SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Justice Department on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that the civil rights of transgender Americans are not protected in the workplace. (Photo: @civilrightsorg/Twitter)
'Despicable': Trump DOJ Argues to Supreme Court It's Not Discrimination to Fire Transgender People Just for Being Transgender
"They fear us but they cannot erase us. They cannot defeat us. We will fight."
Oct 25, 2018
In the Trump administration's latest assault on transgender Americans' rights, the Justice Department on Wednesday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that employers are legally permitted to discriminate against transgender workers--potentially rolling back a lower court's ruling that was celebrated by LGBTQ rights groups earlier this year.
As the Supreme Court decides whether to rule on a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals case from last March, which found that transgender Americans must be protected under federal anti-sex discrimination laws, the DOJ explicitly argued that such protections should not be extended to a group that the Trump administration has essentially stated does not exist and should not be acknowledged.
"The ordinary meaning of 'sex' does not refer to gender identity," Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote in a brief, according to Bloomberg Law. The argument was in keeping with the administration's official position on transgender people, made public earlier this week: that one's gender is dictated not by one's identity, but by sex assigned at birth.
Like the administration's earlier announcement, the news of the brief sparked outrage among LGBTQ rights advocates.
The administration's narrow definition of gender, wrote Robin Carver at Common Dreams this week, "flies in the face of the broad consensus of the medical community that treats trans people and worldwide standards for trans health care."
"It's a fundamental denial of our most basic and important claim: that our sex and gender cannot be accurately identified at or before birth, and they are not sufficiently explained by a binary of female/male, woman/man, or XX/XY," she added. "It's the policy equivalent of telling trans people that we don't exist. It's flatly absurd."
The DOJ's brief was filed regarding the case of Aimee Stephens, who was fired from her job at a Detroit funeral home after telling her employer that she was transgender.
The LGBTQ civil rights organization Lambda Legal, which filed an amicus brief in the appeals court in support of Stephens, expressed hope that the high court would rule in favor of the 6th Circuit's earlier decision, while the ACLU pledged to fight the Trump administration's "hate-filled position" in the Supreme Court.
"They can say what they're going to say, but the courts will have the final word," Greg Nevins, an attorney for the group, told Bloomberg Law.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In the Trump administration's latest assault on transgender Americans' rights, the Justice Department on Wednesday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that employers are legally permitted to discriminate against transgender workers--potentially rolling back a lower court's ruling that was celebrated by LGBTQ rights groups earlier this year.
As the Supreme Court decides whether to rule on a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals case from last March, which found that transgender Americans must be protected under federal anti-sex discrimination laws, the DOJ explicitly argued that such protections should not be extended to a group that the Trump administration has essentially stated does not exist and should not be acknowledged.
"The ordinary meaning of 'sex' does not refer to gender identity," Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote in a brief, according to Bloomberg Law. The argument was in keeping with the administration's official position on transgender people, made public earlier this week: that one's gender is dictated not by one's identity, but by sex assigned at birth.
Like the administration's earlier announcement, the news of the brief sparked outrage among LGBTQ rights advocates.
The administration's narrow definition of gender, wrote Robin Carver at Common Dreams this week, "flies in the face of the broad consensus of the medical community that treats trans people and worldwide standards for trans health care."
"It's a fundamental denial of our most basic and important claim: that our sex and gender cannot be accurately identified at or before birth, and they are not sufficiently explained by a binary of female/male, woman/man, or XX/XY," she added. "It's the policy equivalent of telling trans people that we don't exist. It's flatly absurd."
The DOJ's brief was filed regarding the case of Aimee Stephens, who was fired from her job at a Detroit funeral home after telling her employer that she was transgender.
The LGBTQ civil rights organization Lambda Legal, which filed an amicus brief in the appeals court in support of Stephens, expressed hope that the high court would rule in favor of the 6th Circuit's earlier decision, while the ACLU pledged to fight the Trump administration's "hate-filled position" in the Supreme Court.
"They can say what they're going to say, but the courts will have the final word," Greg Nevins, an attorney for the group, told Bloomberg Law.
In the Trump administration's latest assault on transgender Americans' rights, the Justice Department on Wednesday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that employers are legally permitted to discriminate against transgender workers--potentially rolling back a lower court's ruling that was celebrated by LGBTQ rights groups earlier this year.
As the Supreme Court decides whether to rule on a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals case from last March, which found that transgender Americans must be protected under federal anti-sex discrimination laws, the DOJ explicitly argued that such protections should not be extended to a group that the Trump administration has essentially stated does not exist and should not be acknowledged.
"The ordinary meaning of 'sex' does not refer to gender identity," Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote in a brief, according to Bloomberg Law. The argument was in keeping with the administration's official position on transgender people, made public earlier this week: that one's gender is dictated not by one's identity, but by sex assigned at birth.
Like the administration's earlier announcement, the news of the brief sparked outrage among LGBTQ rights advocates.
The administration's narrow definition of gender, wrote Robin Carver at Common Dreams this week, "flies in the face of the broad consensus of the medical community that treats trans people and worldwide standards for trans health care."
"It's a fundamental denial of our most basic and important claim: that our sex and gender cannot be accurately identified at or before birth, and they are not sufficiently explained by a binary of female/male, woman/man, or XX/XY," she added. "It's the policy equivalent of telling trans people that we don't exist. It's flatly absurd."
The DOJ's brief was filed regarding the case of Aimee Stephens, who was fired from her job at a Detroit funeral home after telling her employer that she was transgender.
The LGBTQ civil rights organization Lambda Legal, which filed an amicus brief in the appeals court in support of Stephens, expressed hope that the high court would rule in favor of the 6th Circuit's earlier decision, while the ACLU pledged to fight the Trump administration's "hate-filled position" in the Supreme Court.
"They can say what they're going to say, but the courts will have the final word," Greg Nevins, an attorney for the group, told Bloomberg Law.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.