Petitions of the Week
By Andrew Hamm
on March 5, 2021
at 3:55 p.m.
This week we’re highlighting certification filings that require the Supreme Court to review, among other things, whether Title IX and Equal Protection require a school district to allow transgender students to use their gender identity toilets, and whether free movement and equal protection require a Maine program for Support of teaching to support the interests of parents in sending their children to religious schools.
In 2016, the Supreme Court of Gloucester County School Board approved and argued against GG. In that case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals had ordered a Virginia school board to allow Gavin Grimm, a transgender boy, to use the multi-user boys’ toilets at his high school. However, after the Trump administration withdrew the U.S. Department of Education’s letter of opinion issued during the Obama administration that formed the basis for the 4th Circle’s decision, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts.
In pre-trial detention, the 4th power circuit confirmed the rulings of the district court that the policy of the school authorities violated Title IX of the Civil Rights Act and the equal treatment clause of the 14th amendment. In relation to Title IX, the 4th Circuit expanded Bostock v Clayton County, Georgia – where the Supreme Court ruled last year that dismissing a person for transgender status constituted gender discrimination under Title VII – on the grounds that it is “impossible to discriminate against a person who is … transgender without discriminating against that person on the basis of their gender. “With the same protection, the 4th Circle decided that the” policy of the board of directors is not essentially related to its alleged goal “, since the” physical privacy of cisgender boys who use the boys’ toilet was not increased as Grimm made of them. ” Toilets was banned “.
In the Gloucester County Schools Board against Grimm, the School Board is asking the judges to review the 4th county’s decision. Since that decision, the Biden government has issued an executive order based on the non-discrimination clause stating that Title IX “prohibits[s] Discrimination based on gender identity. “
Carson v. Makin is a challenge to religious freedom and the same protection as a tuition assistance program in Maine. Under the program, school districts that do not have a secondary school pay tuition at the approved school of the parents’ choice. While parents may choose some religious schools, they may not choose those that the Maine Department of Education deems “sectarian” by promoting the faith or presenting their teaching through a faith-based lens. In last year’s Espinoza v Montana Treasury, the Supreme Court ruled that Montana cannot exclude religious schools from a tuition support program. The US Circuit Court of Appeals awarded Espinoza, however, on the grounds that the Maine program does not enable religious “status” but “use” and that usage restrictions are not subject to the same rigorous scrutiny as status restrictions. The Carsons, who plan to send their daughter to Bangor Christian School, ask for the judges’ review.
These and other petitions of the week are listed below:
Dunn v. Reeves
problem: Whether the US Court of Appeals violated the 11th circuit 28 USC § 2254 (d) by easily assigning an error to the state court in violation of Woodford v. Visciotti.
Carson v. Makin
problem: Whether a state violates the religious clauses or the equality clause of the United States Constitution by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise widely available student aid program from using their aid to attend schools that offer religious or “sectarian” instruction .
Jones versus United States
problem: If 18 USC § 514 (a) – who represent, claim or invent as actually forbids the use of “false or fictitious instruments, documents or other objects that appear as a scheme or object of art [government] Security or Other Financial Instrument “- only prohibits the use of non-existent types of documents and instruments (as the US appeals courts determined for the 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th circuits) or whether this includes the use of counterfeit versions of actual, existing types of documents and instruments (as the US appeals courts found for the 11th and, in this case, the 2nd circuit).
Just Energy Marketing Corp. against hurt
problem: Whether, as the US Circuit Court of Appeals found, Just Energy Marketing Corp.’s door-to-door attorneys are exempt from “outside sellers” under the Fair Labor Standards Act or as the US Court of Appeals held for the 6th Circuit, the door-to-door attorneys under the FLSA are not exempt from “outside sellers” as the sales agreements continued regulatory controls and final approval from Just Energy Marketing Corp. subject.
Haws v. Idaho
problem: Whether a criminal defendant’s alleged waiver of the right to appeal in an objection agreement is known, intelligent, and voluntary – as dictated by the procedural clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments – if the court misinforms the defendant during the colloquium in that Court accepts the defendant’s admission of guilt that the defendant reserved the right to appeal.
Gloucester County School Board versus Grimm
problem: If Title IX or the equality clause requires schools to have transgender students use multi-use toilets designed for the opposite sex, even if single-use toilets are available to all students regardless of gender.