Texas

[Rick]

Preliminary Injunction Issued in State of Texas v. USA

 

Today, 22 August 2016, in State of Texas v. United States, the-11 state challenge to the federal government's guidance on transgender students [Title IX] and employees [Title VII]), District Court Judge O'Connor issued a Preliminary Injunction.

 

"For the following reasons, the Court concludes that jurisdiction is proper here and that Defendants failed to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act by: (1) foregoing the Administrative Procedures Act's notice and comment requirements; and (2) issuing directives which contradict the existing legislative and regulatory texts. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion should be and is hereby GRANTED."

 

From the CONCLUSION:

"For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 11) should be and is hereby GRANTED. ... Defendants are enjoined from enforcing the Guidelines against Plaintiffs and their respective schools, school boards, and other public, educationally-based institutions. Further, while this injunction remains in place, Defendants are enjoined from initiating, continuing, or concluding any investigation based on Defendants' interpretation that the definition of sex includes gender identity in Title IX's prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex. Additionally, Defendants are enjoined from using the Guidelines or asserting the Guidelines carry weight in any litigation initiated following the date of this Order. All parties to this cause of action must maintain the status quo as of the date of issuance of this Order and this preliminary injunction will remain in effect until the Court rules on the merits of this claim, or until further direction from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. This preliminary injunction shall be binding on Defendants and any officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, or other persons in active concert or participation with Defendants, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 65(d)(2).

 

"SO ORDERED on this 21st day of August, 2016."

 

ON THE SCOPE OF THE INJUNCTION:

"The Court concludes this injunction should apply nationwide. As the separate facilities provision in § 106.33 is permissive, states that authorize schools to define sex to include gender identity for purposes of providing separate restroom, locker room, showers, and other intimate facilities will not be impacted by it. Those states who do not want to be covered by this injunction can easily avoid doing so by state law that recognizes the permissive nature § 106.33. It therefore only applies to those states whose laws direct separation. However, an injunction should not unnecessarily interfere with litigation currently pending before other federal courts on this subject regardless of the state law. As such, the parties should file a pleading describing those cases so the Court can appropriately narrow the scope if appropriate.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Lambda Legal, ACLU, NCLR's Sharp Response to Preliminary Injunction

 

Lambda Legal; ACLU and ACLU of Texas; National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR); Transgender Law Center; and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) issued a statement in response to the ruling. In part, it reads,

 

"A ruling by a single judge in one circuit cannot and does not undo the years of clear legal precedent nationwide establishing that transgender students have the right to go to school without being singled out for discrimination. This unfortunate and premature ruling may, however, confuse school districts that are simply trying to support their students, including their transgender students. So let us make it clear to those districts: your obligations under the law have not changed, and you are still not only allowed but required to treat transgender students fairly. The scope of this injunction has no effect on the ability of other courts or lawyers representing transgender people to continue to rely on the federal government's interpretations of Title IX or on prior decisions that have reached similar conclusions about the scope of federal sex discrimination laws."

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas: New Federal Suit Seeks to Overturn Pro-Trans Rule in Obamacare

 

A new lawsuit, Franciscan Alliance v. Burwell, filed by religious-affiliated health care providers and five states, seeks to overturn a regulation under Obamacare prohibiting discrimination against transgender people in transition-related care, including gender reassignment surgery. The 79-page complaint, filed Tuesday, 23 August 2016, in federal court in Texas, alleges the regulation improperly redefines the definition of "sex" under federal law, forces healthcare professionals to disregard their medical judgment and religious beliefs, and undermines state authority to regulate health care.

 

"Ultimately, this case boils down to a very simple question of statutory interpretation: Can HHS redefine the term "sex" to thwart decades of settled precedent and impose massive new obligations on healthcare professionals and sovereign States?" the complaint says. "The answer is 'no,' and the new regulation must be set aside as a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and multiple other federal laws and constitutional provisions."

 

Defying legal precedent establishing that transgender discrimination amounts to gender discrimination under current law, the lawsuit seeks an injunction barring enforcement of the regulation on the basis it is invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution.

 

In May, the Department of Health & Human Services made final a rule interpreting Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in health care, to apply to transgender and gender-nonconforming people, including for the purposes of transition-related care. Under the rule, a health care provider must provide transition-related care, including gender reassignment surgery, to a transgender person if that provider offers a similar service, such as hysterectomies.

 

The lawsuit takes issue with the lack of a religious exemption in the regulation, pointing out Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, on which the rule is based, affords such a carve out.

