Support NeoGAF

[Syriel]

In an 83-page decision that was restrained in its scope, Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of Federal District Court in Winston-Salem, N.C., limited the University of North Carolina’s power to enforce the section of the law that requires people in publicly owned buildings to use restrooms that correspond with the gender listed on their birth certificates.

The judge’s decision applies only to the people who brought the legal challenge, and it came after he concluded that they had shown they were “likely to succeed” in ultimately proving that the access restriction violates the federal government’s interpretation of Title IX, which forbids sex discrimination.

“In sum, the court has no reason to believe that an injunction returning to the state of affairs as it existed before March 2016 would pose a privacy or safety risk for North Carolinians, transgender or otherwise,” Judge Schroeder wrote in his opinion, which he issued nearly four weeks after he heard oral arguments in Winston-Salem. “It is in the public interest to enforce federal anti-discrimination laws in a fashion that also maintains longstanding state laws designed to promote privacy and safety.”

The University of North Carolina said in a statement Friday night that its lawyers were reviewing the ruling and that the 17-campus system “will fully comply with its directive.”

The statement continued: “We have long said that the university has not and will not be taking steps to enforce H.B. 2.”

A lawyer for Gov. Pat McCrory, Bob Stephens, said in a statement that the decision “is not a final resolution of this case, and the governor will continue to defend North Carolina law.” Separately, the General Assembly’s ranking Republicans noted the narrow nature of Judge Schroeder’s ruling.

The law has emerged in a flash point this election year, as Mr. McCrory seeks a second term, but its fate will not be settled until long after ballots are cast and counted. A bench trial about the law, the subject of intense litigation brought by civil rights groups, North Carolina officials and the United States Department of Justice, is scheduled for Nov. 14.

Judge Schroeder will preside.

Schroeder based his decision on a case brought by a transgender high school student in Gloucester County, Va., who sued the school board last year after it passed a policy requiring students to use bathrooms based on their “biological gender.”

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said a district judge who agreed with the school board should have given more weight to the Department of Education’s guidance that “a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.”

The school district requested and received a stay from the Supreme Court from implementing the order while the justices decide whether to review the 4th Circuit’s decision. But Schroeder noted that while a district judge in Texas has ruled differently on whether the Department of Education has the authority to interpret Title IX the way it has, the Gloucester County decision “remains the law in this circuit.”

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/u...rth-carolina-transgender-access-law.html?_r=0

Alt source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rolinas-bathroom-bill/?utm_term=.4116237c65eb

Previous threads on other cases mentioned:
Texas: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1268265
Gloucester: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1257648


This ruling is limited in scope to those who raised the issue, but the key point of the ruling is the interpretation of Title IX.

The Texas Federal judge who issued an injunction against a similar rule, said that states were likely to prevail in showing that Title IX couldn't be used to enforce bathroom access based on gender identity.

The North Carolina Federal judge just issued an injunction saying that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claim that Title IX can be used to enforce bathroom access based on gender identity.

Unless the appeals courts come to a unified decision (both of these were district rulings) the USSC is eventually going to have to rule on the issue whether it likes it or not as having Circuit splits on a Federal law isn't something that is usually allowed to sit. And these cases are setting things up for just that.

 

[Fenderputty]

Good on the NC judge.

How would a 4-4 split on the SC affect the original ruling?

 

[GaimeGuy]

To discriminate based on a discrepancy between sex and gender is to discriminate based on sex and gender

 

[Wilsongt]

To discriminate based on a discrepancy between sex and gender is to discriminate based on sex and gender

And this is why you don't let pastors, judges, and politicians try to make rules about sex and gender because they understand nothing.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Good on the NC judge.

How would a 4-4 split on the SC affect the original ruling?

Lower court rulings holds but a precedent is not set.

 

[Syriel]

How would a 4-4 split on the SC affect the original ruling?

A 4-4 split on the SC keeps the lower court ruling for the respective Circuit.

In theory (if everything plays out based on current injunctions and assuming each Circuit upholds the decisions), the law in the 5th Circuit (which includes Texas) would be interpreted to mean that Title IX does not cover gender identity, while the law in the 4th Circuit (which includes NC) would be interpreted to mean that Title IX does cover gender identity

The remaining Circuits would not have any precedent and, as such, would have to litigate the issue independently if anyone wanted to raise a legal challenge.

In short, you do not want to have a 4-4 split on the SC when there is already a split decision across the lower Circuits.

At that point, the only way to resolve things and get a uniform law would be to expect Congress to clean up the legislative language.