SCOTUS Catch-all |

[nycfan]

—> https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/sup...7?st=KZ2Yit&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

“… The court, in a split decision, concluded that parents likely have a constitutional right to be informed if their children adopt new pronouns, use a different name or take other steps to socially transition to a new gender identity while at school.

“When a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours,” the court wrote in an unsigned seven-page opinion that decided a case on its emergency docket. “These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.”

It was the first of two significant rulings on the emergency docket that the court issued Monday evening.

In a separate case, the court halted an effort to redraw a Republican congressional district in New York City after a judge found that its existing boundaries dilute the power of Black and Latino voters.

The court’s three Democratic-appointed justices dissented from both rulings.…”

 

[nycfan]

“… The court, in a split decision, concluded that parents likely have a constitutional right to be informed if their children adopt new pronouns, use a different name or take other steps to socially transition to a new gender identity while at school.

“When a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours,” the court wrote in an unsigned seven-page opinion that decided a case on its emergency docket. “These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.”

It was the first of two significant rulings on the emergency docket that the court issued Monday evening.

In a separate case, the court halted an effort to redraw a Republican congressional district in New York City after a judge found that its existing boundaries dilute the power of Black and Latino voters.

The court’s three Democratic-appointed justices dissented from both rulings.…”

“… Despite the nominally temporary nature of the decision, Justice Elena Kagan in dissent criticized the majority for using “shortcut procedures on the emergency docket” to essentially resolve a complex legal question without full briefing or arguments.

“Today’s decision shows, not for the first time, how our emergency docket can malfunction,” she wrote, adding: “The court is impatient: It already knows what it thinks, and insists on getting everything over quickly.”

For months, the justices have been weighing other petitions involving similar policies in school districts in other states. Those petitions asked the justices to hear oral arguments and definitively resolve a key burgeoning dispute about young people who identify as transgender.

On one side of the dispute is the well-established right of parents to control how their children are raised. On the other side is the reality that some minors don’t want their parents to know about their gender identity, sometimes because they fear for their safety. Some public schools have policies that honor students’ desire for privacy. …”

 

[nycfan]

“… Despite the nominally temporary nature of the decision, Justice Elena Kagan in dissent criticized the majority for using “shortcut procedures on the emergency docket” to essentially resolve a complex legal question without full briefing or arguments.

“Today’s decision shows, not for the first time, how our emergency docket can malfunction,” she wrote, adding: “The court is impatient: It already knows what it thinks, and insists on getting everything over quickly.”

For months, the justices have been weighing other petitions involving similar policies in school districts in other states. Those petitions asked the justices to hear oral arguments and definitively resolve a key burgeoning dispute about young people who identify as transgender.

On one side of the dispute is the well-established right of parents to control how their children are raised. On the other side is the reality that some minors don’t want their parents to know about their gender identity, sometimes because they fear for their safety. Some public schools have policies that honor students’ desire for privacy. …”

“… California says the challengers have mischaracterized the state’s rules about student privacy. The state says its actual policy is that individual schools should decide whether to disclose a student’s gender identity to parents by balancing the parents’ interests with the needs and well-being of the student.…”

 

[heelinhell]

“… The court, in a split decision, concluded that parents likely have a constitutional right to be informed if their children adopt new pronouns, use a different name or take other steps to socially transition to a new gender identity while at school.

“When a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours,” the court wrote in an unsigned seven-page opinion that decided a case on its emergency docket. “These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.”

It was the first of two significant rulings on the emergency docket that the court issued Monday evening.

In a separate case, the court halted an effort to redraw a Republican congressional district in New York City after a judge found that its existing boundaries dilute the power of Black and Latino voters.

The court’s three Democratic-appointed justices dissented from both rulings.…”

So SCOTUS is just doing its job...

Protect GQP Nicole Malliotakis, who would have been all but doomed had the redraw moved forward this year.
Require schools to betray and out transgender students that have chosen not to inform their parents that they have adopted pronouns and new names.