 |
|
|
|||||
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors, a stunning setback to transgender rights. The justices’ 63 decision in a case from Tennessee effectively protects from legal challenges many efforts by President Donald Trump’s Republican administration and state governments to roll back protections for transgender people. Another 26 states have laws similar to the one in Tennessee. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a conservative majority that the law does not violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound, Roberts wrote. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. In a dissent for the court’s three liberal justices that she summarized aloud in the courtroom, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.” Efforts to regulate transgender people’s lives The decision comes amid other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trumps administration sued Maine for not complying with the governments push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. The Republican president also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming medical care for those under age 19instead promoting talk therapy only to treat young transgender people. And the Supreme Court has allowed him to kick transgender service members out of the military, even as court fights continue. The president signed another order to define the sexes as only male and female. Trump’s administration has also called for using only therapy, not broader health measures, to treat transgender youths. Some providers have stopped treatment already Several of the states where gender-affirming care has not been banned for minors have adopted laws or state executive orders seeking to protect it. But since Trumps executive order calling for blocking federal funding for the treatment for those under 19, some providers have ceased some treatments. For instance, Penn Medicine in Philadelphia announced last month it would not provide surgeries for patients under 19. The president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Susan Kressly, said in a statement the organization is unwavering in its support of gender-affirming care and stands with pediatricians and families making health care decisions together and free from political interference. Five years ago, the Supreme Court ruled transgender, gay and lesbian people are protected by a landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. That decision is unaffected by Wednesdays ruling. But the justices Wednesday declined to apply the same sort of analysis the court used in 2020 when it found sex plays an unmistakable role in employers decisions to punish transgender people for traits and behavior they otherwise tolerate. Roberts joined that opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was part of Wednesday’s majority. Justice Amy Coney Barrett also fully joined the majority but wrote separately to emphasize that laws classifying people based on transgender status should not receive any special review by courts. Barrett, also writing for justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that courts must give legislatures flexibility to make policy in this area. A devastating loss’ or a ‘Landmark VICTORY Chase Strangio, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who argued the case for transgender minors and their families, said in a statement that the ruling “is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution. Mo Jenkins, a 26-year-old trans woman who began taking hormone therapy at 16, said she was disheartened but not surprised by the ruling. My transition was out of survival, said Jenkins, a Texas native and legislative staffer at the state capitol in Austin. Texas outlawed puberty blockers and hormone treatment for minors in 2023. The legislature in May also passed a bill that tightly defines a man and a woman by their sex characteristics. Trans people are not going to disappear, Jenkins said. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti on social media called the ruling a Landmark VICTORY for Tennessee at SCOTUS in defense of Americas children! There are about 300,000 people between the ages of 13 and 17 and 1.3 million adults who identify as transgender in the United States, according to the Williams Institute, at think tank at the UCLA School of Law that researches sexual orientation and gender identity demographics. When the case was argued in December, then-President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration and families of transgender adolescents called on the high court to strike down the Tennessee ban as unlawful sex discrimination and protect the constitutional rights of vulnerable Americans. They argued the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Tennesses law bans puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors but allows the same drugs to be used for other purposes. Soon after Trump took office, the Justice Department told the court its position had changed. A major issue in the case was the appropriate level of scrutiny courts should apply to such laws. The lowest level is known as rational basis review, and almost every law looked at that way is upheld. Indeed, the federal appeals court in Cincinnati that allowed the Tennessee law to be enforced held that lawmakers acted rationally to regulate medical procedures. The appeals court reversed a trial court that employed a higher level of review, heightened scrutiny, which applies in cases of sex discrimination. Under this more searching examination, the state must identify an important objective and show the law helps accomplish it. Roberts’ 24-page majority opinion was devoted almost entirely to explaining why the Tennessee law, called SB1, should be evaluated under the lower standard of review. The law’s restrictions on treating minors for gender dysphoria turn on age and medical use, not sex, Roberts wrote. Doctors may prescribe puberty blockers and hormone therapy to minors of any sex to treat some disorders, but not those relating to transgender status, he wrote. But in her courtroom statement, Sotomayor asserted that similar arguments were made to defend the Virginia law prohibiting interracial marriage that the Supreme Court struck down in 1967. A ban on interracial marriage could be described in the same way as the majority described SB1, she said. Roberts rejected the comparison. Mark Sherman, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
President Donald Trump will sign an executive order this week to extend a deadline for TikTok’s Chinese owner to divest the popular video sharing app, the White House announced Tuesday. Trump had signed an order in early April to keep TikTok running for an additional 75 days after a potential deal to sell the app to American owners was put on ice. As he has said many times, President Trump does not want TikTok to go dark, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. “This extension will last 90 days, which the Administration will spend working to ensure this deal is closed so that the American people can continue to use TikTok with the assurance that their data is safe and secure. Trump had told reporters aboard Air Force One as he flew back to Washington early Tuesday from the Group of Seven summit in Canada that he probably would extend the deadline again. Trump also said he thinks Chinese President Xi Jinping will “ultimately approve a deal to divest TikTok’s business in the United States. It will be the third time Trump has extended the deadline. The first one was through an executive order on Jan. 20, his first day in office, after the platform went dark briefly when the ban approved by Congressand upheld by the U.S. Supreme Courttook effect. The second was in April, when White House officials believed they were nearing a deal to spin off TikTok into a new company with U.S. ownership that fell apart after China backed out following Trumps tariff announcement. It is not clear how many times Trump canor willkeep extending the ban as the government continues to try to negotiate a deal for TikTok, which is owned by Chinas ByteDance. Trump has amassed more than 15 million followers on TikTok since he joined last year, and he has credited the trendsetting platform with helping him gain traction among young voters. He said in January that he has a warm spot for TikTok. Aamer Madhani, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
