Federal Judge Rules UNC Can't Enforce Unjust HB2 Potty Provisions

Had more good news for transkind happen on Friday when we got an unexpected HB2 ruling in North Carolina that went our way.

US District Judge Thomas Schroeder (GW Bush appointee) issued a surprising 83 page ruling in our favor and in favor of the three trans plaintiffs that filed a lawsuit challenging Hate Bill 2's anti-trans provisions as violations of Title IX.

Judge Schroeder granted a temporary injunction against the University of North Carolina's attempt to enforce HB 2 against trans Tarheel students and a trans UNC employee that he unfortunately said only applies to the three plaintiffs in the case.

The Carcano v McCrory case goes to trial in November, and in what has to be additional bad news for the North Carolina GOP transphobes, Judge Schroeder stated he expects that the plaintiffs will succeed in proving their claim that  HB 2 is a violation of the Title IX law that bars sex discrimination in schools.

"Today is a great day for me and hopefully this is the start to chipping away at the injustice of HB 2 that is harming thousands of other transgender people who call North Carolina home," said Joaquin Carcano, the lead plaintiffs in this case in a statement released by the ACLU.

"Today, the tightness I have felt in my chest every day since HB 2 passed has eased.  But the fight is not over: we will not rest until this discriminatory law is defeated," Carcano added.  

But evil never sleeps, and the right-wing hatemongers and GOP trans oppressors who passed Hate Bill 2  are determined to continue the fight to oppress trans people as their latest brief they filed in the Carcano case suggests.

However, Judge Schroeder is still reserving judgment on the other parts of their claim that he will make a final ruling on in November.

And FYI, in the 4th Circuit, despite the unjust ruling that came out of Wichita Falls last week by another GW Bush appointee, the positive ruling made in April in the Grimm v Gloucester County case at the 4th Circuit appeals level is the controlling precedent.

I'm also cautiously optimistic after reading the opinion Judge Schroeder issued and this money quote that grabbed my attention:

Defendants argue that separating facility users by biological sex serves prophylactically to avoid the opportunity for sexual predators to prey on persons in vulnerable places. However, the individual transgender Plaintiffs have used facilities corresponding with their gender identity for over a year without posing a safety threat to anyone … Moreover, on the current record, there is no evidence that transgender individuals overall are any more likely to engage in predatory behaviors than other segments of the population. In light of this, there is little reason to believe that allowing the individual transgender Plaintiffs to use partitioned, multiple occupancy bathrooms corresponding with their gender identities, as well as UNC to seek to accommodate use of similar showers and changing facilities, will pose any threat to public safety, which will continue to be protected by the sustained validity of peeping, indecent exposure, and trespass laws. And although Defendants argue that a preliminary injunction will thwart enforcement of such safety laws by allowing non-transgender predators to exploit the opportunity to cross-dress and prey on others ...,the unrefuted evidence in the current record suggests that jurisdictions that have adopted accommodating bathroom access policies have not observed subsequent increases in crime …

We'll see if this is exactly what happens in a few months, but if it does, it's music to my ears and music to the ears of the ACLU, ACLU-NC, Lambda Legal, Equality North Carolina and the Department of Justice, who has also filed their own lawsuit seeking to strike down HB2.

Unjust Injunction Granted In Texas vs United States Trans Rights Case

The transphobic oppressors won a round in federal district court as US District Judge Reed O'Connor, a known anti-LGBT rights oppressor and GW Bush judicial appointee issued a preliminary nationwide injunction Sunday against the federal government's DOE/DOJ guidance to public schools regarding their legal responsibility to allow transgender students to use the same restrooms as other cisgender students.

Translation: the current jacked up status quo is in place until the lawsuit flied by my indicted attorney general works its way through the federal court system.  The federal government can appeal the injunction and request a stay of it if they wish to the appellate court or the SCOTUS.

All elections at every level of government matter.  Presidential elections matter because they get to select SCOTUS and federal judges.  If you're pissed off about this ruling, keep that in mind on November 8.

Lambda Legal, the ACLU of Texas, the Transgender Law Center, the GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) and National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) had submitted a joint friend of the court amicus brief in the lawsuit by Texas and 10 other Republican controlled states subsequently joined by two others against the United States, the Departments of Education, Justice and Labor and several federal officials

Those organizations issued a joint statement shortly after Judge O'Connor's unjust ruling.:

A ruling by a single judge in one circuit cannot and does not undo the years of clear legal precedent nationwide establishing that transgender students have the right to go to school without being singled out for discrimination. This unfortunate and premature ruling may, however, confuse school districts that are simply trying to support their students, including their transgender students.

 So let us make it clear to those districts: your obligations under the law have not changed, and you are still not only allowed but required to treat transgender students fairly.

The scope of this injunction has no effect on the ability of other courts or lawyers representing transgender people to continue to rely on the federal government’s interpretations of Title IX or on prior decisions that have reached similar conclusions about the scope of federal sex discrimination laws. 

The court’s misguided decision targets a small, vulnerable group of young people – transgender elementary and high school students – for potential continued harassment, stigma and abuse.

Those five civil rights organizations pointed out that Judge O'Connor failed to consider the interests of the transgender students the federal laws sought to protect,  and pledged "We will continue to file lawsuits representing transgender students and litigate them to the fullest extent of the law-regardless of what happens with this particular federal guidance."

