Teacher's Refusal to Use Student's Preferred Pronouns Justified Her Being Fired

 In Ramirez v. Oakland Unified School District, (ND CA, May 27, 2025), a California federal district court dismissed claims by a former kindergarten teacher that her free speech and free exercise rights were violated by her termination for refusing to refer to a student using male pronouns when the student appeared to be biologically female. Both school officials and the student's parents requested that male pronouns be used. Plaintiff contended that her Catholic faith does not allow her to refer to a person using pronouns that differ from the person’s “divinely-intended gender.” The court held that the school district itself was protected by sovereign immunity and that the individual plaintiffs have qualified immunity as to any action for damages. The court went on to hold that plaintiff also failed to adequately allege either a speech or religious exercise claim, saying in part:

The complaint fails to state a claim because the alleged speech was not protected. Ms. Ramirez agreed to serve as an elementary school teacher at a public school. To do the job, a teacher must address and interact with their students. As other courts have observed, while addressing students is not part of the curriculum itself, “it is difficult to imagine how a teacher could perform [their] teaching duties on any subject without a method by which to address individual students.”,,, 

The plaintiff’s main argument in opposition — that the above analysis does not apply because this case concerns compelled speech — fails both legally and factually. While the Supreme Court has suggested that compelled speech outside of an employee’s official duties warrants heightened protection, the government may insist that the employee deliver any lawful message when the speech is part of the employee’s official duties....

Here, the plaintiff does not contest that the district’s anti-discrimination policy is facially neutral. Instead, she contends that school officials were impermissibly hostile towards her religious beliefs when enforcing the policy. The argument fails because, even accepted as true, the well-pleaded facts do not plausibly allege hostility. 

Sports Apparel Company Challenges Colorado's Public Accommodation Law Protection of Transgender Athletes

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court by an online athletic apparel company, "XX-YY Athletics," that promotes banning of transgender women from women's sports through logos on its apparel and through advertisements.  The company claims that Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act violates the 1st and 14th Amendments when its public accommodation provisions declare that Coloradans have a right to access advertising that is free from discrimination on the basis of gender expression and chosen name. The complaint (full text) in Committee of Five, Inc. v. Sullivan, (D CO, filed 5/27/2025), alleges in part:

191. The most common way that XX-XY Athletics demonstrates why male competition in women’s sports is unfair or unsafe is by reference to specific transgender-identifying male athletes....

206. Although CADA prohibits XX-XY Athletics from speaking consistently with its view that sex is immutable, the law allows other businesses that also qualify as public accommodations to speak according to their view that sex can be changed.  

207. This distinction in treatment is based on a particular view that the business holds about human sexuality and gender identity....

222. The First Amendment’s Free Speech, Press, and Assembly Clauses protect XX-XY Athletics’ ability to speak, create, publish, sell, and distribute speech; to associate with others and with their messages for expressive purposes; to adopt and act on certain speech-related policies; to decline to associate with others and their message for expressive purposes; to decline to create, publish, sell, and distribute speech; to be free from content-based and viewpoint-based discrimination; and to be free from overbroad and vague restrictions on speech that give enforcement officials unbridled discretion....

225. As applied to XX-XY Athletics, CADA impermissibly discriminates against the company’s speech based on content and viewpoint by prohibiting it from referring to individuals by their given name and with pronouns and terminology consistent with their biological sex.  

226.  As applied to XX-XY Athletics, CADA impermissibly inhibits the company’s ability to form expressive associations it desires to form and to avoid expressive associations it desires to avoid by requiring the company to refer to individuals by their preferred name, pronouns, and other terminology and prohibiting the company from referring to individuals by their given name and with pronouns and terminology consistent with their biological sex....

