AIDS at a public conference in Belize City.

    Orozco’s lawyers argue that Section 53 violates rights guaranteed in the Belizean Constitution; including the right to human dignity, personal privacy, right to equality before the law, equal protection of the law and freedom from discrimination.

    Experts believe that if the court rules in favor of Orozco, this case could establish a precedent across Caribbean nations, and create a “domino effect” that would pressure neighboring governments to decriminalize homosexuality.

    Note: "Neighboring countries" in this context refers to the assorted English-speaking former British Caribbean islands/territories which share the same legal system with Belize, and are scattered as far eastward as Trinidad, Barbados, and Guyana, rather than to the much more proximate Hispanic countries of Central America.

  • 30. VIRick  |  August 2, 2016 at 9:15 pm

    Marriage Equality Anniversary in Uruguay

    In a tweet from IMPO ‏@impouruguay (Centro de Información Oficial), 14 hours ago:

    Un día como hoy (2 de agosto) en 2013 la Ley 19.119 modificó la ley de matrimonio igualitario (en Uruguay).

    Three years ago, on 2 August 2013, Law 19.119 modified the law to marriage equality (in Uruguay).

  • 31. Sagesse  |  August 3, 2016 at 5:30 am

    On Aug 1:

    Federal Judge Refuses To Allow Mississippi To Enforce Anti-LGBT Law During Appeal [BuzzFeed News]

  • 32. davepCA  |  August 3, 2016 at 10:58 am

    Excellent! And I'm loving that quote from Judge Reeves in the article!

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!