#Equal Protection Clause

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Erin Reed at Erin In The Morning:

In a landmark decision issued late Friday, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration’s passport policy targeting transgender Americans. The executive order, which required that passport gender markers reflect a person’s assigned sex at birth, effectively reversed three decades of precedent and left many applications stalled in bureaucratic limbo. The judge ruled the policy was “arbitrary and capricious,” likely in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. The judge also ruled that the decision was based in animus and discrimination towards transgender people. While the injunction currently applies only to the named plaintiffs, a broader ruling protecting all transgender Americans is expected in the coming weeks.

“The plaintiffs have also demonstrated a likelihood of success on their separate argument that, under any standard of review, the Executive Order and Passport Policy are based on irrational prejudice toward transgender Americans and therefore offend our Nation’s constitutional commitment to equal protection for all Americans. In addition, the plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on their claim that the Passport Policy is arbitrary and capricious, and that it was not adopted in compliance with the procedures required by the Paperwork Reduction Act and Administrative Procedure Act,” ruled the judge.

The judge, when evaluating whether or not the transgender plaintiffs were being discriminated against in a way that likely violates their equal protection under the law, ruled that they likely were. This is because the order targets transgender people based on sex, an act that triggers a higher degree of constitutional scrutiny: “As to the first policy change, applicants are explicitly treated differently based on their sex assigned at birth. A person who identifies as female can receive a passport marked “F” if her sex assigned at birth was female, but not if her sex assigned at birth was male. Likewise, a person who identifies as male can receive a passport marked “M” if his sex assigned at birth was male, but not if his sex assigned at birth was female… Viewed from any angle, that amounts to a classification based on sex.” [...]

The judge also found that the administration’s decision to block passport gender marker changes for transgender people was rooted in anti-transgender animus, rendering the policy likely unconstitutional under any level of judicial scrutiny. In reaching this conclusion, the ruling considered not only the passport policy in isolation, but its context alongside other contemporaneous executive actions—most notably, the transgender military ban, in which the government argued that transgender individuals were inherently dishonorable and untruthful. These actions, the judge wrote, “convey a fundamental moral disapproval of transgender Americans.” The judge also ruled that the passport ban was arbitrary and capricious, failing to meet the standards required by the Administrative Procedures Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act.

A big ruling last night regarding gender marker changes on passports: Judge Julia Kobick ruled against Donald Trump’s massively bigoted executive order (EO 14168) on gender markers being required to match the person’s sex assigned at birth.

See Also:

HuffPost: Judge Blocks Trump’s Anti-Trans Passport Policy

[petervintonjr]

Today we look at the pivotal role played by Evelyn Thomas Butts: activist, agitator, and (eventually) elected official. Born in 1924 Norfolk, Virginia, Evelyn Thomas was orphaned at a young age and raised mostly by her politically-conscious aunt. Evelyn eventually married a Charles Herbert Butts, who served in WWII but was injured. To offset his disability (no wartime benefits for Black veterans at this point, remember), the couple --and their eventual three daughters-- took in boarders, and Evelyn also worked as a seamstress. Inspired by her aunt's careful teaching about staying closely involved in local politics, Evelyn became a member of the Oakwood (Norfolk) neighborhood civic league and eventually was elevated to its president. She used this platform to speak out against segregated schools, segregated stadium seating at sporting events, and even organized a picketing of a local supermarket that refused to hire Black employees. She also co-founded the Rosemont Middle School during this period, and organized voting drives.

It was in the light of her voting drive efforts, that the largest elephant in the room at the time was clearly the Poll Tax --a significant (and insulting) barrier to voting rights; not just in Virginia, but in most of the South. Poll taxes, while technically having been in existence in varying forms since Colonial days, had in post-Reconstruction times, evolved into blatant discriminatory fees. While on paper these required payments made no mention of race or other category, in practice they were broadly designed to disenfranchise poor and working class voters, but most specifically the Black population. Added administrative "fine print" (such as vaguely-worded requirements to pay the fee on a different, specified date prior to an election and then being required to bring that receipt to the polling place), as well as weasel-worded grandfather clauses and impossibly difficult literacy exams, all conspired to ensure that few Blacks would be able to cast ballots.

In November of 1963, Butts filed suit in the Eastern Judicial District of Virginia in an attempt to have the poll tax declared unconstitutional. This attempt was dismissed, but, undeterred, Butts joined with Annie E. Harper and several other women from Fairfax County, Virginia, to consolidate their cases together, along a broader premise. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond heard arguments in 1964 but ultimately ruled the tax constitutional. Butts and Harper and their allies promptly took their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, represented by then-solicitor Thurgood Marshall.

On March 24, 1966, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that poll taxes were in fact unconstitutional, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections).

Evelyn's activism didn't stop there; in 1975 she was appointed as the first black woman commissioner to the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority. She remained an active member of the NAACP well into the 1980's, and also organized Concerned Citizens of Norfolk, a local initiative designed to encourage more African-Americans to run for office. A street in Norfolk was renamed in her honor in 1995, and a historical marker was erected in 2020.