The complaint also alleges that the Colorado law is void for vagueness and violates the Equal Protection clause. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In School's Ban on Anti-Transgender T-Shirt

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts, (Sup. Ct., certiorari denied May 27, 2025).  In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld middle school officials' decision that a student was in violation of school rules by wearing a T-shirt that proclaims: "There Are Only Two Genders." Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari, saying in part:

The First Circuit held that the school did not violate L. M.’s free-speech rights. It held that the general prohibition against viewpoint-based censorship does not apply to public schools. And it employed a vague, permissive, and jargon-laden rule that departed from the standard this Court adopted in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503 (1969). 

The First Circuit’s decision calls out for our review....

I would grant the petition for two reasons. First, we should reaffirm the bedrock principle that a school may not engage in viewpoint discrimination when it regulates student speech. Tinker itself made that clear.... Curiously, however, the First Circuit declined to follow Tinker in this regard, instead cherry-picking which First Amendment principles it thought worthy of allowing through the schoolhouse gates.  By limiting the application of our viewpoint-discrimination cases, the decision below robs a great many students of that core First Amendment protection.

Second, we should also grant review to determine whether the First Circuit properly understood the rule adopted in Tinker regarding the suppression of student speech on the ground that it presents a risk of material disruption.

Justice Thomas also filed a separate brief dissenting opinion.  NBC News reports on the Court's action.

Supreme Court Gives Emergency Relief to State Legislator Who Was Disenfranchised After Anti-Transgender Social Media Post

In Libby v. Fecteau, (Sup. Ct., May 20, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 7-2 granted an injunction pending appeal to a member of the Maine House of Representatives.  Petitioner's Emergency Application for an Injunction describes the issue before the Court:

Maine State Representative Laurel Libby spoke out on social media about an intensely debated issue—the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ high school sports. Maine requires girls to compete alongside transgender athletes; Libby criticized that policy after a transgender athlete won the girls’ pole vault at the state track-and-field championship. Displeased with Libby’s criticism, the Maine House voted along party lines to censure her.  

The verbal censure (unwise as it may be) is not what Applicants challenge here. It’s what happened next. The Speaker declared Libby was barred from speaking or voting until she recants her view. This means her thousands of constituents in Maine House District 90 are now without a voice or vote for every bill coming to the House floor for the rest of her elected term, which runs through 2026.....

In this application, Petitioners seek an injunction pending appeal requiring the Clerk to count Libby’s votes. That interim relief simply restores the status quo of equal representation, bringing the Maine House back into conformity with every other State and Congress. 

The Supreme Court granted the injunction in a one-paragraph order that did not give reasons for the decision. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson voted to deny the injunction. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Not very long ago, this Court treaded carefully with respect to exercising its equitable power to issue injunctive relief at the request of a party claiming an emergency.  The opinions are legion in which individual Justices, reviewing such requests in chambers, declined to intervene—reiterating that “such power should be used sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances.” ...

Those days are no more. Today’s Court barely pauses to acknowledge these important threshold limitations on the exercise of its own authority.  It opts instead to dole out error correction as it sees fit, regardless of the lack of any exigency and even when the applicants’ claims raise significant legal issues that warrant thorough evaluation by the lower courts that are dutifully considering them....

SCOTUSblog and The Washington Stand report on the decision.

Suit Challenges School District's Speech Policy

Suit was filed this week in an Oregon federal district court by a clinical social worker employed by an Oregon school district challenging the application of the district's Speech Policy to his display on a shelf in his office of three books that reject notions of transgender identity. The complaint (full text) in Theis v.  InterMountain Education Service District Board of Directors, (D OR, filed 5/21/2025), alleges in part:

He is He and She is She ... explain how every child should embrace and love herself exactly as God made her to be....

... [A]n employee at one of Mr. Theis’ schools saw the covers of the Books and complained that they were “transphobic.” IMESD labeled the display as “a hostile expression of animus toward another person relating to their actual or perceived gender identity” and ordered Mr. Theis to remove them. IMESD then warned him that “further conduct of this nature” may result in discipline, including termination of his employment....