 

Leading the litigation on behalf of the five states, Texas, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kentucky, and Kansas, is Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton, who has filed several lawsuits against the Obama administration for regulations advancing LGBT rights. Representing the religious-affiliated providers is the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the same legal group which represented Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor in their earlier challenges to the Affordable Care Act.

 

The case has been assigned to District Judge Reed O'Connor, the same judge who on the day before the lawsuit was filed issued an order blocking the enforcement of guidance from the Obama administration prohibiting schools from discriminating against transgender students, and barring them from using the restroom consistent with their gender identity.

 

Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, called the lawsuit "a thinly veiled attack on transgender people. The ACA rule does not mandate what kind of care doctors can and cannot give," Keisling said. "It bans discrimination. It's there to make sure that transgender people can get the treatment we need without facing harassment "“ or worse. Over a dozen federal courts have confirmed that the term 'sex' in federal non-discrimination laws, including the ACA, applies to gender identity." Keisling said the regulation not only ensures transition-related care for transgender people, but prohibits medical providers from discriminating against transgender people seeking care for other health issues "from colds to cancer." Keisling said the regulation not only ensures transition-related care for transgender people, but prohibits medical providers from discriminating against transgender people seeking care for other health issues "from colds to cancer."

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas: DOJ Seeks Clarification on Order Against Trans Student Guidance

 

In Texas v. United States, following a court order blocking the Obama administration's recent guidance warning schools not to discriminate against transgender students, including bathroom use, the Justice Department is seeking clarification on the breadth of the order. District Judge Reed O'Connor, who issued the order last week in response to a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton on behalf of 12 states, ordered additional briefings from both the federal government and states involved in the case.

 

The request from the Justice Department comes amid questions about whether the Obama administration will continue to enforce federal civil rights law to prohibit anti-trans discrimination in the aftermath of the sweeping order, which enjoined the federal government from interpreting the prohibition of gender discrimination under current civil rights law to apply to transgender people. In a seven-page filing on Tuesday, 30 August 2016, signed by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney-General for the Civil Division, Benjamin Mizer, who is gay, and other US attorneys, the Justice Department seeks clarification on whether the administration can continue to participate in ongoing litigation alleging anti-trans discrimination.

 

"Defendants understand that in such cases they are permitted to comply with all deadlines and court orders, file appeals as necessary, and continue to participate as an amicus or interested party," the filing says. The filing broadly describes all cases in which the Justice Department is involved, but draws attention to one in particular: The lawsuit the Justice Department filed in March 2015 against the Southeastern Oklahoma State University, which alleges the school violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against and terminating the employment of transgender English professor Rachel Tudor based on her gender identity.

 

"There is a pressing need to proceed in the case against Southeastern Oklahoma State University so that pre-trial deadlines and the scheduled trial are not unduly delayed," the filing says. "Although defendants do not believe that the case is intended to be covered by this court's preliminary injunction, the Department of Justice has halted its discovery out of an abundance of caution." The filing says the Justice Department will seek a stay in that case "pending confirmation that proceedings in that case are not enjoined by this court's order," but without immediate confirmation "there will likely be substantial disruption" in the schedule for the litigation.

 

In response to the order, O'Connor scheduled additional briefings in the case, setting a deadline of 9 September for the Texas attorney-general, and a deadline of 14 September for the Obama administration, to file a response.

 

As Buzzfeed reported, although the states sought an order barring the federal government from enforcing both Title IX and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect transgender people, the court only issued an injunction on the former. That would suggest the Obama administration can continue to enforce the law with respect to transgender workers, but not transgender students.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas: Wedding Venue's Ad, Same-Sex Couples Not Welcome

 

Bob and Genie Flournoy of East Texas are the toast of right-wing religious zealots across America for advertising in their local Christian magazine their refusal to book weddings for same-sex or transgender couples.

 

"Our Christian faith demands that we not participate in same-sex, transgender, or any other perversion of marriage," the ad says. "If you disagree with our stance on marriage, please respect our Christian belief and have your wedding elsewhere."

 

Mr. Flournoy is the owner of Texas Forest Country Weddings, a bed and breakfast venue in Manning, Texas, that features a mansion, a lodge, acres upon acres of beautiful land, and the online equivalent of a big "You're Not Welcome" sign to LGBTQ couples.