[maggotsandcream]

It always baffles me when folks hype up the fact members of the US military swear an oath the the constitution in a this totally makes them morally superior kind of way.

Like, do you guys not realize that literally every federal employee including the college students learning how to collect soil samples for the USDA as a part time summer job all swear the same oath? It's not like some super elusive badass cool club for the marines or whatever lmao. It's squeezed in with filling out your tax info and setting up your government email and stuff.

[moleshow]

in the midst of talking about how powerful blackmun’s dissent in deshaney v winnebago county is, i realized that i was engaged in an act of conversational terrorism

[mazsola01]

Personally I think Red Hood is the only Gotham vigilante that could reasonably get away with live streaming such an event (when it comes to the whole "why didn't you stop them" question), BUT Spoiler is is the one who's most likely to do that.

Bruce Wayne, sitting in a cute eco-friendly cafe while on a video call with Tim: Oh Noooo, are you sure there’s no way the board of directors will let us get rid of this old decrepit Wayne Factory building that is unsafe for our workers and also for the surrounding environment?

CEO Tim, with equal gravitas: No, I’m afraid they just won’t budge. It technically meets legal requirements on paper, and we can’t prove that the chemicals affecting the local ecosystem are from the out-of-date drainage system… they’re saying it would cost too much to fix the place up too, which is ridiculous, because we’re us, but our hands are tied…

Bruce, full Brucie himbo mode: Oh I just feel so SAD for all the sweet fluffy animals and the pretty flowers and especially our hard workers dealing with such unsafe conditions… I think I’ll give them all a nice short vacation this weekend, so the ENTIRE PLACE will be EMPTY and SHUT DOWN from FRIDAY TO TUESDAY, the SECURITY SYSTEM WILL BE DOWN because it’s just so GLITCHY, I’m sure no one will do anything about the ENVIRONMENTAL STAIN ON OUR COMPANIES NAME THAT WILL BE COMPLETELY ABANDONED FROM FRIDAY TO TUESDAY- Timmy do you think I’m being too subtle?

Tim, snickering: no no you’re doing great Bruce I’m sure they’ve got it

Poison Ivy, on a date the next table over: ( ‘-‘)-☕️

Harley, through tears of repressed laughter: so… we doing anythin’ this weekend?

[natalianovnas]

༄ `. 𝐌𝐈𝐃𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐌𝐒 𝐌𝐈𝐒𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐄𝐅

request : i keep thinking about yelena being the clingiest most needy and touchy gf ever. reader would be studying for important exams and she'd be like sitting behind her on the chair with her hands on reader's tits just playing ang begging her to finish quickly,,i love her sm.

warnings : teasing, clingy!yelena, light nsfw & dirty talk but no smut.

words count : 1.5k || masterlist

an : i hope you like this one, dear anon :)

You are two hours into reviewing constitutional law when you feel the shift.

It starts with footsteps. Slow, too careful. Not suspicious—Yelena has never been subtle. Just deliberate.

You keep your eyes on the textbook. Highlight in hand. One sentence into the equal protection clause—

Then you feel her.

Warm body behind you, knees on either side of your chair. Her arms slip around your waist first—innocent enough.

You ignore her.

“Print is so boring,” She mutters into your neck. “Why don’t they make textbooks smell like cookies?”

“They do,” you joke, turning a page. “It’s called scented bookmarks. I threw mine out because they were ‘suspiciously artificial.’”

She grumbles, then presses a lazy kiss just under your ear.

You freeze while she grins against your skin.

“Yelena,” You warn.

“What?” She says, faux-innocent. “I’m just encouraging education.”

Her hands slip higher, way higher.

“Yelena.”

“Hm?”

“I have an exam tomorrow.”

“I know. That’s why I’m helping you memorize.” Her hands cup your boobs fully now, thumbs brushing deliberately over the fabric of your shirt. “These help me focus.”

“You focus?” You ask flatly, trying to stay upright.

She hums like she’s pondering science. “Or maybe… these distract you.”

“You think?”

She squeezes your chest lightly. “Hard to say. Should I test again?”

You shove her arms off, cheeks hot. “Yelena, I’m serious.”

She flops dramatically forward, her chin now on your shoulder, lips brushing your jaw. “I’m going to die. You’ve been reading about laws for three hours. I need affection. Or food. Or both.”

“You just ate.”

“I burned it off emotionally from neglect, if I may mention.”

You exhale through your nose. “If you let me finish these last three chapters, I’ll take a break and order sushi.”

“Lies.”

“I swear.”

She whines into your shoulder. “But I need you now. I haven’t touched your boobs in at least twenty minutes.”

“You touched them twenty seconds ago.”

“Exactly. Starvation, which equals tragedy.”

You push her off with a laugh, but she immediately slinks her way onto the chair again—this time pulling you into her lap, textbook forgotten on the desk. Her arms wrap around you tight. Her nose presses into your neck. Her hands, of course, wander back where they were. (Their favorite spot)

You sigh, not really mad.

