(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Two Wins, but Limited Scope [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.'] Date: 2023-06-06 I’ll keep cross-posting here on Daily Kos, but you can also subscribe to my SubStack for real-time posts and updates in your inbox. It’s free!! queerbilltracker.substack.com First, a quick federal court and constitutional law tutorial, and then, the cases. Federal Districts Federal courts are divided up into 94 federal Districts, and 12 Circuits. Each Circuit has a number of different Districts within its boundaries. Federal courts are starting to weigh in on the recent wave of anti-trans* legislation. Sometimes, their rulings have a limited application—say, only to the persons involved in the case or the District where the case is being heard. Other times, rulings may cover multiple Districts, or an entire federal Circuit. The two cases today have limited, yet still important, application. More on that after the little legal primer here… Levels of Scrutiny The Supreme Court uses three ‘levels’ of scrutiny in Equal Protection and First Amendment cases, depending on the discrimination involved in the law. Very generally speaking, Strict Scrutiny—is used for cases involving a fundamental right or a suspect classification (race, national origin, religion, alien status). To pass strict scrutiny, the law must be “narrowly tailored” to further a “compelling governmental interest.” Intermediate Scrutiny—is used for cases involving protected classes such as those based on sex or gender. To pass intermediate scrutiny, the law must further an “important government interest” by means that are “substantially related to that interest.” Rational Basis Test—is used for all other cases, where a law must further a “legitimate state interest” and there must be rational relationship between the law’s means and goals. With those tests in mind, we turn to the case in Florida, first. Florida—Partial Preliminary Injunction for SB254 Doe v. Ladapo (N.D. Fla. June 6, 2023) ( preliminary injunction granted ) BLUF: puberty blockers likely able to be prescribed to minors in the Northern District of Florida until litigation resolves. Plaintiffs in this emergency motion for a preliminary injunction are three minors; one is currently taking puberty blockers and the other two will need them very soon. Florida’s new SB254 prohibits health care providers from providing puberty blockers to minors. On the equal protection challenge, the court applied the intermediate scrutiny standard (plaintiffs had argued for ‘rational basis’), holding that this SB254 draws its lines based on sex, as well as gender nonformity. To survive intermediate scrutiny, “a state must show that its law is substantially related to a sufficiently important interest.” In the words of the court: “dissuading a person from conforming to the person’s gender identity rather than to the person’s natal sex is not a legitimate state interest…[s]tate action motivated by purposeful discrimination…violates the Equal Protection Clause.” Because of this, the court found the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim, and as such, it justified issuance of a preliminary injunction. The court also found the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their parental-rights Due Process claim. The court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting certain state attorneys from prosecuting persons who distribute puberty blockers to any of the three plaintiffs, and certain medical board persons from pursuing disciplinary action against persons who distribute puberty blockers to those three minors. By its terms, the injunction does not apply to other situations in the state; nevertheless, this should at least settle the issue (regarding puberty blockers) in the Northern District of Florida, which covers the panhandle of Florida as well as Alachua County, where Gainesville and the University of Florida are located. It remains to be seen what the impact will be on hormonal and/or surgical gender-affirming care for minors in the District. Tennessee—Drag Ban Found Unconstitutional Friends of George’s v. Mulroy (M.D. Tenn, June 2, 2023) (Opinion) BLUF: Drag performers are likely to not have a risk of prosecution for violation of SB3 in the Western District of Tennessee. Prosecution is prohibited in Shelby County, Tennessee. In March of this year, Tennessee passed SB3, a wide-ranging attempt to ban drag performances in the state which carries criminal penalties for any violation. Friends of George’s, a Memphis-based theatre company that also produces drag shows, sued the state and Shelby County District Attorney on First Amendment and Due Process grounds. Memphis is in Shelby County, Tennessee. The court held that Strict Scrutiny applied in this case, and that the SB3 failed to pass the test. The court also found that the statute was unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process clause, and unconstitutionally overbroad for First Amendment purposes. The court’s permanent injunction prohibits the Shelby County District Attorney from prosecuting any person for violating SB3 within Shelby County. The Western District of Tennessee includes Memphis and Jackson. It does not apply, by its terms, to the remainder of the state. So—these are important victories and good bell-weathers for the cases in the pipeline. Remember, though, their limited applicability…it remains to be seen if their holdings will be followed in other Districts, or if the states will appeal either of the rulings to the respective Circuit courts. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/6/6/2173744/-Two-Wins-but-Limited-Scope Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/