 

"We don't turn away gays at the property, we just don't host same-sex marriage ceremonies," said a spokesperson for the venue in response to questions from LGBTQ Nation. When pressed to clarify why transgender Americans who are straight and engaged to marry heterosexuals would be excluded from booking a wedding at Texas Forest, the unnamed spokesperson responded, "We book traditional heterosexual weddings. Pretty simple."

 

One presumes they're the next "christianist martyr wannabes" begging for a lawsuit.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas: El Paso County Challenges GOP Leaders' Anti-Trans Rhetoric

 

On Monday, 5 September 2016, El Paso County commissioners unanimously approved a resolution condemning rhetoric used by Lt. Gov. Patrick and other GOP state leaders in the ongoing debate over transgender restroom access, even linking their words to violence against the LGBT community.

 

The nonbinding resolution states: "History has demonstrated that rhetoric and discourse that promotes fear, intolerance, and hate can manifest into the darkest and most horrific of human actions and transgressions against one another."

 

Also Monday, commissioners voted unanimously to add LGBT nondiscrimination protections to El Paso County's Equal Employment Opportunity policy. Stout said the statewide debate over trans restroom access prompted him to review the county's policies to ensure they were fully inclusive of LGBT people.

 

Commissioner David Stout added he plans to hand-deliver copies of the resolution to the offices of state leaders, including Patrick and fellow Republicans, Governor Greg Abbott, Attorney-General Ken Paxton, and House speaker Joe Straus. Paxton's office is behind two lawsuits challenging the Obama administration's efforts to protect trans people against discrimination.

 

In addition to condemning recent anti-trans rhetoric, Stout's resolution states that El Paso County opposes anti-LGBT legislation, including any bill that would allow private businesses to discriminate or limit access to health care, education, and public facilities.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas Judge Officiates at Same-Sex Marriage, then Quits Republican Party

 

A Texas judge has quit the Republican Party after officiating his first same-sex marriage, deciding he had had enough of the party's intolerance. Justice Terry Jennings will now be the only Democrat on the Texas First Court of Appeals, after pulling the trigger on the decision he had been mulling over for years, with the encouragement of his children who wondered why he was staying with a party from which he was feeling increasingly alienated.

 

"Today's Republican Party has chosen a dark path I cannot take," Jennings said at a Democratic fundraising dinner over the past weekend, where he officially made the announcement that he was switching parties."It's just a party I didn't feel comfortable being a member of anymore," he told the "Houston Press." "You've heard the common expression a thousand times: I didn't leave my party; my party left me. And it's true. My values and principles have not changed since 2000, but those of the Republican party have," he said at the dinner.

 

Jennings has been elected three times to the First Court of Appeals bench since 2000. He said he does not know if he will seek re-election in 2018.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

United States to Appeal State of Texas v. United States

 

 

As of today, 14 October 2016, in State of Texas v. United States, one of two multi-state challenges to the federal government's guidance on transgender students and employees, there has still not been a ruling from Judge O'Connor on the United States' motion to clarify the scope of the preliminary injunction. As a result, today, the United States informed the Court that it intends to appeal the injunction and will do so by the statutory deadline of 20 October.

 

"Defendants would prefer not to file a notice of appeal while the Motion for Clarification is pending, but Defendants wish to advise the Court that they currently intend to file a protective notice of appeal on or before October 20, 2016 "“ sixty days after entry of the Court's August 21, 2016 preliminary injunction "“ in order to ensure their ability to pursue a timely appeal of the preliminary injunction."

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

GOP Asks Texas Supreme Court to Cut Spousal Benefits to Houston Gay Employees

 

The "Austin Statesman" reports:

 

Ratcheting up pressure on the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court, Gov. Greg Abbott and other leading GOP officials on Friday, 28 October 2016, urged the court to revive a lawsuit that seeks to abolish employee benefits the city of Houston provides to married same-sex couples.

 

The case has become a rallying point for the state's social conservatives, with the stakes growing larger now that Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and Attorney-General Ken Paxton have added their voices by asking the court to adopt a limited legal interpretation of last year's US Supreme Court ruling that struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

 

"This court should take this opportunity to remind the lower courts that all disputes involving the right to same-sex marriage have not been resolved," Abbott, Patrick, and Paxton said in a friend-of-the-court brief.

 

Opponents of same-sex marriage have also peppered the court with dozens of emails urging justices to strike down the Houston benefits or face a voter backlash in future Republican primaries. Abbott and other opponents of same-sex marriage, however, face a difficult challenge.