“Yelena.”

“Yes, moya lyubov?”

“I’m not going to pass if you keep harassing my chest every time I open a book.”

She grins against your skin. “Then don’t open books. Open your legs instead.”

You snort and slap her thigh. “Inappropriate.”

“Tempting,” she counters. “Admit it.”

You tilt your head back to look at her. “If I fail this exam, you’re paying my student loans.”

“I’ll pay them with kisses.”

“That’s not legal tender.”

“It should be.”

You groan, flopping forward dramatically. She clutches you like a weighted blanket, one that keeps whispering in your ear about your tits.

“Give me thirty minutes,” you mumble into her hoodie. “Please.”

She whines again. “Fine. But I’m staying here.”

“On my chair?”

“Yes.”

You ask again, “Behind me?”

“Yes.”

“Hands off?”

“…No.”

You sigh. “Why did I fall for a human koala?”

She kisses the side of your head. “Because I make great post-exam snacks. And I love you.”

You go still.

Her hands, for once, stop moving.

You twist around slightly, and she looks… oddly shy, for someone who was groping you mid-case law.

“I love you too,” You reply softly.

She breaks into a huge grin. “Then stop studying.”

“Yelena.”

“Fine. Thirty minutes. But after that, I’m taking you. Biblically. On this chair. With full body contact.”

You roll your eyes but can’t stop smiling as you shift back to your book. Her arms stay tight around you the whole time—clutching, kissing your neck occasionally, mumbling things in Russian you’re pretty sure translate to “My girlfriend is sexy even when she’s boring.”

And honestly?

You’ve never focused harder in your life.

[pokuc]

[destielmemenews]

"The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called the order “ideologically motivated,” “unnecessary,” and “overbroad,” criticizing its chilling effect on lawful travel, academic exchange, and humanitarian reunification.

Legal scholars have started to question the constitutionality of this policy. More specifically, they contend that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits governments from denying equal legal protection, while the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids favouring or disfavoring any religion. Critics argue that Trump’s policy, which targets specific nations commonly associated with certain religions, risks violating both clauses by enabling discrimination based on nationality and faith. Additionally, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished national origin quotas to prevent such bias. By reinstating restrictions linked to religious or national identity, opponents claim the policy mirrors discriminatory practices that the law aimed to eliminate."

Forbes

Associated Press

NPR

[cheeseanonioncrisps]

I really want the show to go into more detail about Husk's backstory as an overlord, partly because I feel like it's something the fandom is kinda glossing over and partly because it's lowkey one of the biggest obstacles that a Husk/Angel relationship would have into overcome.

'Loser Baby' emphasises the similarities between Angel and Husk's situations, but it also (probably deliberately, since Husk is the one leading it) brushes aside one of the most major differences between them.

Namely that when Husk tells Angel that he's not the only one who sold his soul, he's not just singing about himself.

Husk sold his soul to Alastor, yeah (or lost it at least, which amounts to the same thing), but he also traded in souls. He was that “psychopathic freak”, and was operating fro long enough to achieve Overlord status.

And, honestly? Having your soul owned by Husker back in the day probably sucked.

The one benefit of soul contracts for the person selling their soul is that they seem to get a fair amount of say in how the contract is written.

Angel's contract, for example, apparently has a clause stating that he's only under Valentino's jurisdiction when he's in the studio. (Which, btw, puts a whole other spin on why Val is so pissed when he moves out of studio accommodation and into the Hotel.) And Val is apparently bound to that. Even though he's pissed off and actively wants to put Angel in his place, he can't make any moves against him in the club.

Equally, since most overlords seem to be associated with a specific location/industry, you can generally choose who your working for and therefore roughly what kind of stuff you're gonna be doing.

In practice there seems to be a lot of manipulation and coercion going on on the part of the Overlords making these contracts— they're not fair by any means— but the sinners signing them are theoretically at least guaranteed the right to a (somewhat) informed choice and some control over the deals they make.

Having an Overlord who uses human souls to pay his gambling debts, however, completely undermines all that.

Imagine going into work for your job running the roulette games at the casino only to be told that the boss played a bad hand in a game with Valentino, and so you're a sex worker now.

Or being traded to someone who has you fighting turf wars for them, and realising that your contract doesn't have any clauses to protect your personal safety because you only signed up to be a bartender.

Or selling your soul for a job near your home and family so you can guarantee their protection, only to be traded to someone whose territory is on the other side of the pentagram.

Husk is a victim of his own addiction, yeah, which is one of the reasons why Angel relates to him. But his backstory implies that there must be a significant number of people out there who were also victims of Husk's addiction, and may not be as sympathetic. Dude basically owned other people as property (… we have a word for that) and then literally played games with their lives.

