Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed the Department of Justice on Tuesday about the potential nationwide consequences of a Supreme Court ruling allowing states to ban transgender athletes who identify as women from competing in women’s and girls’ sports.
Gorsuch grilled Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, who appeared on behalf of the government, during oral arguments about a case examining West Virginia's Save Women's Sports Act. Gorsuch asked Mooppan how a decision in favor of West Virginia's law, which blocked biological boys from participating in girls' sports, would jibe with Title IX and the Constitution's equal protection clause.
Gorsuch used a hypothetical involving other academic programs to test how far sex-based distinctions could extend under Title IX, which bans sex-based discrimination in education.
SUPREME COURT WEIGHS STATES' POWER TO SET SEX-BASED RULES IN SCHOOL SPORTS
"What about the hypothetical I posed earlier that, when it comes to high school performance, girls sure are a lot better than boys, and so we're only going to have remedial classes for boys, and girls aren't free to attend. … Let's say I've got really good science," Gorsuch said. "I mean, it's all about the science, right? I got the science."
Mooppan said that while men and women are typically equal under laws and the Constitution, "real, enduring obvious differences" mattered in sports. Mooppan sought to dismiss any "pseudoscience" Gorsuch was suggesting.
"With all respect, I don't think there's any science anywhere that is suggesting that these sort of intellectual differences are traceable to biological differences," he said.
Gorsuch shot back: "With respect, I don't think you're a PhD in this stuff, and neither – I know I'm not, but I'm asking to deal with a hypothetical."
Gorsuch continued to question how potentially allowing West Virginia to discriminate on the basis of sex was possible in sports but not in other areas of education.
"The statute says no discrimination on the basis of sex, and you're saying, 'yeah, it's okay when they're not similarly situated.' And when you're worried about locker rooms, great. I appreciate that, but I'm worried about that math remedial class or the chess club or whatever," Gorsuch said.
Gorsuch was more confrontational with the states and the DOJ than the other Republican-appointed justices. At one point, however, he observed an increase in recent decades in women and girls participating in sports and grappled with the idea that transgender athletes competing with them could potentially "undermine" that progress.
Appointed by President Donald Trump in 2017, Gorsuch famously wrote the majority opinion in another case about gender identity, Bostock v. Clayton County. Gorsuch sided in that case with the liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts, resulting in a 6-3 decision that employees cannot be discriminated against based on sex, and that sex included sexual orientation and gender identity.
Gorsuch repeatedly raised that decision Tuesday, asking Mooppan at one point: "Bostock does not control here because – fill in the blank."
WASHINGTON POST URGES SUPREME COURT TO 'SAVE WOMEN’S SPORTS' AHEAD OF MAJOR TRANS ATHLETE CASE
West Virginia attorneys argued in court papers that Bostock was irrelevant to their case because Bostock dealt with Title VII, which governs discrimination in the workplace, whereas Title IX deals with education, where "biological differences are critical to athletic fairness." Sex was less relevant in the workplace than in education, they argued.
West Virginia v. B.P.J. centers on a 15-year-old transgender athlete who identifies as a girl and who argued the state’s ban violated both the Constitution and Title IX.
The case was one of two the Supreme Court heard on Tuesday about state laws that ban transgender athletes who identify as female from participating in sports exclusive to women or girls. The conservative justices largely appeared sympathetic to those laws, but it was not immediately clear where each of them would land on the issue.
A decision by the court, expected by early summer, could have far-reaching impacts.
A ruling in favor of the states could not only uphold their bans and those in some two dozen other states but could also influence other transgender policy disputes, such as bathroom policies and sex designation on documents, including passports and driver's licenses.
A ruling in favor of the transgender plaintiffs could serve to limit states' ability to adopt similar bans and broaden interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws.
source https://www.foxnews.com/politics/conservative-justice-swipes-at-doj-in-trans-sports-case-i-dont-think-youre-a-phd-in-this-stuff
تعليقات
إرسال تعليق