this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
301 points (96.0% liked)

News

22890 readers
3739 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday passed up a chance to intervene in the debate over bathrooms for transgender students, rejecting an appeal from an Indiana public school district.

Federal appeals courts are divided over whether school policies enforcing restrictions on which bathrooms transgender students can use violate federal law or the Constitution.

In the case the court rejected without comment, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an order granting transgender boys access to the boys’ bathroom. The appeal came from the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) southwest of Indianapolis.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 months ago (2 children)

If the lower courts are divided, isn't it the job of the Supreme Court to make it clear?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 months ago (2 children)

They kinda have made it clear though. By rejecting the appeal, they're saying that the 7th Circuit Court's decision stands.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Except the ~~Fourth~~ Eleventh Circuit went the other direction with an almost identical Florida school policy, so the question of "Is it ok under the US Constitution for schools to force transgender students to use a particular bathroom?" has a different answer depending on where you live, which is the exact kind of thing the Supreme Court is supposed to deal with.

e; Whoops, had the wrong court and wrong case. That's been updated now, but for the record here's the older case I had been linking to

https://www.courthousenews.com/11th-circuit-rules-florida-schools-transgender-bathroom-policy-unconstitutional/

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yeah, well, SCOTUS hasn't ever been real good at upholding the spirit of the 14th Amendment. I can reel off a long long list of things that SHOULD be the same no matter where you live but somehow aren't.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This article you linked - it gives good reasons why a circuit split is not a problem here. I support trans rights - as I assume you do - but don't think your point is as well-made as you thought.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Ah, that was the wrong article looking at an older court case, here's the correct and more recent one,

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/31/appeals-court-upholds-florida-high-schools-transgender-bathroom-ban-00075985

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Isn't the Florida case in alignment with the Chicago one? The courts ruled for the transgender kid in both.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Except that they aren't overriding the other courts, so really they are saying that it's up to every circuit to set their own standard.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They're basically saying it's grey when trying to apply the constitution to the issue, giving regions their own jurisdiction. It's how it's supposed to work, like it or not.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

But circuit judges are appointed federally, by the president. They're not voted on regionally, so they do not represent the will of the region they preside over.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Typically, yes. Now, not so much.

They're saving all their energy for the upcoming craziness if/when Trump is elected President while in prison.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"Legal precedent would make it almost impossible for us to avoid standing up for a transgender person if we took this case and we couldn't possibly have that."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

I thought they’ve made it clear that they don’t believe in precedent