 

The Texas Supreme Court has already rejected to hear the Houston case in an 8-1 ruling, letting stand a lower-court decision that upheld the benefits. Same-sex marriage opponents have asked the court to reconsider, but such requests are rarely granted.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas: The Republican Legislative Nightmare Begins

 

Wasting no time, Texas legislators filed three abortion-restrictive bills and the first anti-LGBTQ piece of legislation on the first day of the new filing period, 14 November 2016, assuring another heated fight for pro-choice advocates and LGBTQ allies beginning on 10 January, the first day of the 2017 legislative session.

 

On the anti-LGBTQ front, Sen. Bob Hall, R-Edgewood, proposed Senate Bill 92, a bill that would prevent a city, county, or political subdivision from adopting or enforcing anti-discriminatory protections "on a basis not contained in the laws of this state," just like North Carolina's HB2 (and matching North Carolina, Texas law also offers no protection on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity). Further, Hall's bill would repeal local anti-discrimination ordinances already in effect, also just like North Carolina's HB2. Plus, Hall's bill is sure to be but one of many anti-LGBTQ pieces of legislation put forward.

 

Then, stay tuned for the anticipated and misleading "Women's Privacy Act." Touted by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the bill would prevent transgender residents from using the facilities that align with their gender identity. This anti-LGBTQ act stands as Item 6 in Patrick's Top 10 priorities of the legislative session list, released today, 14 November 2016.

 

NOTE: Texas still has a part-time legislature which only meets every alternating year, and at that, only for a very short, intensely insane session. So, the reason they were so quiet in 2016 is very simple: They were not in session. At all. The entire year. But fully expect them to make up for "lost time" come January 2017.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas: Court Won't Stay Decision Against Trans Student Protections

 

On Tuesday, 22 November 2016, in Texas v. USA, despite a request from the US Justice Department for a stay pending appeal, District Judge Reed O'Connor declined to stay his decision against guidance from the Obama administration prohibiting schools from discriminating against transgender students.

 

In a six-page decision, O'Connor ruled he won't grant a stay on his ruling against the guidance, which also requires schools to allow transgender students to use the restroom consistent with their gender identity, on the basis the Obama administration is unlikely to succeed on appeal and won't suffer irreparable injury.

 

"The federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of 'sex' - the scope and meaning of which Defendants claim now includes gender identity - were promulgated more than forty years ago," O'Connor writes. "The federal government did not articulate, much less enforce, the Guidelines' interpretation of sex as including gender identity for nearly fifty years after Title VII was passed in 1964 and the Court views this delay as strong evidence that Defendants will suffer no irreparable injury if a stay is denied and enforcement of the Guidelines delayed until their legality is established."

 

The George W. Bush-appointed judge issued the nationwide injunction against the guidance as a result of litigation filed by Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton on behalf of 12 states and two school districts. The Justice Department has already appealed the order to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas: Judge Suspended for Telling New Citizens: Find Another Country If Not Liking Trump

 

The San Antonio "Express-News" reports:

 

A federal judge under fire for reportedly telling newly sworn-in US citizens last week that Donald Trump is "your president, and if you don't like that, you need to go to another country," was suspended on Monday, 21 November 2016, from overseeing further citizenship ceremonies. US Magistrate Judge John Primomo said he was not trying to tell the new Americans to leave if they didn't like Trump.

 

Despite his assurances, the US district judges at San Antonio's federal courthouse - who appoint and oversee federal magistrate judges - issued a statement saying they "have determined that he will no longer be handling citizenship ceremonies, and the judges are meeting with him to see how this matter can be resolved and concluded."

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas Association of Business: Report and Warning

 

Setting the stage for one of the most contentious debates awaiting next year's legislative session, Texas' leading business group released a report Tuesday, 6 December 2016, warning that bills targeting gay and transgender rights could severely hinder the Texas economy.

 

"The Texas Association of Business report concluded that, if passed, such proposed laws could cost the state economy $8.5 billion a year and threaten 185,000 jobs, primarily in the state's travel and tourism industry. These are conservative projections based on hard data that tracks what is happening in other states," Chris Wallace, president of the business group, said during a Capitol news conference.

 

"Protecting Texas from billions of dollars in losses is simple: Don't pass unnecessary laws that discriminate against Texans and our visitors," Wallace said. "We cannot slam the door on the Texas miracle of openness, competitiveness, economic opportunity, and innovation."

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas: Legislative Proposal to Rescind Sodomy Law

 

Sodomy laws were struck down as unconstitutional by the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, but in many states they remain on the books. At the time of the ruling, there were 14 states which still had sodomy laws on the books (whether enforced or not): Michigan, Idaho, Utah, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia.