And like, I'm not saying he hasn't changed. He seems more empathetic on the show than his backstory would imply, and apart from anything else, he's had a pretty clear object lesson about what it's like to be on the receiving end of that sort of thing. (Ngl, I'm pretty sure one of the reasons Alastor keeps him around is because he's the type to find the irony amusing.)

But like, he's in this place where he can relate to Angel Dust's situation, while at the same time probably also being able to relate to Valentino and Alastor's perspectives (although I doubt he was quite as bad as Val to work for).

And I'm curious as to what would happen, later in the series, if the gang met someone who had sold their soul to Husk at one point. Someone who would also be able to relate to Angel's situation, but with Husk as their version of Valentino.

[mariacallous]

The politicization of transgender children in the US is one of the most astounding coups of propaganda and organized animus in recent history. Rarely has so much attention and rage been directed at such a minuscule number of people, and more rarely, still, have those people been the most vulnerable and blameless among us: kids and teens.

The first state to pass a ban on transition-related care for minors was Arkansas, in April 2021; less than four years later, more than half of states have such a ban on the books. In 2016, North Carolina lost an estimated $3.76bn in revenue following boycotts after they passed a law banning trans people, including transgender students, from using appropriate restrooms in public facilities; now, 14 states have such bathroom bans on the books, and the boycotts have receded.

These changes in public attitudes towards trans youth – from a broad if imperfect sentiment of tolerance to a widespread and politically weaponized attitude of hostility toward a small minority of kids – did not emerge by accident. It was the product of a deliberate, conscious effort to radicalize large swaths of the United States, and significant chunks of state policy, into a hostility towards a few children.

That effort seems set to bear fruit now, at the US supreme court, in US v Skrmetti, a lawsuit brought by the ACLU and the Biden Department of Justice challenging Tennessee’s HB1, a sweeping ban on transition-related care for minors that was passed in 2023. The law prohibits any puberty blockers or hormones from being prescribed for the purposes of gender transition, but it does not prohibit these medications from being prescribed for any non-transition-related purpose. A minor can be prescribed puberty blockers, for instance, if their doctor believes they are experiencing early onset, or “precocious”, puberty; they cannot be prescribed puberty blockers to delay the onset of a puberty that may change their bodies in ways they do not desire for gender identity-related reasons.

That means, too, that a child assigned male at birth could access, say, testosterone treatment, but a child assigned female at birth could not. In oral arguments on Wednesday, solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar and Chase Strangio of the ACLU – the first trans attorney to argue before the supreme court – explained that this was a straightforward case of sex discrimination, and hence needed to be subjected to a heightened standard of judicial review under the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause.

It will not be. A majority of the court’s conservatives seemed poised to uphold the ban on transgender healthcare, though for a variety of different reasons. Brett Kavanaugh made his usual mealy-mouthed paean to states’ rights, an argument he always makes in questions of federally guaranteed equality provisions, but not before extolling the hypothetical suffering of teenagers who may access gender-affirming care but then later come to regret it. (One wonders if there are any choices from his own adolescence that Brett Kavanaugh has come to regret.) Clarence Thomas and chief justice John Roberts, meanwhile, both advanced the idea that the physiological differences between male and female bodies could moot the equal protection clause’s reach, giving states broad leeway to regulate medicine in ways that would uphold gender hierarchy.

For his part, Samuel Alito also seemed interested in the idea that states might have a right to effect gender discrimination via their regulation of medicine. He repeatedly cited the 1974 case Geduldig v Aiello, in which the supreme court ruled that states could discriminate on the basis of pregnancy, and that pregnancy discrimination was not sex discrimination – because even though only female people become pregnant, not all of them are pregnant all of the time. (At the time, Congress found the outcome in Geduldig so egregious that it passed a law clarifying that pregnancy discrimination does count as sex discrimination for the purposes of federal civil rights law, and the precedent was largely mooted, but Alito’s controlling opinion in Dobbs has revived it.)

But Alito, true to form, did not confine his opining to the notion that discrimination against trans people does not count as sex-based discrimination: he went on to suggest that trans people are not quite real, peppering Strangio, in a scene that seemed intended to humiliate the trans attorney, with questions about whether trans identity was truly an “immutable” characteristic. For his part, Strangio responded with a dignity and respect that Alito’s line of questioning did not merit.

It was not the only low moment. James Matthew Rice, the Tennessee solicitor general who defended the ban in court, repeatedly compared gender affirming care with suicide, as well as to lobotomies and eugenics. During his time, justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, with occasional assists from Elena Kagan, tried to chase Rice down on the inconsistencies in his own argument.

Tennessee claimed, after all, that the law did not discriminate on the basis of patients’ sex, but rather on the basis of the purpose of their treatment; when the liberal justices pointed out that this was a distinction without a difference, because the purpose of the treatment was dependent on the patients’ sex, Rice simply repeated his assertion that there was a difference, there, somewhere. Jackson, in particular, worked to get Rice to explain his position for some time. He declined to.

