For more than four years, transgender children in this country have been protected and supported in their right to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity while at (public) school. On Wednesday night, the Departments of Justice and Education under the direction of President Trump withdrew important guidelines implemented by President Obama around these issues. Title IX, the 1972 federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education, was interpreted by the Obama administration to include gender identity, and thus guidelines were put into place nationally to prohibit public schools from blocking transgender children from using bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity.
Ria Tabacco Mar's recent opinion piece in the New York Times provides readers with a thorough overview of the importance of this issue, and how the actions of the current administration could affect the daily lives of children throughout the country. Mar's experience in her position as a staff lawyer at the A.C.L.U.'s Lesbian, Gay, Transgender and H.I.V Project definitely lends her the credibility to speak with great insight on the subject. Her approach to this issue is both logical and passionate, and, I think, attempts to appeal to a wide audience. I strongly agree with her assertions that the federal government's withdrawal of guidelines and support could have very personal and harmful effects on children across the country. Transgender kids are already at an increased risk for suicide and depression, and without these guidelines in place to ensure their fair and equal treatment, I fear for their well-being and sense of safety in their learning environments. Mar's argument against the administration's recent actions includes links to legal cases involved, evidence concerning the benefit of inclusive policies in schools, and the weaknesses in the arguments justifying these recent changes. She is logical and persuasive.
The upcoming Supreme Court case will ultimately determine the fate of these children. Mar states that the current administration will lose this battle. I hope she's right.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Friday, February 10, 2017
Understanding the Legality Behind Trump's Executive Order on Immigration
The last couple of weeks have been a whirlwind of news regarding Mr. Trump's recent executive order on immigration. When the order was first announced, the emotional response of so many Americans (myself included) was overwhelming. People with US visas and greencards from all over the world were refused boarding on US-bound flights, or turned around upon arrival, or detained in US airports. Protests erupted in airports all over the country. Personal accounts of people directly affected began circulating. It was dizzying, and for so many people (again, myself included) frightening and confusing. Then US District Senior Judge James Robart of Seattle issued a nationwide restraining order to temporarily block the ban. Again, an onslaught of emotion and information erupted. The White House issued statements, various political figures spoke up, the press published it all. And then, the three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the stay on the executive order. And now...it looks like this will go to the Supreme Court to decide if Trump's executive order is lawful.
In this storm of legal events and reactionary events and press coverage, I found myself looking for information and clarification. I wanted answers to questions of legality. What powers, exactly, does the president have in issuing executive orders? Are their limits to those powers? What power does the Judiciary branch have in this matter? How does this process work, and what's the timeframe on it?
I recently found this article by Charlie Savage for the New York Times which greatly helped me understand the recent events, the ruling of the Appeals Court, and the legal issues involved. The article prints sections of the Court of Appeals' ruling, and follows each with commentary that relates it to the events that I have seen and heard in the media coverage. It does a fantastic job at showing exactly what legal questions are involved, and what the next steps in the process will be. I especially appreciate reading the excerpts from the ruling, and seeing exactly what areas of the US law they relate to.
In this storm of legal events and reactionary events and press coverage, I found myself looking for information and clarification. I wanted answers to questions of legality. What powers, exactly, does the president have in issuing executive orders? Are their limits to those powers? What power does the Judiciary branch have in this matter? How does this process work, and what's the timeframe on it?
I recently found this article by Charlie Savage for the New York Times which greatly helped me understand the recent events, the ruling of the Appeals Court, and the legal issues involved. The article prints sections of the Court of Appeals' ruling, and follows each with commentary that relates it to the events that I have seen and heard in the media coverage. It does a fantastic job at showing exactly what legal questions are involved, and what the next steps in the process will be. I especially appreciate reading the excerpts from the ruling, and seeing exactly what areas of the US law they relate to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)