 

Texas itself is one such state that continues to keep language on the books outlawing homosexual sex acts. The law, passed in 1974, makes such conduct a Class C misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a $2,000 fine. "A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex," the language reads, now crossed out to indicate it has been repealed.

 

Rep. Joe Moody wants to do away with it altogether in order to prevent anyone from being arrested and prosecuted under the now overruled law, putting forth House Bill 96.

 

This is not a totally unfounded fear. After efforts to do away with Louisiana's sodomy law failed in 2014, two men were arrested under it the following year. The charges were thrown out and Baton Rouge Police Chief Carl Dabadie issued a reminder to officers to stop arresting people under the non-enforceable law.

 

Although their efforts have been largely overshadowed by proposed anti-LGBT legislation, Democratic state lawmakers have pre-filed 15 pro-LGBT bills in advance of the 2017 session, according to Equality Texas. Six of the pro-LGBT measures aim to repeal existing anti-LGBT laws, from the state's 1973 ban on "homosexual conduct" to its 2005 constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

 

Several of the anti-LGBT laws targeted for repeal are unenforceable because they've been declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. But others, such as a ban on promoting homosexuality in public schools and a prohibition on consensual sex between gay teens, threaten real-world discriminatory impacts.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Federal Judge Halts ACA Transgender, Abortion-Related Protection Nationwide

 

The same federal judge who stopped enforcement of the Obama administration's transgender guidance for schools stopped enforcement of a similar healthcare rule one day before it was due to go into effect. The lawsuit, brought by Texas, seven other states, and some religiously-affiliated nonprofit medical groups, challenges a regulation implementing the sex nondiscrimination requirement found in the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

 

The Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation "forbids discriminating on the basis of 'gender identity' and 'termination of pregnancy'" under Obamacare, as US District Court Judge Reed O'Connor wrote in his opinion halting enforcement of those provisions in the rule. Explaining the lawsuit, O'Connor wrote, "Plaintiffs claim the Rule's interpretation of sex discrimination pressures doctors to deliver healthcare in a manner that violates their religious freedom and thwarts their independent medical judgment and will require burdensome changes to their health insurance plans on 1 January 2017." The states and nonprofits in the healthcare lawsuit allege that the regulation violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which sets the rules for federal government rule-making, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

 

O'Connor found that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the lawsuit because they "have presented concrete evidence to support their fears that they will be subject to enforcement under the Rule." Because Title IX is referenced as providing the interpretation of the ACA's sex discrimination ban, O'Connor found, accordingly, that "HHS's expanded definition of sex discrimination exceeds the [Title IX] grounds" provided for in the ACA, making that provision contrary to law and a violation of the APA. O'Connor similarly found that the rule's failure to include the religious exemptions found in Title IX similarly "renders it contrary to law." The judge also found a "substantial likelihood" that the states and nonprofits would succeed in their RFRA claim.

 

O'Connor found that because "numerous" other options were available to the government for "expand[ing] access to transition and abortion procedures," the rule is not the "least restrictive means" of advancing that interest - as required by RFRA. Notably, O'Connor also questioned strongly whether the government even showed that the rule "advances a compelling interest," as required by RFRA, but assumed that it did so because he had found the rule had not met the "least restrictive means" prong of RFRA either.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas and Its Unconstitutional Sodomy Law

 

Texas' sodomy law still remains on the books, 14 years after the Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, struck it down. Called homosexual conduct, the section of the statute is headed with the disclaimer that it was ruled unconstitutional more than a decade ago.

 

Eight other states also still have sodomy laws on the books. Three have sodomy laws with punishment that is less than the punishment for raping a woman. Georgia, Kansas, and Utah have two definitions for sodomy, with one being a separate definition for when it is forced. Georgia has the highest possible punishment for sodomy: one to 20 years in prison. According to criminal law in Kansas and Utah, sodomy could land someone up to six months in jail and a fine up to $1,000. All of these laws have been ruled unconstitutional.

 

Five additional states have laws that define rape as vaginal intercourse, with separate definitions for sodomy. Offenses that are prefaced with the word "forced" or aggravated" carry the same punishment as rape. These states are Alabama, California, Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia. All these laws are unconstitutional.

 

Idaho and Mississippi also have highly questionable laws, where sodomy gets mixed in with rape. In Idaho, the law differentiates between rape of men and women by having a completely separate male rape law that defines the crime as oral or anal penetration from another man. In Mississippi, the state's rape law requires female victims to prove they were "previously of chaste character." There is no such requirement for men.