2. Plaintiff is ... a professing Christian who bases his beliefs on the Bible and strives to live out his Christian faith at work and in the community.

3. Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs govern his views about all aspects of life, including human nature, sex, and gender....

217. Defendants’ censorship of Plaintiff’s display of the Books while permitting books and other decorations with different messages on related topics is content and viewpoint discrimination, which is unconstitutional in any type of forum....

220. Defendants’ Speech Policy and practice also impose an unconstitutional heckler’s veto because they permit the restriction of protected employee expression merely because school officials deem an employee’s expression “offensive” to others....

249. Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs motivated him to display the Books in his office. 

250. Defendants substantially burdened Plaintiff’s religious exercise when they forced Plaintiff to choose between exercising his religious beliefs and being dismissed or violating his conscience.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Colorado Law Banning Deadnaming and Misgendering Challenged as Free Speech Violation

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court challenging on free speech and vagueness grounds provisions in recently enacted Colorado HB25-1312. The lawsuit focuses on provisions that define deadnaming and misgendering as discriminatory acts under Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act. The complaint (full text) in Defending Education v. Sulivan, (D CO, filed 5/19/2025), alleges in part:

5. ... H.B. 25-1312 amends the definition of “gender expression,” a protected category under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, to include the use of a “chosen name” and other words by which an individual “chooses to be addressed.”...

30. Under H.B. 25-1312, then, someone who operates in a public accommodation commits a discriminatory act when they refer to a transgender-identifying individual using the individual’s birth name or biological pronouns instead of their chosen name or preferred pronouns ... because that speech supposedly denies the transgender individual the “full and equal enjoyment” of the place of public accommodation based on their “gender expression.” ...

86. ... Colorado’s public accommodation laws as amended by H.B. 25-1312 make it impossible for [plaintiffs} ... to effectively exercise their constitutionally protected right to speak in a manner that reflects their sincere belief that sex is immutable and fixed at birth....

122. That H.B. 25-1312 does not literally require Coloradans to speak is of no consequence. Even if Plaintiffs and their members could avoid the law’s penalties by holding their tongues, compelled silence is compelled speech..... In any event, using pronouns and names is a “‘virtual necessity’” for engaging in any conversation....

136. The Unwelcome Provision clearly prohibits speech based on content and viewpoint. It prohibits all speech that makes someone feel “unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable.” But “[g]iving offense is a viewpoint.”... It also compels speech by, for example, requiring published speech to be “[w]elcom[ing]” and “[un]objectionable.” Even assuming this provision only regulated speech based on content, Defendants have no compelling interest for prohibiting this type of speech....

The Lion reports on the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Minnesota Policies Allowing Transgender Girls to Compete on Girl's High School Teams

A Title IX suit was filed this week in a Minnesota federal district court by an advocacy organization challenging Minnesota's high school policies on participation in sports by transgender women. The complaint (full text) in Female Athletes United v. Ellison, (D MN, filed 5/19/2025), alleges in part:

120.  Minnesota allows athletes to participate in sports solely based on gender identity. There are no limitations based on testosterone level, whether male puberty has been started or completed, or other metrics know to magnify the physiological advantage males have over women, advantages raising safety concerns for female athletes....

180. Under Title IX, Defendants are required to provide competitive opportunities for females that accommodate them by “equally reflect[ing] their abilities” and offer “equal opportunity in . . . levels of competition” as compared to the competitive opportunities enjoyed by boys. 

181. Because of the measurable physical advantages that male athletes enjoy both before and after puberty, regardless of whether puberty blockers or testosterone suppression was administered, the athletic opportunities of girls are unequal when males are allowed to compete against them or compete with them for spots or playing time on their team....

187. Providing equivalent treatment and opportunities entails ensuring that both sexes have equal opportunities to participate and compete in competitive athletics, both in-season and post-season. Further, it precludes policies that are “discriminatory in language or effect” or have the effect of denying “equality of athletic opportunity.”  

