Court Denies Preliminary Injunction In Church's Challenge To State Transgender Nondiscrimination Laws

In Fort Des Moines Church of Christ v. Jackson, (SD IA, Oct. 14, 2016), an Iowa federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement against a church of  provisions of the Iowa Civil Rights Act and the Des Moines City Code.  The laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity in places of public accommodation. Both statutes exempt religious acts of religious institutions.  The church sued after the Iowa Civil Rights Commission issued a guide stating that the anti-discrimination provisions may apply to non-religious activities of a church that are open to the public. The church wants to publicize on its website and in its church bulletin its policy of limiting its rest rooms on the basis of anatomy as identified at birth or by one's original birth certificate.  The policy includes the following rationale:

This policy is consistent with and required by God’s Word, which sets forth the distinctiveness, complementariness and immutability of the male sex and female sex as Jesus Christ himself taught in Matthew 19:4. God’s Word also teaches that physical privacy and personal modesty spring from the physical conditions and unique characteristics of the sexes.

While refusing to dismiss the lawsuit, the court also denied a preliminary injunction because plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court rejected plaintiff's vagueness challenge, and rejected its as-applied free speech challenge because it is unlikely that the laws would ever apply to plaintiff's activities. All of the activities the church indicated it engaged in were religious in nature.  The court rejected plaintiff's free exercise challenge because the anti-discrimination provisions are neutral laws of general applicability. (See prior related posting.)

Churches Sue To Enjoin Massachusetts Ban on Gender Identity Discrimination

Four churches have filed a federal lawsuit alleging that recent changes to Massachusetts' public accommodation anti-discrimination law violate the churches' free exercise and free speech rights. As previously reported,  the law now bans discrimination on the basis of gender identity, and requires public accommodations to allow restroom use consistent with a person's gender identity. Last month, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination released a Gender Identity Guidance setting out the Commission's interpretation of the new law and suggesting that in some situations, the anti-discrimination ban can apply to churches. The complaint (full text) in Horizon Christian Fellowship v. Williamson, (D MA, filed 10/11/2016), contends that all church activities, even ones not overtly religious, are expressions of the churches' religious mission.  The complaint focuses on provisions in the law that bar public accommodations from discriminating and from inciting others to discriminate.  It alleges:

22. The Churches desire to preach and post on their websites sermons addressing God’s design for human sexuality and the Churches’ beliefs about “gender identity,” but reasonably fear that if they were to do so they would violate the Act’s prohibitions.

23. The Act’s prohibitions would also apply to a church bulletin and website that included an explanation that the women’s restrooms are reserved for biological females, while the men’s restrooms are reserved for biological males.

Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a memorandum in support of the motion (full text). ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Requires School To Allow Transgender 5th Grader To Use Bathrooms Matching Her Gender Identity

In Board of Education of Highland Local School District v. U.S. Department of Education, (SD OH, Sept. 26, 2016), an Ohio federal magistrate judge granted a preliminary injunction to a fifth grade transgender girl requiring her school to allow her to use the girls' restroom.  The court found that she was likely to succeed on her Title IX and equal protection claims, saying in part:

the Sixth Circuit, as well as several other courts of appeals, have held that sex-discrimination claims based on gender noncomformity are cognizable under Title IX’s close cousin, Title VII.

Finding that heightened scrutiny is called for on plaintiff's equal protection claim, the court said in part:

Amici from school districts in twenty states around the country ... provide further support for the Court’s conclusion that Highland cannot show that allowing a transgender girl to use the girls’ restroom would compromise anyone’s privacy interests. When they adopted inclusive policies permitting transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity, all of these school districts wrestled with the same privacy concerns that Highland now asserts.... The school administrators agreed that although some parents opposed the policies at the outset, no disruptions in restrooms had ensued nor were there any complaints about specific violations of privacy.

The court conversely denied the school's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent federal agencies from enforcing their interpretation of Title IX.