 

By some parameters, that gives us 11 states either with unconstitutional sodomy laws still on the books, or with laws which are of a highly questionable nature.

 

At the time when Lawrence was struck down, there were 13 states with sodomy laws. Montana subsequently dumped theirs in its entirety, while Maryland "fixed" its language to eliminate the unconstitutional portions. But people were recently falsely arrested for "sodomy" in Louisiana, so do they still have something on the books there, too? Personally, I am doubting California's inclusion in this list, and am much more prone to think that Louisiana ought to be.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas House Speaker Voices Opposition to Bathroom Bill

 

On 18 January 2017, in a speech to the leading business group opposing Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick's transgender bathroom bill, Texas House Speaker Joe Straus warned that such legislation could harm the Texas economy.

 

"I want to say from the outset that I believe those who supporting legislation relating to bathrooms are sincere," Straus told the Texas Association of Business legislative conference. "The competition for jobs among the states and even countries is intense. Usually Texas competes pretty well. Entrepreneurs appreciate our pro-growth business climate here, and the people they employ appreciate our quality of life."

 

Patrick's bill, which he calls the privacy act, would prevent transgender people from using a gender-specific public restroom that does not match their sex at birth. Patrick said the bill is needed to prevent male sexual predators from entering women's restrooms by claiming they are female. Opponents have labeled the effort discrimination against transgender Texans. Similar legislation in North Carolina led businesses to halt expansion plans and to cancel concerts and professional and collegiate sports events in the state. Straus's hometown of San Antonio is supposed to host the NCAA men's basketball Final Four in 2018.

 

Straus said such legislation is a threat to economic growth in Texas. "Our economy is modern and diverse and dynamic. "¦ Contrary to popular myth, it is not a miracle. And we want to continue that success. "¦ One way to maintain our economic edge is to send the right signals about who we are."

 

San Antonio officials estimate the Final Four will generate $234 million in local economic activity. "It's not just about basketball tournaments or conventions. Many people where I'm from are concerned about anything that could slow down overall job creation." His constituents see the North Carolina blowback and are "not enthusiastic about getting that type of attention," Straus said. "We should be very careful about doing something that would make Texas less competitive for investments, jobs, and the highly skilled workforce needed to compete."

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas Supreme Court Agrees to Rehear Houston Benefits Case

 

On Friday, 20 January 2017, in a rare reversal, the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court accepted a gay marriage case after pressure from state GOP leaders and grass-roots activists. The state's highest civil court had rejected the Houston benefits case, 8-1, in September 2016, prompting a concerted effort to revive a lawsuit that sought to abolish benefits the city of Houston provides to married same-sex couples. Opponents believe the Houston case provides an opportunity for a ruling that limits the impact of the 2015 US Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.

 

Gay marriage opponents asked the court to reconsider by filing a rarely granted motion to rehear the case. The court accepted, without comment, on Friday. Oral arguments will be heard 1 March. The motion to rehear urged the court to reject the "ideology of the sexual revolution" embraced by federal judges who found a constitutional right to gay marriage, overturned Texas abortion regulations, and struck down a Mississippi law that would have allowed individuals and businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples based on religious objections to gay marriage.

 

A separate friend-of-the-court brief, signed by 70 Republican politicians, conservative leaders, and Christian pastors, urged the court to stand up to "federal tyranny" and warned that failure to accept the appeal would deny voters "an opportunity to hear what their duly-elected high court justices have to say on such an important issue." Ratcheting up the pressure, Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and state Attorney-General Ken Paxton, all Republicans, filed a brief telling the court that the Houston lawsuit provides an opportunity to limit the impact of the US Supreme Court ruling that struck down the state's ban on gay marriage. Opponents of same-sex marriage, spurred by religious and social conservative leaders, also barraged the court with emails asking justices to strike down the Houston benefits, or face a voter backlash in future Republican primaries.

 

Lawyers for the City of Houston, however, say gay-marriage opponents are beating a dead horse. The city's benefits policy, they told the court, is protected by the 2015 US Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which said state laws are unconstitutional if they exclude same-sex couples from marriage "on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples."