188. Minnesota’s Policy has a detrimental effect on girls’ opportunities to compete safely and on a level playing field....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filling of the lawsuit.

Court Invalidates EEOC Guidance on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In State of Texas v. EEOC, (ND TX, May 15, 2025), a Texas federal district judge held that portions of the EEOC's 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace are contrary to law.  The court held that Guidance requiring bathroom, dress and pronoun accommodations for transgender employees are inconsistent with the text, history and tradition of Title VII. The court said in part:

First, the Enforcement Guidance contravenes Title VII's plain text by expanding the scope of "sex" beyond the biological binary: male and female....

The court invalidated the portions of the Enforcement Guidance which define "sex" in Title VII to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" and which define sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. The court also specifically invalidated an Example of a Hostile Work Environment that focused on regular and intentional misgendering (using pronoun that does not match gender identity) of a transgender employee by supervisors, coworkers, and customers. AP reports on the decision.

Montana Court Strikes Down Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

In Cross v. State of Montana, (MT Dist. Ct., May 13, 2025), a Montana state trial court in a 59-page opinion held that Montana Senate Bill 99 that bars hormonal or surgical treatment of minors for gender dysphoria is unconstitutional. The court said in part:

First, concerning the right to privacy, Plaintiffs have met their burden ... by providing evidence that the major medical organizations in the United States endorse gender-affirming medical care as a safe, effective way to treat gender dysphoria. Defendants ... fail to demonstrate a medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk with respect to the care banned by SB 99....

Second, Plaintiffs have met their burden ... on their equal protection claim by demonstrating that SB 99 classifies based on similarly situated classes, infringes on several fundamental rights, and denies minors equal protection of the laws on the basis of sex and transgender status because it prohibits health care providers from administering certain care when sought to treat adolescents with gender dysphoria, but it allows the same providers to administer the same care to all other adolescent patients for all other purposes....

Finally ... Plaintiffs successfully demonstrate that SB 99 unconstitutionally regulates medical providers' speech based on content and viewpoint discrimination, and that it is presumptively invalid.... Moreover, Plaintiffs successfully demonstrate that SB 99 prohibits minors with gender dysphoria and their parents from hearing from health care providers....

The Hill reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Christian Camp Sues Over Gender Identity Requirements

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court by a Christian children's summer camp challenging state regulations that require the camp to allow transgender children to use restroom, shower, dressing and sleeping facilities that conform to their gender identity. The complaint (full text) in Camp Id-Ra-Ha-Je Association v. Roy, (D CO, filed 5/12/2025), alleges in part:

Requiring IdRaHaJe to forfeit its religious status, beliefs, and exercise to maintain an otherwise available license to operate as a children’s resident camp in Colorado triggers strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause....

 ... [T]he Department engaged in impermissible religious hostility by refusing to grant a religious exemption to IdRaHaJe while granting exemptions from regulations for secular reasons and despite clear precedent that prohibits the State from excluding IdRaHaJe from licensing based on its religious character and exercise....

 The gender identity regulations are not neutral or generally applicable because the Department has discretion to create individualized and categorical exceptions, which it has done for certain organizations.

The gender identity regulations also are not neutral and generally applicable because the practical “effect” of those provisions is to exclude only those organizations with religious beliefs and practices like IdRaHaJe’s....

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the Department from excluding IdRaHaJe from licensing because of its religious status, character, beliefs, and exercise....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Supreme Court Allows Ban on Transgender Individuals Serving in Military to Remain in Effect While Appeals Move Forward

In United States v. Shilling, (Sup. Ct., May 6, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 6-3 granted a stay while appeals to the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court move forward of a preliminary injunction that, had it remained in effect, would have disqualified transgender individuals from serving in the military.  The Supreme Court's one-paragraph order stays the preliminary injunction granted in Shilling v. United States, (WD WA, March 27, 2025). The district court in granting the injunction had said:

The government’s unrelenting reliance on deference to military judgment is unjustified in the absence of any evidence supporting “the military’s” new judgment reflected in the Military Ban—in its equally considered and unquestionable judgment, that very same military had only the week before permitted active-duty plaintiffs (and some thousands of others) to serve openly. Any evidence that such service over the past four years harmed any of the military’s inarguably critical aims would be front and center. But there is none.