Indiana's Bar On Name Changes By Non-Citizens Challenged As Violating Transgender Rights

Yesterday the battle over transgender rights-- which has often had religious overtones-- took a different turn with the filing of a federal court lawsuit by a transgender male from Mexico who was granted political asylum in the United States and who lives in Indiana.  At issue is an Indiana law that prohibits non-citizens from obtaining a legal change of name. The complaint (full text) in Doe v. Pence, (SD IN, filed 9/13/2016), contends that the law violates plaintiff's 1st and 14th Amendment rights, saying in part:

For a transgender person, a change of name is in many cases a necessary part of treatment for Gender Dysphoria....  Transgender people face a heightened risk of discrimination, harassment, and violence when their transgender status is known to others. Being referred to by or having to identify oneself by a name traditionally associated with the person’s sex assigned at birth, rather than with the person’s lived gender, can “out” a transgender person to others, revealing their private medical information and putting them at serious risk of harm.

Plaintiff asserts, in in addition to equal protection, autonomy and privacy claims, a free speech right to change his name:

Indiana Code Section 34-28-2-2.5(a)(5) violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech by compelling speech from Plaintiff that betrays and falsely communicates the core of who he is.... For transgender persons, communicating their name and expressing their gender is speech protected by the First Amendment. Plaintiff’s adoption of the traditionally masculine name “John” conveys the message that he is a man, an essential component of personal identity.

MALDEF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Wall Street Journal reports on the lawsuit.

Another Suit Challenges Feds' Interpretation Of Title IX To Protect Transgender Rights

On Wednesday, another lawsuit was filed-- this time by a group of Minnesota parents-- challenging the Department of Education and Department of Justice's recent Guidance declaring that Title IX protects transgender students from discrimination and requires that they be permitted to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. The complaint (full text) in Privacy Matters v. U.S. Department of Education, (D MN, filed 9/7/2016) contends that the Guidance violates the Administrative Procedure Act, Title IX, the right to privacy and to control the upbringing of one's children.  It also contends that the Guidance infringes plaintiffs' religious free exercise rights under the state and federal constitutions and RFRA, saying:

Some Student Plaintiffs have a sincere religious belief that they must practice modesty, which includes a requirement that they not undress or use the restroom with the opposite sex.

Some Parent Plaintiffs have a sincere religious belief that they must teach their children to practice modesty and protect the modesty of their children. This includes a requirement that their children not undress or use the restroom with the opposite sex.

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

Massachusetts Agency Says Transgender Non-Discrimination Can Apply To Some Church Events

Massachusetts Senate Bill 2407, banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity in public accommodations, becomes effective October 1. The bill also requires public accommodations to allow restroom use consistent with a person's gender identity.  Last week (Sept. 1), the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination released its Gender Identity Guidance (full text) setting out the Commission's interpretation of the new law. The Guidance suggests that in some situations, the anti-discrimination ban can apply to churches:

Under G.L. c. 272, § 98, places of public accommodation may not discriminate against, or restrict a person from services because of that person’s gender identity. For example, a hotel or motel may not refuse to book a room for a person because of the person’s gender identity. Even a church could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the general public.

The Guidance adds in a footnote: "All charges, including those involving religious institutions or religious exemptions, are reviewed on a case-by-case basis." The Guidance also provides: "In the limited circumstances where it is necessary, an individual’s gender identity may be demonstrated by any evidence that the gender identity is sincerely held as a part of the person’s core identity."  Daily Caller reports on the Guidance.

Court Issues Narrow Preliminary Injunction Against North Carolina's Transgender Bathroom Access Law

In an 83-page opinion handed down last week, a North Carolina federal district court issued a narrow preliminary injunction preventing enforcement North Carolina's transgender bathroom access law against two students and one employee of the University of North Carolina.  In Carcano v. McCrory, (MD NC, Aug. 26, 2016), the court concluded that the provisions requiring transgender individuals to use school bathrooms, locker rooms and showers corresponding to the biological sex listed on their birth certificate likely violate Title IX as interpreted by the U.S. Department of Education and upheld by the 4th Circuit.  In reaching its conclusion, the court relied heavily on evidence that the prior practice of dealing with bathroom use by transgender students on a case-by-case basis had worked well.