 

"It requires that same-sex spouses be treated equally to opposite-sex spouses, " Houston's lawyers argued. "Therefore, if the city offers employee benefits to spouses, it must offer them to all spouses, regardless of gender." Tellingly, they added, state agencies began offering employee benefits to same-sex couples shortly after the ruling, "the very act" gay-marriage opponents are seeking to stop in Houston.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas GOP Still Trying to Chip Away at Gay Marriage Ruling

 

SB 522 by Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) and Sen. Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury) would allow county clerks to opt-out of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples if doing so would violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs. Under SB 522, clerks could instead delegate the duty of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples to deputy clerks, judges, or magistrates. County commissioners could also appoint a "certifying official" - another employee or a contractor - to issue the licenses if no deputy clerks, judges, or magistrates are available.

 

Ken Upton, Dallas senior counsel for the LGBT civil rights group Lambda Legal, said the proposal could run afoul of the high court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges depending on how it's applied, especially in smaller counties. "The bottom line is the process can't be different for same-sex couples," Upton stated. "The law can contemplate identifying a different employee within the clerk's office to handle the application, but one can't give same-sex couples a list of 'certifying officials' and send them someplace else. That won't work."

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas: ICE Agents Detain Undocumented Transgender Woman Fleeing Domestic Violence

 

Federal immigration agents arrested an undocumented transgender woman last week as she sought a protective order against an allegedly abusive partner, the "El Paso Times" reports. Irvin Gonzalez, also known as Ervin Gonzalez, was at the El Paso County Courthouse when six Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrived on the building's 10th floor, El Paso County Attorney Jo Anne Bernal told the "Times".

 

Bernal, whose office represents domestic violence victims seeking protective orders, said she believes the tip came from the alleged abuser, the only other person who knew the time and place of the hearing. Because immigrants are already reluctant to engage with the court system, Bernal is concerned this incident could have a chilling effect on immigrants reporting crimes and accessing life-saving victim services.

 

Activists across the county have expressed concern about an increased presence of ICE agents in county courthouses, but Bernal told the "Washington Post" it's "unprecedented" for immigration agents to arrest someone seeking protection from domestic violence, something she hadn't witnessed in her 23 years at the courthouse.

 

There's a reason for that. The Violence Against Women Act contains protections for immigrants fleeing domestic violence.

 

"The actions taken by ICE officials to detain a transgender immigrant while she was at the courthouse getting a restraining order against her abuser, based on a 'tip' to ICE possibly from her abuser, are not only outrageous, they violate the law," said Terra Russell Slavin, Esq., Deputy Director of Policy & Community Building at the Los Angeles LGBT Center, in a release. "The Violence Against Women Act contains specific prohibitions on these type of immigration enforcement actions."

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

NBA Joins NFL to Warn Texas: Proposed 'Bathroom Bill' Could Be Costly

 

Austin TX - The NBA is warning Texas over a proposed "bathroom bill" targeting transgender people that is similar to a North Carolina law that prompted the league to move the All-Star Game out of that state. On Friday, 17 February 2017, the NBA joined the NFL in suggesting that Texas will be overlooked for future big events if lawmakers pass a bill requiring people to use bathrooms that correspond to the sex on their birth certificate.

 

NBA spokesman Mike Bass says an environment where people are treated "fairly and equally" weighs heavily when the league chooses host locations. Texas has three NBA teams and has hosted three All-Star Games since 2006.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas Supreme Court to Take up Same-Sex Marriage Benefits Case

 

Almost two years after same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide, Texas Republicans are still fighting the ruling, and they're getting another day in court. The Texas Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Wednesday, 1 March 2017, in a Houston case challenging the city's benefits policy for married same-sex couples. Though such policies have been in place since the US Supreme Court's landmark 2015 ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, Texas conservatives are betting the Houston case opens up a path to re-litigate the high court's decision.

 

At the center of the Houston case is whether Obergefell, which legalized same-sex marriage across the country, requires the city and other governmental agencies to extend taxpayer-subsidized benefits to same-sex spouses of government employees. Opponents argue that the right to marry does not "entail any particular package of tax benefits, employee fringe benefits, or testimonial privileges." Ironically, in a separate case against the state's now-defunct ban on same-sex marriage several years ago, the Texas Attorney-General's office actually argued that marriage is a right that comes with benefits the state is entitled to control.

 

The state's highest civil court already had a say in the case when it initially declined to take it up in September 2016. That let stand a lower court decision that upheld benefits for same-sex couples. But the court reversed course on the issue in January 2017 after an outpouring of letters opposing the decision and increasing pressure from Texas GOP leadership looking to narrow the scope of the landmark ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. Among dozens of Republican elected officials who urged the court to reconsider the case, Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton in October 2016 filed an amicus brief asking the Texas Supreme Court to reopen the case and to clarify that Obergefell does not include a "command" to public employers regarding employee benefits.

