Sunday, March 5, 2017

196 Members Of Congress Sign Brief Supporting Trans Teen Gavin Grimm’s Supreme Court Case

His Virginia school board, meanwhile, has requested a postponement.
From: NewNowNext
Nearly 200 members of Congress signed an amicus brief in support of Gavin Grimm, the trans teen coming before the Supreme Court to fight for his right to use facilities that align with his gender identity.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, the first openly gay senator in U.S. history, was a lead on the brief, along with Sen. Al Franken and out Representative Jared Polis. In all, 196 Democrats signed the letter, which affirms that Title IX of the 1972 Education Act’s “prohibition of discrimination ’on the basis of sex’ encompasses discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex stereotypes. It therefore does not allow a school to limit bathroom access based solely on birth-assigned sex or according to sex stereotypes.”



At the same time, dozens of top companies have also signed a brief supporting Grimm’s case: Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Airbnb, eBay, PayPal, Tumblr, Williams-Sonoma and 45 other corporations all agreed that “transgender individuals deserve the same treatment and protections” as everyone else.

Grimm is scheduled to go before the Supreme Court on March 28, but the Gloucester County School Board is requesting a delay. The board filed a petition on Wednesday for a postponement, citing the Trump administration’s decision to rescind Obama-era guidance on the interpretation of Title IX as it relates to trans students.

Joshua Block of the ACLU, which is representing Grimm, insists a delay would cause “further harm, confusion, and protracted litigation for transgender students and school districts across the country.” He added that the White House’s decision to roll back protections makes the case “more urgent than ever.”

Some believe the school board is simply delaying until Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s pick for the seat vacated by Antonin Scalia, is confirmed as a justice—thus tipping a verdict in its favor. A 4-4 verdict would leave intact a lower court’s ruling that was in Grimm’s favor, but it would not set a nationwide precedent.

No comments:

Post a Comment