The court however rejected plaintiffs' contention that the North Carolina law violates the equal protection clause, saying in part:

it appears that the privacy interests that justify the State’s provision of sex-segregated bathrooms, showers, and other similar facilities arise from physiological differences between men and women, rather than differences in gender identity....

The court reserved judgment on plaintiffs' substantive due process claims relating to informational privacy and unwanted medical treatment.  Baptist Press reports on the decision.

According to AP, plaintiffs yesterday filed an appeal with the 4th Circuit on the equal protection issue.

Suit Challenges New HHS Rules On Discrimination Against Transgender Individuals

A lawsuit was filed in a Texas federal court yesterday by a religiously-affiliated hospital network, two medical associations and the states of Texas, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kentucky and Kansas challenging new rules (full text) adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services in May barring discrimination on the basis of gender identity in the delivery of medical services by, among others, health facilities receiving federal financial assistance.  The 79-page complaint (full text) in Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Burwell, (ND TX, filed 8/23/2016), contends that the new regulations infringe free speech, free exercise and due process rights of plaintiffs, as well as their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It also contends that the regulations infringe states' rights in various ways.  The complaint focuses particularly on requirements relating to provision of gender transition procedures, saying in part:

On pain of significant financial liability, the Regulation forces doctors to perform controversial and sometimes harmful medical procedures ostensibly designed to permanently change an individual’s sex—including the sex of children. Under the new Regulation, a doctor must perform these procedures even when they are contrary to the doctor’s medical judgment and could result in significant, long-term medical harm. Thus, the Regulation represents a radical invasion of the federal bureaucracy into a doctor’s medical judgment....

The Regulation not only forces healthcare professionals to violate their medical judgment, it also forces them to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. Plaintiffs include the Christian Medical & Dental Associations ... and Franciscan Alliance, a network of religious hospitals founded by the Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration. These religious organizations are deeply committed to the dignity of every human person, and their doctors care for everyone with joy and compassion. They eagerly provide comprehensive care to society’s most vulnerable populations, but their religious beliefs will not allow them to perform medical transition procedures that can be deeply harmful to their patients.....

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit, and saying in part:

This is the thirteenth lawsuit I have been forced to bring against the Obama Administration’s continued threats on constitutional rights of Texans. The federal government has no right to force Texans to pay for medical procedures designed to change a person’s sex.

Becket Fund which represents the medical association plaintiffs also issued a press release.  Texas Tribune, reporting on the lawsuit, says that the case has been assigned to the same judge who earlier this week blocked federal Guidelines on transgender students' rights under Title IX from going into effect. (See prior posting.)

Court Issues Nationwide Injunction Preventing Enforcement of Title IX Guidance on Transgender Rights

In a decision handed down yesterday, a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction applicable nationwide barring the federal government from enforcing Guidelines issued earlier this year interpreting Title IX as barring discrimination by schools on the basis of gender identity.  In particular the Guidelines took the position that transgender students must have access to restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.   (See prior posting.) In State of Texas v. United States, (ND TX, Aug. 21, 2016), a Texas federal district court in a suit brought by 13 states held that the Department of Education's Guidance incorrectly interpreted its regulation (34 CFR 106.33) on sex-segregated restrooms and locker rooms. The court said in part:

It cannot be disputed that the plain meaning of the term sex as used in § 106.33 when it was enacted by DOE following passage of Title IX meant the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.... Additionally, it cannot reasonably be disputed that DOE complied with Congressional intent when drawing the distinctions in § 106.33 based on the biological differences between male and female students....

The court held additionally:

The Guidelines are, in practice, legislative rules—not just interpretations or policy statements because they set clear legal standards.... As such, Defendants should have complied with the APA’s [Administrative Procedure Act's] notice and comment requirement. Permitting the definition of sex to be defined in this way would allow Defendants to “create de facto new regulation” by agency action without complying with the proper procedures.

ABC News reports on the decision.