Its been almost 400 years since the leaders of New Amsterdam (now New York City) confronted a growing threat on their streets: people moving too fast. In 1652, the colonial council passed what may be North Americas first speed limit: No wagons, carts or sleighs shall be run, rode or driven at a gallop within this city of New Amsterdam, with Broadway (then a commercial corridor) as the lone exception. Violators were fined the equivalent of $150 to $200 in todays dollars, and repeat offenders could face corporal punishment. European settlers understood that speed in a dense environment is a recipe for disaster. In the 1780s, engineer James Watt used spinning flyweights to automatically regulate his steam engines to keep them from running too fast. This low-tech speed limiter became the blueprint for other automotive safety mechanisms. {"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"","headline":"Urbanism Speakeasy","description":"Join Andy Boenau as he explores ideas that the infrastructure status quo would rather keep quiet. To learn more, visit urbanismspeakeasy.com.","substackDomain":"https:\/\/www.urbanismspeakeasy.com\/","colorTheme":"salmon","redirectUrl":""}} In 1901, the British Wilson-Pilcher car came equipped with a mechanical governor, limiting how fast the engine could rev. It was one of the first consumer automobiles to feature speed-limiting technology, and almost a century before modern cruise control. In 1923, Cincinnati nearly became the first U.S. city to require speed governors on all vehicles, but the proposal to cap speeds at 25 MPH failed. Auto industry lobbyists warned that mechanical limiters would reduce car sales and infringe on driver freedom. So-called Motordom still holds to that defensive position, but theyve expanded their propaganda to dismiss speed as a problem, or as you see in many car commercials, embrace speed as something their product delivers. Drivers are forcing the government to put its foot down When modern Americans are faced with a conversation about taking a foot off the gas, they tend to react by pressing their hands against their ears and giving a la-la-la-la-la, I cannot hear you, speeding is fine. The problem is, most people dont understand the dangers of driving fast in populated areas like cities and suburbs. Because they dont understand the connection between speed and safety, its only natural that theyll claim speed limiting devices are just another case of an authoritative government, elitist central planning, nanny state overreach, etc. The comments below followed a March 27, 2025 Washington Post article, and theyre hardly outliers on this topic: Another step to enslavement. The nanny state rides yet again. Big brotherism at its worst. So anyone late to an appointment has no way to get the car moving a little faster. That sounds like a grim future, particularly since so many speed limits are set pathetically low! Technology thats used to change driver behavior comes down to this fundamental issue: licensed drivers routinely choose not to govern themselves, demonstrating a need to be governed by an outside force. I dont like that we find ourselves in a situation where doors are opened for government authorities to force companies how to make a product. But we dont have to invite or even demand action by state and federal agencies if we (anyone who ever drives a motor vehicle) would simply behave better behind the wheel. Speed ruins far more lives than well ever know It’s widely known among transportation professionals that police reports focus on issues other than speed even when speed causes a calamity. For example, if someone is driving 40 MPH on a city street, and a driver who was texting says the pedestrian “came out of nowhere,” this is not classified by police as speed being a factor. But speed was a fundamental factor if the driver didn’t see or react in time to stop for the pedestrian. In the US, about 16 million people smashed their cars into each other last year, sending roughly 40,000 people to the morgue and another 2.5 million to emergency rooms. Speed is a fundamental factor in severe traffic crashes, regardless of what the police report says. Speed matters because it amplifies mistakes People will always make mistakes, but the most consequential driving errors are amplified with increased speed. Mistakes like being distracted by a child in the backseat and drifting into another lane quickly elevate the risk to the driver, passengers, and anyone else nearby when going fast. Three important things are much safer on city streets at 25 MPH than 40 MPH: What you see. Your field of view (what engineers call the cone of vision) shrinks as you accelerate, meaning you no longer clearly see the sidewalks, pedestrians, dogs, drivers about to leave a parked car, someone about to run a red light on a cross-street, etc. When you react. You dont have as much time to react to any of the events listed above. In one second, you travel about 2 car lengths at 25 MPH, but 4 car lengths at 40 MPH. Thats just one second. Think about how often drivers fiddle with their phone for one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi. Where you stop. Even under ideal weather and pavement conditions, the moment you spot a potential danger and hit the brakes, it takes a lot more distance to stop from 40 MPH than 25 MPH. The difference between 165 feet and 85 feet can be the difference between a dead pedestrian and a close call. Speed matters because it makes crashes more severe In addition to making crashes more likely to occur, high-speed driving also increases the amount of carnage in crashes. Physics explains: [crash energy = () × (mass) × (speed)]. That squared value is everything. When you double your driving speed, the crash energy quadruples. Even a small speed increase like 5 or 10 MPH greatly magnifies the force of impact. Despite decades of signage and PSAs, people keep driving too fast in the exact places where caution matters most: neighborhoods, school zones, commercial districts, and crosswalks. Technology exists to govern people who refuse to govern themselves. But Im hoping you dont force the hands of lawmakers. Instead, I hope you (and everyone else operating a motor vehicle) will slow down in populated areas. {"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"","headline":"Urbanism Speakeasy","description":"Join Andy Boenau as he explores ideas that the infrastructure status quo would rather keep quiet. To learn more, visit urbanismspeakeasy.com.","substackDomain":"https:\/\/www.urbanismspeakeasy.com\/",colorTheme":"salmon","redirectUrl":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||