To call the Tennessee ban sex-neutral is laughable, almost insulting. The statute itself makes gender conformity its explicit justification in its text, saying that it aims to prohibit “sex inconsistent treatment”, or anything that “might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex”. The law has long included sex role stereotyping within the purview of sex discrimination; Tennessee has sought to enforce sex roles, and sexed embodiment, with the force of the state. There is no good faith reading of the law that would allow it to withstand the scrutiny that the 14th amendment requires. But luckily for Tennessee, this is not a good faith court.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Lil Kalish at HuffPost:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments for the most important transgender rights case it has ever reviewed — one that could have significant consequences on the future of lifesaving gender-affirming care for youth in the country. At the heart of the case, United States v. Skrmetti, is the question of whether a Tennessee ban on such care violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which bars discrimination on the basis of sex. The Tennessee law, Senate Bill 1, encourages minors to “appreciate their sex” by prohibiting puberty blockers or hormone replacement therapy for the purposes of allowing young people to live as an “identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.”

The Department of Justice, Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union, who petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, have argued that Tennessee’s law amounts to sex discrimination because it specifically bars transgender youth from these medications while allowing cisgender youth to undergo the same treatments for other conditions, such as early puberty. “This case contains some of the worst leaning into sex stereotypes that I’ve ever seen in a statute,” said Sasha Buchert, the director of the nonbinary and transgender rights project at Lambda Legal, the oldest LGBTQ+ law firm in the U.S. “It’s clearly a sex-based consideration because this is the same care that [they’re] just banning for trans people. But even further, there is this gender conformity aspect to the statute, which I think is implicit in all of these bans that we’ve seen. It’s just that Tennessee didn’t want to hide it.”

Tennessee has argued that the law does not specifically target trans people, although the state acknowledges that the ban sets “age- and use-based limits” on puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries for the “purpose of gender transition.” (Gender-affirming surgeries are not an issue in the Supreme Court case, however, as a district court threw out a challenge to those procedures.) The law has faced legal challenges since the Tennessee legislature first passed it in March 2023. One month later, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a trans teen identified as L.W., two other families of trans youth, and a Memphis-based doctor. The DOJ then joined the suit.

That summer, a district court found that the ban likely violated the U.S. Constitution and issued a preliminary injunction on parts of the law regarding puberty blockers and hormones. Tennessee’s attorney general, Jonathan Skrmetti, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which overturned that ruling. The Biden administration then asked the Supreme Court to review this case, arguing that any ban on trans health constitutes sex discrimination.

Since the Supreme Court only took up the Biden administration’s appeal, the court will not be weighing in on the question of whether the state law violates the “fundamental right of parents” to make medical decisions for their children, which is a central question in a separate lawsuit, L.W. v. Skrmetti.

The outcome of United States v. Skrmetti will provide much-needed legal clarity for trans youth and their families amidst an increasingly anti-trans political climate. Twenty-six states have passed laws restricting health care providers from prescribing puberty blockers and hormones, as well as performing surgeries on transgender youth. Lower courts across the country have handed down conflicting rulings when these laws have been challenged. By and large, district court judges have attempted to block these bans, finding them unconstitutional after applying “heightened scrutiny” — a high legal standard used in civil rights cases that forces the government to prove a vested interest in the application of the law. Appeals court judges, on the other hand, have typically used “rational basis,” a lower form of review, when overturning previous injunctions of these bans.

Chase Strangio, the co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, said on a press call Monday that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Tennessee, it could “erode protections when it comes to sex-based discrimination,” especially in the context of medical care, long term. Strangio, the first trans lawyer to argue before the Supreme Court, is set to deliver a 15-minute oral argument on behalf of the three families of trans youth and the Memphis-based doctor on Wednesday. However, if the Supreme Court rules as the district courts have by applying “heightened scrutiny,” then it will determine that bans on trans health care constitute sex discrimination, similar to how the high court determined in the Bostock v. Clayton County case that discrimination against trans employees is also sex discrimination.

[...]

Science Versus Skeptics

There is a body of scientific evidence to show that puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy substantially reduce gender dysphoria in adolescent patients, dozens of medical associations argued in briefs submitted to the Supreme Court in September. Doctors, medical groups, LGBTQ+ advocates, Democrats, Republicans and trans individuals have submitted briefs on the efficacy of gender-affirming care to alleviate dysphoria and prevent suicide. However, Tennessee’s brief to the court is skeptical of gender-affirming care. It argues that these medical interventions are “experimental” and claims that at one point a Tennessee hospital, Nashville’s Vanderbilt University Medical Center, began providing trans health care in order to “make a lot of money.” The brief discusses at length how certain “media reports” about Vanderbilt providing gender-affirming care to minors exposed the hospital’s true intentions.

[...] United States v. Skrmetti comes at a pivotal time for trans rights in the U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has promised to “stop” gender-affirming care for minors nationwide, which he has equated to “child abuse” and “sexual mutilation.” The incoming president has also appointed Russell Vought, the co-author of Project 2025, as the director of the Office of Management and Budget. Project 2025, the blueprint for a second Trump term, includes dozens of policies that erase federal protections for LGBTQ+ people, including allowing Medicare and Medicaid to deny coverage for gender-affirming care and removing trans-inclusive protections from Title IV.