GSA Requires Rest Rooms In Federal Buildings To Be Open On Basis of Gender Identity

The General Services Administration yesterday published a Bulletin (full text) in the Federal Register requiring federal agencies occupying space in buildings controlled by the GSA to open restrooms to individuals on the basis of their gender identity. The Bulletin said in part:

a. Consistent with the interpretations issued by the EEOC, ED, DOJ, and OPM, the prohibition against sex discrimination ... also prohibits discrimination due to gender identity, which includes discrimination based on an individual's transgender status.

b. Federal agencies occupying space under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of GSA must allow individuals to use restroom facilities and related areas consistent with their gender identity.  ...[T]he self-identification of gender identity by any individual is sufficient to establish which restroom or other single-sex facilities should be used. ...[T]ransgender individuals do not have to be undergoing or have completed any medical procedure, nor can they be required to show proof of surgery to be treated in accordance with their gender identity and obtain access to the restroom corresponding with their gender identity. Further, Federal agencies may not restrict only transgender individuals to only use single-occupancy restrooms, such as family or accessible facilities open to all genders. However, Federal agencies may make individual-user options available to all individuals who voluntarily seek additional privacy.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release strongly criticizing the GSA's action.

RFRA Protects Funeral Home's Gender Stereotyping of Transgender Employee

In EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., (ED MI, Aug. 18, 2016), a Michigan federal district court upheld a funeral home's defense under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to a charge by the EEOC that the funeral home engaged in gender stereotyping when it dismissed a transgender employee (funeral director/embalmer) who was in the process of transitioning from male to female. In a previous opinion in the case, the court held that Title VII does not bar discrimination on the basis of gender identity.  However the court permitted the EEOC to proceed on the theory that the employee was dismissed for refusing to comply with the funeral home's dress code for male employees.  Citing Hobby Lobby, the court held that the funeral home can assert religious rights under RFRA. The court then said:

Rost [the funeral home's owner] believes “that the Bible teaches that God creates people male or female.”... He believes that “the Bible teaches that a person’s sex is an immutable God-given gift and that people should not deny or attempt to change their sex.”... Rost believes that he “would be violating God’s commands” if he were to permit one of the Funeral Home’s funeral directors “to deny their sex while acting as a representative of [the Funeral Home]. This would violate God’s commands because, among other reasons, [Rost] would be directly involved in supporting the idea that sex is a changeable social construct rather than an immutable God-given gift.” ...

The court went on to say that even if the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination, it has not chosen the least restrictive means of doing so.  It explained:

If the EEOC truly has a compelling governmental interest in ensuring that Stephens is not subject to gender stereotypes in the workplace in terms of required clothing at the Funeral Home, couldn’t the EEOC propose a gender-neutral dress code (dark-colored suit, consisting of a matching business jacket and pants, but without a neck tie) as a reasonable accommodation that would be a less restrictive means of furthering that goal under the facts presented here?

Detroit News reports on the decision. [Thanks to Jeff Pasek for the lead.]

Britain's Supreme Court Refers Complex Transgender Case To European Court of Justice

In MB v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, (UK Sup. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016), Britain's Supreme Court, divided on a complicated issue of transgender rights under European Council Directive 79/7/EEC (Progressive Implementation of the Principle of Equal Treatment for Men and Women in Matters of Social Security), referred the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union:

[W]hether Council Directive 79/7 EEC precludes the imposition in national law of a requirement that, in addition to satisfying the physical, social and psychological criteria for recognising a change of gender, a person who has changed gender must also be unmarried in order to qualify for a state retirement pension.

As permitted by the Directive, Britain allowed women to obtain a retirement pension at an earlier age than men.  However a transgender woman needed a full gender recognition certificate to qualify for the earlier pension, and under British law at the time could not obtain one if she remained married.  The facts of the case are summarized in the Court's press release:

So far as MB was concerned, she was registered at birth as a man but has lived as a woman since 1991 and underwent gender reassignment surgery in 1995. She has not applied for a full gender recognition certificate because she and her wife are married and wish to remain so.... On 31 May 2008, MB turned 60 [and] ... applied for a state retirement pension.... That application was rejected....

EurActiv reports on the decision.  [Thanks to Paul deMello for the lead.] 