In its Application for a Stay of the Injunction, the military had argued in part:

Absent a stay, the district court’s universal injunction will remain in place for the duration of further review in the Ninth Circuit and in this Court—a period far too long for the military to be forced to maintain a policy that it has determined, in its professional judgment, to be contrary to military readiness and the Nation’s interests.

NBC News reports on the Supreme Court's order.

Court Upholds School's Policy on Use of Students' Preferred Names and Pronouns

In Willey v. Sweetwater County School District #1 Board of Trustees, (D WY, April 28, 2025), a Wyoming federal district court upheld against due process and free exercise challenges a school district's policy requiring teachers to use students' preferred names and pronouns. A student's request to use a different name or pronoun was to be disclosed to the student's parent or guardian only if the parent or guardian affirmatively requested the information. Plaintiff challenged the policy both as a parent and as a teacher in the school system.  The court said in part:

Plaintiff asserts that she is not “alleging a right to receive generalized updates,” but rather a right to make “decisions about the children’s well-being.... However, according to Plaintiffs logic, if a parent is not already aware of their child’s use of preferred name or pronouns, then in order to make those decisions, the school would have an obligation to proactively inform the parent. Within this right as defined by Plaintiff, Plaintiff cannot prevent placing an affirmative obligation on the school to inform parents of any circumstance that occurs in school that might affect a child’s “well-being.” Such a finding would expand parental rights beyond their own decision-making rights to place affirmative obligations on other parties that care for their child. The Supreme Court has made clear that the Due Process Clause “cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.”...

Plaintiff asserts she has a right not to have information regarding her child’s gender identity withheld. The Court agrees. However, the Court does not think the information can properly be deemed “withheld” to infringe on parental rights unless a parent inquired into or sought the information and it was intentionally concealed or they were lied to....

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants significantly burdened her “sincerely held religious beliefs by preventing her from acting pursuant to her religious belief that it is the parents who have the duty to train their children regarding human sexual identity and the unchangeable natural created order of humans as male and female.”...

However, a person’s constitutional right to freely exercise their own religious beliefs does not require that the state also exercise those same religious beliefs....

Even if Plaintiff could show that her sincerely held religious beliefs were in fact burdened ..., the policy that existed while Plaintiff's child was in school in the District is a neutral policy of general applicability....

Plaintiff additionally alleges that her sincerely held religious beliefs related to gender identity, parental involvement in decision-making, and truth-telling prohibit her from complying with the District’s PNCPs as a teacher. ...

... Plaintiff sets forth no evidence that the 2023-24 [Policy] provided for anything other than exemptions “for any reason” rather than individualized exemptions that requires government consideration of the particular reasons. There is no devaluing of religious reasons because exemptions may be made “for any reason.”...

 A policy which provides exemptions “for any reason” without any subjective government assessment remains a neutral law of general applicability.

This decision follows on an earlier decision in the case that denied a preliminary injunction as to most of plaintiff's claims. (See prior posting.) Cowboy State Daily reports on the most recent decision.

Attorney General Outlines Strategy to Battle Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

In an April 22 Memorandum titled "Preventing the Mutilation of American Children" (full text), U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi directed Justice Department personnel to take a number of steps to end gender-affirming care for minors. The Memorandum says in part:

There is a radical ideological agenda being pushed throughout every aspect of American life-from TV programming and Hollywood film production to children's books and elementary school classrooms-that teaches children to deny biological reality. Gender ideology, masked as science, teaches that children should process adolescent stress and confusion as a case of mistaken identity and that the solution is not to root out and eliminate the underlying condition but to acquiesce in it permanently through life-altering chemical and surgical intervention....

