Governor Kathy Hochul kicked off Pride Sunday by signing legislation making New York State a safe haven for transgender youth and doctors facing persecution in other states.
The Safe Haven bill was carried by two out lawmakers — State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal of Manhattan and Assemblymember Harry Bronson of Rochester — and cleared the State Legislature earlier in the month, paving the way for the governor’s final signature.
Hochul, flanked by top elected officials and LGBTQ leaders on the morning of June 25, signed that bill in addition to several others, including legislation giving individuals the right to receive tailored addiction treatment based on their sexual orientation or gender identity as well as a bill updating language on state documents to be gender neutral.
Birth certificate rule is unconstitutional, judge holds state in contempt, liable for entire suit
Judge: ‘State did not act in good faith or in accordance with constitutional and statutory mandates
By: Darrell Ehrlick - June 27, 2023 8:28 am
The district court judge presiding during a two-year court battle over how the state allowed residents to change a birth certificate didn’t just strike down a 2021 law as unconstitutional. He held the state in contempt, ordered it to pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees for the entirety of the months-long litigation, and issued a scathing rebuke to the Montana Attorney General’s Office for how it handled the case.
Yellowstone County District Court Judge Michael G. Moses issued the order on Monday and struck down a 2021 law that had technically been enjoined for two years and would have required a surgical procedure in order to change a birth certificate.
Moses had issued a temporary injunction against the law shortly after it was enacted, which meant a previous 2017 law would be in effect. However, on seven different instances (a point Moses highlighted in bolded all caps), lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana went to court trying to enforce compliance with the injunction, as well as a reinstatement of the previous birth certificate procedures.
(Reuters) - A federal judge in Kentucky on Wednesday blocked a state law prohibiting the use of puberty blocking drugs and hormones for transgender children from taking effect while he hears a lawsuit challenging the ban, the latest in a series of similar rulings around the country.
U.S. District Judge David Hale in Louisville found that the seven families of transgender children suing over the law were likely to prevail, writing that puberty blockers and hormones were "medically appropriate and necessary for some transgender children."
He said that the plaintiffs — including six children currently receiving treatments that would be banned by the law, and one who expects to receive such treatments in the future — would be harmed if the law were allowed to take effect.
"We are grateful to the Court for enjoining this egregious ban on medically necessary care, which would have caused harm for countless young Kentuckians," Corey Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement.
"Today's misguided decision by a federal judge tramples the right of the General Assembly to make public policy," Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, a Republican, said in a statement, calling the ban "a commonsense law that protects Kentucky children from unnecessary medical experimentation.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. – A federal judge has blocked enforcement of a Tennessee law banning best practice medical care for trans youth up to age 18 while several families’ legal challenge against the law proceeds in court.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted a request for a preliminary injunction against the law, Public Chapter No. 1, in a lawsuit brought by Samantha and Brian Williams of Nashville and their 15-year-old daughter, as well as two other anonymous families and Dr. Susan N. Lacy. The law would prohibit medical providers from providing gender-affirming health care to transgender youth and would require trans youth currently receiving gender-affirming care to end that care within nine months of the law’s effective date of July 1, 2023, or by March 31, 2024.
Supreme Court Rules Businesses Can Refuse Service to LGBTQ+ Customers by Ivana Saric
June 30, 2023
Introduction:
(Axios) Businesses can refuse to serve same-sex couples if doing so would violate the owners' religious beliefs, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday.
Why it matters: The court has significantly expanded LGBTQ rights over the past several years, but is now carving out some exceptions.
Driving the news: The case concerns Lorie Smith, a Colorado web designer who wanted to create and sell wedding websites, but not to same-sex couples.
Colorado's civil rights law prohibited her, or any business that serves the general public, from turning away customers because of their sexual orientation. She said complying with that law would force her to espouse views she does not agree with.
"The artwork that I create is speech," Smith told Colorado Public Radio in December, adding that, "those messages must be consistent with my convictions."
The big picture: The conservative-majority Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Smith, saying she has a First Amendment right to refuse to design custom wedding websites for same-sex couples.
The Supreme Court on Friday let a lower court ruling stand that sided with a transgender woman who contested that her rights were violated in jail when she was deprived of her hormone treatment.
Kesha Williams, who was incarcerated for six months in 2018, was initially placed on the women’s side of the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center in northern Virginia, but was moved to the men’s facility after the center’s deputies learned she was transgender.