Supreme Court Temporarily Stays 4th Circuit's Ruling On Title IX and Transgender Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday issued an order temporarily staying the 4th Circuit's mandate to a Virginia federal district court to reconsider its denial of a preliminary injunction in a transgender rights case.  In Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., (Sup. Ct., Aug. 3, 2016), the Court by a vote of 5-3 stayed the 4th Circuit's mandate pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari.  In the case, the 4th Circuit held that a Virginia school board's policy barring a transgender boy (who had not undergone sex-reassignment surgery) from using the boy's rest rooms at his school violates Title IX's ban on discrimination on the basis of sex. (See prior posting.)  Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented from the grant of a stay.  Justice Breyer said he concurred with the stay "as a courtesy" while the Supreme Court is in recess. Los Angeles Times reports on the Supreme Court's action.

In New Suit, 10 States Challenge Feds' Interpretation of Transgender Rights

Yesterday, Nebraska and nine other states filed suit against the federal government challenging interpretations of the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VII and Title IX by the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, OSHA and the EEOC.  Federal agencies have asserted that the ban on discrimination on the basis of "sex" includes a ban on discrimination based on gender identity. The complaint (full text) in State of Nebraska v. United States, (D NE, filed 7/8/2016) contends that these interpretations were adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and various constitutional provisions.  Joining Nebraska in the lawsuit are Arkansas, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming. Omaha World-Herald reports on the lawsuit. In May, eleven other states filed a similar lawsuit in federal district court in Texas. (See prior posting.)

Chaplains' Group Says New Military Policy On Transgenders Poses Religious Freedom Concerns

On June 30, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced that the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military is being lifted. (Links to DOD documents.) Those already in the military will be permitted to serve openly and will be provided appropriate medical care and treatment after receiving a diagnosis from a military medical provider indicating that gender transition is medically necessary. (Fact Sheet). The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty issued a statement (full text) yesterday raising questions about the new policy. The statement reacts to a conference call with a Pentagon official, and reads in part:

The official said that such persons will be required to receive a medical statement from a military medical professional that they suffer from gender dysphoria.... 

An endorser on the call asked whether medical professionals who hold a biblical view on human sexuality will be required to violate their consciences and do as these persons demand, and the response was that it is the responsibility of medical professionals to serve military persons. It’s an understatement to say that this raises serious religious liberty concerns,” said Chaplain (COL) Ron Crews.... “The Department of Defense must ensure ... that doctors and nurses who hold to a biblical view of human sexuality can serve in today’s military...."

The official on the conference call went on to say that “mixed genitalia” will be present in military bathrooms, showers, and barracks because service members will be in various stages of change in their sexual identity.... Crews said. “Do we want our sons and daughters to be forced to share showers and sleeping spaces in a ‘mixed genitalia’ environment with no recourse for objections of conscience?”

Church Sues Iowa Officials Over Transgender Access Rules

In Iowa yesterday, a conservative Christian church filed a federal lawsuit against officials of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and against the city of Des Moines alleging that their anti-discrimination laws requiring transgender access to restrooms and changing rooms consistent with gender identity violate its 1st and 14th Amendment rights.  The complaint (full text) in Fort Des Moines Church of Christ v. Jackson, (SD IA, filed 7/4/2016) focuses on the following Iowa Civil Rights Commission's interpretation of its public accommodation rules:

Sometimes. Iowa law provides that these protections do not apply to religious institutions with respect to any religion-based qualifications when such qualifications are related to bona fide religious purpose. Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions. (e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public).

The complaint alleges that the church invites the public to all its services and events, and that even those that are not overtly religious nevertheless "engender other important elements of religious meaning, expression, and purpose." It goes on to allege in part:

13. The Church believes and teaches that maleness or femaleness is designed by God and is tied to biology, chromosomes, physiology, and anatomy.

14. The Church’s religious beliefs mandate that sex is an immutable trait from which springs the natural and healthy desires for physical privacy and modesty in states of partial or full undress, such as in restrooms, showers, and changing rooms.

15. The Church recognizes that some individuals do not identify with their biological sex, and the Church welcomes those individuals, wants to be a blessing to them, and wants to minister to them.

16. The Act and City Code prohibit the Church from issuing statements that might cause individuals to believe that they are unwelcome because of their perceived gender identity.

17. The language of the Act and the City Code are broad enough to include within that prohibition sermons, theological expositions, educational speeches, newsletters or church worship bulletin text, or other statements from the Church and its leaders....