Chuck Smith, the CEO of Equality Texas also expressed his organization's disappointed over the unjust ruling.

We are disappointed by the ruling, but despite this setback, we are hopeful and know that the civil rights of all students will ultimately prevail. 

Transgender Texans, and in particular transgender kids, must be afforded the most basic dignity to use the restroom. Paxton’s actions seek to punish and harm transgender students who have done nothing wrong. 

We will continue to fight with the parents of these children until “ALL” children do not face discrimination and are treated equally under the law.
An injunction doesn't change what existing law is. It would only apply to the DOJ's issuance of its interpretation. So schools still need to comply with the law. Title IX and VII still prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex.

This decision does nothing to prevent school districts to work with parents on an individual basis to ensure they are protected in school and do not face bullying, alienation or discrimination.

In the ruling, Judge O’Conner said, “the difficult policy issue is not a subject of his order.” We believe this civil rights issue will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The band of trans oppressor states joining together to gleefully oppress trans students in addition to my home state of Texas, includes Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky (through its GOP Gov. Matt Bevin) Louisiana, Mississippi, (through its GOP Gov. Phil Bryant ), Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.   Other plaintiffs seeking to oppress trans students are the  Arizona Department of Education, the Heber-Overgaard Unified School District in Arizona, Harrold ISD in Texas and Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R)

The good news is that many of these plaintiffs are in the Fourth, Sixth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits which have already issued binding appellate rulings that are consistent with the guidance of the federal agencies.

This is just the opening rounds of this court battle.  I'm positive there is going to be a day coming soon that I will have good news to report when it comes to this Texas v United States case and common sense and justice will prevail.

Meagan Taylor's Iowa Discrimination Case Settled

You TransGriot readers may recall last July when girl like us Meagan Taylor and a trans friend's stay at a West Des Moines, Iowa Drury Inn on their way to Kansas City for a funeral turned ugly after a transphobic hotel employee called the police with a false claim of prostitution on the premises..

It resulted in Taylor spending 8 days in the Polk County, Iowa jail, missing the funeral, and becoming a real time example of why public accommodations language is critical in any non discrimination ordinance that aims to cover trans people.

Taylor and the ACLU-Iowa sued in November, and I'm pleased to report that with the help of the ACLU, Taylor's case was settled to the mutual satisfaction of the hotel and herself.

"What happened to Meagan was simply unacceptable and un-Iowan," said Rita Bettis, the legal director of the ACLU-Iowa. "Iowans have long valued the importance of treating every person fairly, and Iowa law has expressly protected against this sort of harmful discrimination by businesses against their transgender customers since 2007."

Thank you Meagan for standing up for your human rights, and glad the case was successfully resolved to your satisfaction.

911 Call Proves Taylor Was Arrested For Existing While Trans

I've made the point more than a few times that mismatched ID's and statutory and procedural roadblocks that prevent trans folks from getting identification that matches their present day lives can lead (and far too often does) to anti-trans discrimination.

It appears based on the transcript from the 911 call in the Meagan Taylor case, that is exactly what happened.

Meagan Taylor with the help of the ACLU, has filed a civil rights complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission over an incident in which she and her trans feminine friend Shyann were both transphobically disrespected and falsely profiled back in July after checking in at a Drury Inn in West Des Moines, IA enroute to driving to a funeral in Kansas City.  The manager called the police and it resulted in Taylor spending 8 days in jail  

The 911 call emphatically backs up Taylor's story.

911 Dispatcher: Communications, this is Holly.
Hotel manager: Yeah, hi, Holly, this is Kim, the general manager over at Drury Inn & Suites. And I have somebody that is a little unusual that is checking into the hotel, and I didn’t know if there was any way to possibly run their name or information through the database. They’re dressed as a woman, but it’s a man’s driver’s license.
Dispatcher: Okay, I can send an officer, but I can’t do it over the phone. What’s your address there?
Hotel manager: It’s 5505 Mills Civic Parkway. I’d want it to be discreet though.
Dispatcher: Okay, well, um, I can’t do it on the phone, that’s the only thing. It’s against the law. So I can have someone come over. Where — are they in the lobby there, or?
Hotel manager: They went up to the room and stuff. So I guess if they just kind of discreetly park in the parking lot, instead of, you know, right out front, that would be great.
Dispatcher: Well, I’ll leave that up to them. But, what’s your number phone number, Kim?
Hotel manager: It’s (515) 457-9500.
Dispatcher: Okay, so that’s a female, with a male’s driver’s license.
Hotel manager: There’s two males, but they’re dressed as females. And they have Illinois driver’s license.
Dispatcher: And are they — what are their driver’s licenses? Male or female?
Hotel manager: Male. And I took pictures with my camera, so.
Dispatcher: Okay, so just because they’re dressed as — is it because they’re dressed as females, is that why you’re concerned?
Hotel manager: Um, It’s just, you know, it’s, I guess so. They’re dressed a little bit over the top, too. I just want to make sure they’re not hookers either.
Dispatcher: Okay, gotcha. Okay, ma’am, we’ll have them swing over there.
Hotel manager: Perfect. Thank you.
Dispatcher: Bye bye.
Hotel manager: Bye bye.

Here's hoping that justice is served in Meagan's case.