Pursuant to the President's directive, I am issuing the following guidance to all Department of Justice employees to enforce rigorous protections and hold accountable those who prey on vulnerable children and their parents.

 I am directing all U.S. Attorneys to investigate all suspected cases of FGM [Female Genital Mutilation]-- under the banner of so-called "gender-affirming care" or otherwise-- and to prosecute all FGM offenses to the fullest extent possible....

I am directing the Civil Division's Consumer Protection Branch to undertake appropriate investigations of any violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by manufacturers and distributors engaged in misbranding by making false claims about the on- or off-label use of puberty blockers, sex hormones, or any other drug used to facilitate a child's so-called "gender transition." ...

I am also directing the Civil Division's Fraud Section to pursue investigations under the False Claims Act of false claims submitted to federal health care programs for any non-covered services related to radical gender experimentation....

I have instructed the Office of Legislative Affairs ("OLA") to draft legislation creating a private right of action for children and the parents of children whose healthy body parts have been damaged by medical professionals through chemical and surgical mutilation. The proposed legislation will establish a long statute of limitations and retroactive liability, so that no one providing such "treatment" will escape liability....

CNN reports on the Memo.

Parents Lack Standing to Challenge Law Barring Schools from Disclosing Child's Change of Name or Pronoun

In Chino Valley Unified School District v. Newsom, (ED CA, April 18, 2025), a California federal district court held that plaintiffs, parents of school children, lack standing to challenge a California law that prohibits public schools from requiring disclosure to parents, without their child's consent, of their child's change of name or gender pronoun at school. Plaintiffs are "devout Christians and believe that God created man and woman as distinct, immutable genders." They contend that the law violates their free exercise rights and their right to control the upbringing and medical care of their children.  The court said in part:

While the Court has no doubt as to the concern that Plaintiff Parents have toward the implementation of AB 1955, Plaintiff Parents have not shown that they have suffered or will imminently suffer any form of harm as a result the Act.  For example, Plaintiff Parents do not allege that their own child has gone or goes by a different name at school, that their children’s school has deprived the parents of relevant information about their child, or that this is something that is likely to happen in the future....

Catholic Employers Get Permanent Injunction Against EEOC

In Catholic Benefits Association v. Lucas, (D ND, April 25, 2025), a North Dakota federal district court converted a preliminary injunction granted last September to a Catholic diocese and a Catholic employers' organization (see prior posting) into a permanent injunction. At issue are rules and guidance documents issued under the Pregnant Workers' Fairness Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  The permanent injunction provides in part:

(1) The EEOC and its agents are permanently enjoined from interpreting or enforcing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and any implementing regulations ... against the Diocese of Bismarck and the CBA, including present and future members, in a manner that would require them to accommodate abortion or infertility treatments that are contrary to the Catholic faith, speak in favor of the same or refrain from speaking against the same.  

(2) The EEOC and its agents are permanently enjoined from interpreting or enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, any implementing regulations or guidances, including the Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace, against the Diocese of Bismarck and the CBA, including present and future members, in a manner that would require them to speak or communicate in favor of abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transition when such is contrary to the Catholic faith; refrain from speaking or communicating against the same when such is contrary to the Catholic faith, use pronouns inconsistent with a person’s biological sex; or allow persons to use private spaces reserved for the opposite sex.

ABC News reports on the decision.

UK Supreme Court Interprets Meaning of "Sex" In UK's Equality Act as Biological Sex

In For Women Scotland Ltd. v. The Scottish Ministers, (UK SC, April 16, 2025), the United Kingdom Supreme Court held that considering the interaction of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 with the Equality Act 2010, the terms "woman", "man", and "sex" in the Equality Act refer to biological sex.  The Equality Act gives separate protection to persons who have undergone or are proposing to undergo sexual reassignment. The court explains the limited question it is deciding:

24. ... [A] person who is aged at least 18 can apply for a GRC [Gender Reassignment Certificate] under the GRA 2004. Section 9(1) of that Act provides that when a full GRC is issued to a person the person’s gender becomes “for all purposes” the acquired gender so that if the acquired gender is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman....