27. Allowing biological males to use facilities reserved for women and girls, and vice versa, violates the Church’s religious beliefs about human sexuality.

Des Moines Register reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE:  Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the Iowa Civil Rights Commission revised its interpretive pamphlet (full text) to read:

Places of worship (e.g. churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) are generally exempt from the Iowa law’s prohibition of discrimination, unless the place of worship engages in non-religious activities which are open to the public. For example, the law may apply to an independent day care or polling place located on the premises of the place of worship.

Ohio School District Sues Feds Over Accommodation For A Transgender Student

A lawsuit was filed today in federal district court by an Ohio school district challenging the Justice Department and Department of Education's interpretation of Title IX as it applies to transgender students.  Unlike the broad-ranging lawsuit filed last month by eleven states challenging the same interpretation, today's suit focuses on accommodation, inconsistent with the new federal guidelines, already made by one school for a transgender student. The student began transitioning from male to female identity between kindergarten and first grade. The school allows the student to use single use staff restrooms, and encourages others students in the class to do likewise. The student's legal custodian has complained, and the Department of Education has investigated and proposed that the school change its policy to allow the transgender student to use sex-specific facilities. The complaint (full text) in Board of Education of the Highland Local School District v. U.S. Department of Justice, (SD OH, file 6/10/2016), says:

Highland has acceded, and will continue to accede, to the requests of Student A’s legal custodian to respect Student A’s gender-identity choice by not interfering with Student A’s current gender expression. But Highland will not accede to requests that adversely impact the dignity, privacy, safety, well-being, or rights of other students.

If the government were to deny federal funding because of a violation of Title IX, this would cost the school district $1.12 million. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing or the lawsuit.

Another Challenge Filed To Mississippi's Freedom of Conscience Law

As reported by AP, on Friday a third lawsuit was filed challenging Mississippi's House Bill 1523, the Protecting Freedom of Conscience From Government Discrimination Act. Mississippi Center for Justice announced the filing of the federal lawsuit which was brought by a group of clergy, community leaders, activists and a Hattiesburg church.  The complaint (full text) contends:

With the passage and approval of that bill, the Legislature and the Governor breached the separation of church and state, and specifically endorsed certain narrow religious beliefs that condemn same-sex couples who get married, condemn unmarried people who have sexual relations, and condemn transgender people.

Last month the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the new law (see prior posting) and plaintiffs in a suit that helped bring down the barriers to same-sex marriage in Mississippi have moved to challenge the law by reopening their lawsuit.

4th Circuit Puts Transgender Case On Fast Track to Supreme Court

As previously reported, in April, in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Virginia school board's policy barring a transgender boy (who had not undergone sex-reassignment surgery) from using the boy's rest rooms at his school violates Title IX's ban on discrimination on the basis of sex.  The school board filed a motion for a rehearing en banc, but this week in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, (4th Cir., May 31, 2016), the court issued an order denying the rehearing petition.  However Judge Niemeyer, who had dissented in the April decision, filed a dissent from the denial of a rehearing, but said:

While I could call for a poll of the court in an effort to require counsel to reargue their positions before an en banc court, the momentous nature of the issue deserves an open road to the Supreme Court to seek the Court’s controlling construction of Title IX for national application. And the facts of this case, in particular, are especially “clean,” such as to enable the Court to address the issue without the distraction of subservient issues.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports on developments.

Transgender Man Sues Men-Only Barber Shop That Refused Him Service

A state court lawsuit was filed last week in California against a men-only barber shop and two of its barbers who, for religious reasons, refused to cut the hair of a transgender man.  The complaint (full text) in Oliver v. The Barbershop, R.C., Inc., (CA Super., filed 5/24/2016), relates the following reasons given to reporters by the barber shop's owner for the policy:

"It's a shame for a man to have long hair, but if a woman has long hair, it's her glory and it speaks to being given to her as her covering, and I don't want to be the one who is taking away from her glory."  Hernandez also told reporters that when "people go against what God has created, you start getting everything out of whack."

The suit seeks injunctive relief under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. A Lambda Legal press release reports on the case.