 

That request came more than a year after state agencies moved to extend benefits to spouses of married gay and lesbian employees just days after the high court's ruling. As of 31 August 2015, 584 same-sex spouses had already enrolled in insurance plans - including health, dental or life insurance - subsidized by the state, according to a spokeswoman for the Employees Retirement System, which oversees benefits for state employees. Houston did not provide a count of same-sex spouses who enrolled in city-subsidized benefits.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas: States to End Suit after DOJ Withdraws Transgender Student Policy

 

The several states, led by Texas, which have been suing the federal government over the Obama administration's pro-transgender policies in Texas v. USA will be withdrawing their lawsuit soon - a result of the new administration's policy shift - the Justice Department announced in a court filing on Thursday, 2 March 2017.

 

The news came in the filing made at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals wherein which the Justice Department announced it would be withdrawing its appeal of a district court's injunction against the administration's pro-transgender student policies. Once the appeal is dismissed, per the filing, the states will dismiss their case. The move comes a week after the Education and Justice Departments jointly announced they had withdrawn the prior Obama-era pro-transgender guidance regarding protections for students under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas: DOJ Lets Stand Court Order against Transgender Health Care

 

In yet another blow from the Trump administration to transgender rights, in Franciscan Alliance v. Burwell, the Justice Department under A-G Sessions has let stand a court order against the implementation of an Obamacare regulation barring discrimination against transgender people in health care. The deadline for the Justice Department to appeal District Judge Reed O'Connor's preliminary injunction was midnight on 1 March 2017, but that time has passed and the department hasn't filed a notice of appeal.

 

O'Connor's order bars enforcement of a Department of Health & Human Services regulation against discrimination against women who have had abortions or transgender people in health care, including the refusal of gender reassignment surgery. The regulation is based on Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination in health care on the basis of sex.

 

Instead of appealing the injunction, the Justice Department on Friday, 24 February 2017, sought an extension of the time to answer the complaint as the underlying case proceeds in the district court to "provide opportunity for new leadership at the Department of Health and Human Services to become familiar with the issues in this case." The deadline for that response was also 1 March at midnight. O'Connor granted the Justice Department's request Tuesday night, 28 February 2017, giving the Justice Department until 2 May to respond.

 

Defying the broadly-accepted interpretation in the courts of "sex" to include transgender people, O'Connor issued the preliminary injunction on 31 December 2016 as a result of a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton on behalf of eight states, including Texas, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kentucky, and Kansas. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty was co-counsel in the case and represented religious-affiliated health providers who object to the regulation on religious grounds.

 

Declining to appeal the order to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is consistent with the Justice Department's recent decision to withdraw a request to halt an order from the same the judge barring enforcement of Obama administration guidance barring schools from refusing to allow transgender kids to use the restroom consistent with their gender identity.

 

But the Justice Department's refusal to appeal the order may not be the end of this case nor of the regulation assuring non-discrimination for transgender people in health care. The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and River City Gender Alliance have placed a request with the 5th Circuit Court seeking to stay O'Connor's injunction.

 

Further, the organizations have sought to intervene in the case with two kinds of intervention under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, intervention as of right, or in the alternative, permissive intervention. On 24 January 2017, O'Connor issued an order denying intervention as of right, and ordered further briefing on permissive intervention.

 

The ACLU appealed the denial of intervention as of right, so that is currently before the 5th Circuit Court. The plaintiffs challenging the regulation have asked the 5th Circuit to dismiss the appeal. Briefing is complete on permissive intervention, but the district court hasn't yet issued a ruling.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Texas Lawmaker Proposes to Regulate Male Masturbation

 

Texas State Rep. Jessica Farrar, a Democrat, responded to a recent spate of anti-choice legislation from Republicans with a bill that would punish men for "unregulated mastubatory emissions," forcing upon them the same "unnecessary" and "invasive" procedures that she says Texas women are subjected to.

 

House Bill 4260, filed Friday, 10 March 2017, by Farrar, would fine men $100 for masturbating and create a required booklet for men with medical information related to the benefits and concerns of a man seeking a vasectomy, a Viagra prescription, or a colonoscopy. The "Texas Tribune" reports the bill would also let doctors invoke their "personal, moralistic, or religious beliefs" in refusing to perform an elective vasectomy or prescribe Viagra, among other requirements proposed by Farrar.

 

Rick