(That's the CMS superintendent there being quoted.)
-
-
-
This is a big deal and could be the start of a series of similar actions. The strange thing about this, however, is that the stay here ...
-
... in the Grimm case is the stay of an injunction against a policy AGAINST trans kids. In the absence of an anti-trans policy ...
-
... there remains Title IX, its regs, and the Education/DOJ guidance. The stay, technically, does nothing to stop pro-trans actions.
-
It doesn't permit anti-trans policies, either, but it stopped enforcement of an injunction of such a policy that is under challenge.
-
tl;dr: There's no legal reason why Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools HAD to stop its plans to protect trans students due to the SCOTUS stay.
-
But, I imagine we will see it used as an excuse by those districts wanting to avoid ~controversy~ (real or imagined) for the time being.
-
That is the effect of Justice Breyer's "courtesy" fifth vote yesterday, at least for the time being.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Here's a novel idea: if you have a dick, use the men's room.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.