Tomorrow at SCOTUS: a very big case on gender-affirming care will be heard for oral arguments, and it is United States v. Skrmetti. The Skrmetti case is a crucial case to determine the fate of gender-affirming care for trans and gender-expansive youths (and adults).

#LGBTQPeopleAreNotGoingBack

See Also:

The Advocate: What to expect in this week’s landmark gender-affirming care U.S. Supreme Court case

[mr-snailman]

I wanna show you guys these photographs of the Lovings I found while doing research!

taken in 1966 by Ronald Schermer for LIFE Magazine, found in the UMass Amherst Digital Archives

On July 11, 1958, police burst into the bedroom where Mildred and Richard Loving slept and charged them with violating Virginia's Racial Integrity Act in 1964. The couple were sentenced to a year in jail, each, unless they left Virginia permanently. Exiled from their home and family, they challenged the law in court. In 1967, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and interracial marriage became legal nationwide.

Obviously this case is very special to me, but I think everyone (in the US anyway) should know about it. Our history isn't that far behind us. My grandparents were already married and starting families when the court ruling that would make my parents' marriage legal came down. The precedents set by Loving v. Virginia contributed to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

[buckydeservesthebest]

The lack of media literacy of some Sam Stans is frankly disturbing and should be made to look ridiculous.

To rely on the fanfiction in their minds to jump to the conclusion that Bucky and the others "work for Val", just because we DID NOT know how Bucky proceeded after the abrupt ending of the movie, and we STILL don't know how the New Avengers operate, because we only had a 2 minute post-credits scene whose sole purpose was to connect to the events of Avengers Doomsday, which basically gave NO information about them as a team. It's stupidly absurd.

Just because Bucky and the others decided to stay as a team (because literally the movie was about a group of people being forced to work together to confront a seemingly indefensible threat, and to connect and form a bond of mutual support in the process), and take the Avengers name is NOT proof that Val is somehow exerting her influence on them. Did these people even watch the same movie?? Do you really think that Bucky, Yelena and the others would listen to any of the lies of an evil manipulative person like Val after all that happened?? Tell me you didn't understand any of the plot without telling me...

Val does NOT own the Avengers name, so her publicly introducing them as the New Avengers does NOT mean shit. Bucky was already an Avenger since Infinity War or before. John literally said people considered him an Avengers since TFATWS.

Clint brought Wanda to the team, and Steve brought Sam to the team as well, there is no clause prohibiting members from inviting their own recruits to the team. So of course Bucky would have every right to decide to form his own team and invite his new teammates. Bucky has as much right to do this as Sam.

Literally people forget that Val has NO support, she is in the crosshairs of the authorities, she got rid of all her labs and all her research. Her only hope was to be able to control Sentry and of course it slipped through her fingers. Literally Bucky, Yelena and the others have her on a short leash, and they can literally take her down whenever they feel like it.

Also, exposing Val at the press conference wouldn't have worked as the only people who knew Bob was Sentry and The Void were Val, Mel and The Thunderbolts. If they'd presented Bob who didn't even remember what just happened people would have thought they were crazy or just lying to try and bring her down.

Even if Yelena and the others were to say publicly that Val hired them to get rid of any evidence that might convict her, it would be their word (that of former criminals) against hers. It could equally be interpreted that they are just lying because they have no evidence.

And another thing, when Bucky captured the Thunderbolts he was going to take them to testify with the impeachment committee. Their statement would only be useful against Valentina in this situation. For this information to be made public before it got to the Committee would have been counterproductive and would have most likely lost its credibility. So there is literally nothing to prevent Bucky from later arranging a deal in which Yelena, John and Ava could testify against Val in exchange for protection, a reduced sentence or even a government pardon.

People make a stupid fuss that the New Avengers might be somehow related to the government, when we don't even know if this is true or to what degree, but they conveniently forget that the OG Avengers were literally formed by SHIELD, a government organization. And their first team mission was ordered by SHIELD as well. In CA:TWS Steve and Natasha are still considered to be working for SHIELD, i.e. the Government. That only stopped because SHIELD was bought down. The Avengers only gained autonomy because the government organization controlling it ceased to exist.

The idea to form a new Avengers team in CA:BNW literally came from Ross, the same guy who wanted to have enhanced people under his control, the same guy who said Bruce's body was government property, and the same guy who ordered an extrajudicial execution order against Bucky, convicting him as guilty for the UN bombing without a fair trial which is literally a violation of his human rights. Ross is NO better a person than Val, and Sam was going to work with him just because he told him he "had changed", as if Ross wasn't known for lying, he already did it by telling the Avengers that they were "going to have a degree of freedom" if they signed the Accords, and this is NOT true.