25. The central issue on this appeal is whether references in the EA 2010 to a person’s “sex” and to “woman” and “female” are to be interpreted in the light of section 9 of the GRA 2004 as including persons who have an acquired gender through the possession of a GRC. 

26. The focus of this appeal is not on the status of the large majority of trans people who do not possess a full GRC. Their sex remains in law their biological sex. This appeal addresses the position of the small minority of trans people who possess a full GRC....

The court summarized its ruling in part as follows:

265.... (xii) Gender reassignment and sex are separate bases for discrimination and inequality. The interpretation favoured by the EHRC and the Scottish Ministers would create two sub-groups within those who share the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, giving trans persons who possess a GRC [Gender Reassignment Certificate] greater right than those who do not. Those seeking to perform their obligations under the Act would have no obvious means of distinguishing between the two sub-groups to whom different duties were owed, particularly since they could not ask persons whether they had obtained a GRC.... 

(xiii) That interpretation would also seriously weaken the protections given to those with the protected characteristic of sexual orientation for example by interfering with their ability to have lesbian-only spaces and associations.... 

(xiv) There are other provisions whose proper functioning requires a biological interpretation of “sex”. These include separate spaces and single-sex services (including changing rooms, hostels and medical services), communal accommodation and others.... 

(xv) Similar incoherence and impracticability arise in the operations of provisions relating to single-sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty, and the armed forces....

The UK Supreme Court also issued a 4-page Press Summary of the Court's 88-page Opinion. And CBS News reports on the decision.

Kansas Legislature Overrides Governor's Veto of Bill Protecting Adoptive Parents' and Agencies' Views on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Yesterday, the Kansas legislature overrode Governor Laura Kelly's veto of House Bill 2311, the Adoption Conscience Act (full text). The new law provides in part:

(a) The secretary for children and families shall not adopt, implement or enforce a policy for selection as an out-of-home or adoptive placement or ... licensure...that:

 (1) Requires a person to affirm, accept or support any governmental policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that may conflict with the person's sincerely held religious or moral beliefs; or

 (2) prohibits selection, appointment or licensure, if otherwise eligible, of a person because of such person's sincerely held religious or moral beliefs regarding sexual orientation or gender identity or intent to guide or instruct a child consistent with such beliefs.

 (b) This section shall not be construed to:

 (1) Prohibit the secretary from considering the religious or moral beliefs of a child or the child's biological family or community, including, but not limited to, beliefs regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, in relation to the religious or moral beliefs of a person selected or being considered for placement....

The Federalist and an ADF issued a press release discuss the Bill.

Parents Lack Standing to Challenge School District's Transgender Policy

In Short v. New Jersey Department of Education, (D NJ, March 28, 2025), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed a suit by two parents and a third parent who intervened in the lawsuit who object to the transgender policy of their children's high schools. The policy, adopted by the board of education, calls for high schools to follow students' requests regarding their names and pronouns, without necessarily notifying parents. The court concluded that the policy applied to the schools, not to students or parents, so that plaintiffs lacked standing to obtain a declaratory judgment or injunction against the policy. The Intervenor parent particularly focused on free exercise issues, as set out by the court:

Count One of the intervenor complaint asserts equal-protection violations under the Fourteenth Amendments of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions.... Maldonado alleges that the Cherry Hill policy unnecessarily seeks to prevent discrimination against transgender students at the expense of students’ religious beliefs.... Cherry Hill Defendants cannot provide an exceedingly persuasive justification for unequal treatment of students and parents whose religious beliefs are contrary to the policy’s definition of gender.... 