Had the scandal of Ross transforming into the Red Hulk not happened on national TV, and thus not ended up in prison, Sam would have ended up working with him. The line between Sam "and when we disagree on how to manage a situation… what happens then?" and Ross "we figure it out together" literally already is a clear implication that they were going to work together.

I bet if BNW had ended up in a similar situation, with no word on whether Ross was arrested or not, and before that he had introduced Sam, Joaquin and maybe others as the New Avengers, people wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Sam is now working for him.

BECAUSE AGAIN, WORKING IN COOPERATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT MEAN BEING SUBJUGATED BY IT. AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE OG AVENGERS, WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH SAM'S FUTURE TEAM AND WHAT MAY HAPPEN WITH THE NEW AVENGERS.

Literally the only mention of the government with the New Avengers was Yelena's "we're the Avengers, the government said so," which couldn't be more ambiguous. Bucky literally has his trusted contacts within Congress, so without any problem they could have been the ones who could have offered them backing. Bucky literally already worked within the system and that did NOT stop him from stepping in and running things his own way. Of course he is going to seek that same freedom for his team.

In the same PC scene Yelena says that "there is a possible space threat and no one is informing them". If the New Avengers were really a government sanctioned organization, why isn't the government asking them to be the ones to investigate this? See the lack of sense? Bucky told Yelena to get a satellite image and send the jets when they are being kept out of the situation. That is literally clear proof that they are handling the situation their way and NOT asking for any permission.

Valentina is NOT the entire government, and NOT all members of the government are corrupt criminals. There's Rhodes who remained a colonel in the army even after he knew the system was infiltrated by Hydra, but that doesn't make him any less of a hero or any less of one.

Sam Stans think that Sam is supposedly so worried that now "the Avengers name is linked to a corrupt politician like Val", and that's why he waited 14 months to file a copyright lawsuit, when TB* could easily use a variant like The Revengers, The Avengerz, The New Avengers, East Coast Avengers, or any other that doesn't infringe copyright. Because avoiding that "The Avengers name is linked to Val" is the problem, not that a "bunch of super people are working for her" 🤡🤡

[theivorybilledwoodpecker]

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes ruled that the ban violates the equal protection clause because it discriminates based on transgender status and sex. Reyes said the ban “is soaked in animus.” “Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact,” she wrote. Reyes added, “Indeed, the cruel irony is that thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed — some risking their lives — to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the Military Ban seeks to deny them.”

[probablyasocialecologist]

The UN Charter compromised its commitments to racial equality and colonial liberation by adding clauses that made state sovereignty paramount. The Charter’s Article I stated that one of the UN’s prime purposes was “encouraging … fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” Yet the major powers at San Francisco also inserted a legal loophole, Article II (7), providing that none of the charter’s clauses would allow the organization “to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” With this sweeping limitation on the equality promised under Article I, South Africa protected apartheid, Britain exempted its colonial empire, and the bloc of Southern states in the US Congress saw no threat to racial segregation. Indeed, the American delegate John Foster Dulles, a Republican conservative and future secretary of state, crafted Article II (7) precisely to avoid any international pressure for reform of what he called “the Negro problem in the South”—code words for the harsh system of racial segregation that had succeeded slavery. This loophole was so large and so controversial that it plunged the UN into two years of intense debates over human rights, culminating in the unanimous approval of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 that proclaimed “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family."

Alfred W. McCoy, To Govern the Globe: World Orders and Catastrophic Change

[southeastasianists]

When Thailand's long-awaited equal marriage law came into effect on Thursday, police officer Pisit "Kew" Sirihirunchai hoped to be among the first in line to marry his long-term partner Chanatip "Jane" Sirihirunchai.

And he was - they were the sixth couple to register their union at one of Bangkok's grandest shopping malls, in an event city officials helped organise to celebrate this legal milestone.

Hundreds of couples across Thailand received marriage certificates on Thursday, breaking into smiles or tearing up over the moment they had dreamed of for so long.

It was a pageant of colours and costumes as district officials hosted parties with photo booths and free cup cakes - one Bangkok district was giving air tickets to the first couple who registered their marriage there.

"The rainbow flag is flying high over Thailand," Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra wrote on Facebook from Davos where she is attending the World Economic Forum.

Activists said they were hoping to cross the 1,448-mark for registrations by the end of Thursday - 1448 is the clause in the Thai Civil Code covering the definition of marriage.

"We have been ready for such a long time," Pisit said. "We have just been waiting for the law to catch up and support us."

The two men have been together for seven years. Eager to formalise their relationship, they had previously been to a Buddhist monk to give them an auspicious new last name they can share – Sirihirunchai. They had also asked local officials to issue a letter of intent, which they both signed, pledging to get married.

But they said having their partnership recognised under Thai law is what they had been waiting for: "This is perfect for us. The law that protects our rights."

Until now, official documents listed Pisit and Chanatip as brothers. That way they could be a family in the eyes of the law. A marriage certificate meansLGBTQ+ couples now have the same rights as any other couple to get engaged and married, to manage their assets, to inherit and to adopt children.

They can also make decisions about medical treatment if their partner becomes ill and incapacitated, or extend financial benefits – such as Pisit's government pension – to their spouse.

"We want to build a future together – build a house, start a small business together, maybe a café," he adds, making a list of all that the law has enabled. "We want to build our future together and to take care of each other."

The law, which passed in both houses of parliament in June last year before being endorsed by the Thai king in September, is a big step for LGBTQ+ rights.

Thailand remains an outlier in Asia in recognising marriage equality - only Nepal and Taiwan have legalised same-sex unions.

It's one reason why Aki Uryu, who is Japanese, moved to Bangkok to be with her partner. She said life is difficult for the LGBTQ+ community back home: "In Thailand, I can hold hands with my partner, walk together. No one says anything. It's just different. It feels right."

After the two women married on Thursday, Aki said: "It is like I have started my new life."

Watching them celebrate, along with so many other couples in a Bangkok mall, was Mr Zhang, a gay Chinese man who did not want to reveal his first name.

"We're excited, we're also very jealous," he said. "Thailand is so close to China, but in another sense it's so far away."

And yet, even in Thailand, with its famed tolerance towards LGBTQ+ people, activists say it took a sustained campaign to win legal recognition.

A long wait

"We've been waiting for this day for 18 years - the day everyone can recognise us openly, when we no longer need to be evasive or hide," 59-year-old Rungtiwa Thangkanopast, who will marry her partner of 18 years in May, told the BBC earlier this week.

She had been in a marriage, arranged by her family, to a gay man, who later died. She had a daughter, through IVF, but after her husband's death began spending time, and later helping run, one of the first lesbian pubs in Bangkok. Then she met Phanlavee, who's now 45 and goes by her first name only.

On Valentine's Day 2013 the two women went to the Bang Rak district office in central Bangkok to ask to be officially married - a popular place for marriage registration because the name in Thai means "Love Town".

This was the time when LGBTQ+ couples began challenging the official view of marriage as an exclusively heterosexual partnership by attempting to get marriage certificates at district offices.

There were around 400 heterosexual couples waiting with them on that day. Rungtiwa and Phanlavee were refused, and the Thai media mocked their effort, using derogatory slang for lesbians.

Still, activists managed to persuade the government to consider changing the marriage laws. A proposed civil partnership bill was put before parliament, offering some official recognition to same-sex couples, but not the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

A military coup in 2014 which deposed the elected government interrupted the movement. It would be another decade before full marriage equality was approved by parliament, in part because of the rise of young, progressive political parties that championed the cause.

Their message resonated with Thais – and attitudes too had changed. By this time, same-sex marriage was legalised in many Western countries and same-sex love had become normalised in Thai culture too.

Such was the shift in favour of the law that it was passed last year by a thumping majority of 400 votes to just 10 against. Even in the notoriously conservative senate only four opposed the law.

And couples like Rungtiwa and Phanleeva now have their chance to have their love for each other recognised, without the risk of public derision.

"With this law comes the legitimacy of our family," Rungtiwa says, "We're no longer viewed as weirdos just because our daughter isn't being raised by heterosexual parents."

The new law takes out gender-specific terms like man, woman, husband and wife from 70 sections of the Thai Civil Code covering marriage, and replaces them with neutral terms like individual and spouse.

However, there are still dozens of laws in the Thai legal code which have not yet been made gender-neutral, and there are still obstacles in the way of same-sex couples using surrogacy to have a family.

Parents are still defined under Thai law as a mother and a father. The law also does not yet allow people to use their preferred gender on official documents; they are still stuck with their birth gender. These are areas where activists say they will still need to keep pushing for change.

And it is especially significant for older couples, who have had to ride out the shifts in attitude.

"I really hope people will put away the old, stereotypical ideas that gay men cannot have true love," said Chakkrit "Ink" Vadhanavira.

He and his partner Prinn, both in their 40s, have been together for 24 years.

"The two of us have proved that we genuinely love each other through thick and thin for more than 20 years," Chakkrit said. "We have been ready to take care of each other since our first day together. We are no different from heterosexual couples."

While Chakkrit's parents quickly accepted their partnership, it took Prinn's parents seven years before they could do so.

The couple also wanted to share the production business they ran together, and other assets, as a couple, so they asked Prinn's parents to adopt Chakkrit officially, giving him the same family name. Prinn says the new law has brought welcome legal clarity to them.

"For example, right now when a same sex couple buy something together – a large item - they cannot share ownership of it," said Prinn. "And one of us passes away, what both of us have earned together cannot be passed on to the other. That's why marriage equality is very significant."

Today, said Prinn, both sets of parents treat them as they would just like any other married children.

And when they had relationship problems like any other couple, their parents helped them.

"My dad even started reading gay magazines to understand me better. It was quite cute to see that."

Additional reporting by Lulu Luo, Paweena Ninbut and Ryn Jirenuwat in Bangkok