Counts Two, Three, and Four claim violation of free speech and freedom of religion under the First Amendments of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions.... The policy favors speech based on views and ideas, according to Maldonado, and burdens parents’ and students’ free-speech rights by requiring affirmance of its definition of gender.... The intervenor complaint adds that the policy violates students’ and parents’ freedom to hold sincerely held Christian beliefs premised on a biblical worldview by forcing them to affirm that there are more than two genders or that gender may be based on one’s identity.... The policy seeks to compel affirmation of views repugnant to Christian beliefs and its stated goals may be achieved without forcing parents and students to alter or otherwise abandon their religious beliefs.... The policy does not provide for an excusal or opt-out, stressing one moral interpretation over others, favoring a secular view over a religious one, and discarding other views on gender identity as prohibited, worthy of ridicule, bigoted, or the like.... Count Four alleges failure to accommodate religious beliefs and practices....

The Cherry Hill policy implicates complex, sensitive issues that students will no doubt take from the classroom to the dinner table. Ensuing thoughts and conversations may touch upon family, faith, sexuality, and a host of other important topics. I accept Maldonado’s stated concerns as genuine expressions of her faith and related beliefs. However, without the allegedly offending provisions applying to her or her children, her mere perception of harm is insufficient to confer standing....

South Dakota Enacts Law Barring Transgender Individuals from Using State Restrooms Consistent with Their Gender

On March 20, South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden signed HB 1259 (full text).  The new law provides that public schools and buildings owned or occupied by state or local governments may not allow transgender males or transgender females to enter multi-person rest rooms, changing rooms or sleeping quarters that are inconsistent with their biological sex. Accommodations through unisex, family or single occupancy rooms may be made for transgender students whose parents request it. A person who encounters someone in a restroom or changing room in violation of these provisions can sue the school or state to obtain an injunction or declaratory judgment. AP reports on the new law.

School's Gender Support Policy Did Not Violate Parent's Free Exercise or Due Process Rights

In Vitsaxaki v. Skaneateles Central School District, (ND NY, March 20, 2025), a New York federal district court rejected free exercise and due process challenges to a school district's policy of referring to students by their preferred names and pronouns without informing parents that the district is doing so.  The court said in part:

Mrs. Vitsaxaki asserts that her free exercise of religion was substantially burdened when she was unable to direct the upbringing and education of her child to “counteract” the school district’s implicit messaging that “people can change their sex.” ...

Mrs. Vitsaxaki asserts that the district’s actions taken pursuant to the Policy— permitting Doe to use a preferred names and pronouns and to receive school counseling regarding gender identity questions—were in direct contradiction of her religious views concerning gender and biological sex....

... [A] Policy that permits students to use preferred names and pronouns cannot be said to promote or endorse a religious message nor establish a particular religious practice.  Nor does Mrs. Vitsaxaki allege that it does.  Mrs. Vitsaxaki merely alleges that the choices available to students who choose to take advantage of the Policy runs afoul of her own religious beliefs....

... [T]he Court is satisfied that the Policy, which enables students to use their preferred name and/or pronouns is rationally related to the school district’s legitimate interest in promoting a safe learning environment for its students. ...

Rejecting plaintiff's claim that the school infringed her parental rights, the court said in part: 

... [W]ithin the Second Circuit, the scope of parental rights has been limited in the education context.  Most recently, ..., the Second Circuit held that “there is not a parental right, absent a violation of the Religion Clauses, to ‘direct how a public school teaches their child.’”  ...

... Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s verified complaint—and copies of the Policy...—describe a Policy that operates more like a civility code that extends the kind of decency students should expect at school: such as being called the name they ask to be called.  This strikes at the heart of the subject and manner of instruction a school district is entitled to implement for its students....

... Mrs. Vitsaxaki does not plausibly allege that the district diagnosed or treated Doe or that the district violated her right to make healthcare decisions on Doe’s behalf.   

Simply put, she remained free to exercise her parent rights at home.