HOW WOULD YOU RULE ON THIS CASE IF YOUR WERE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?
The Supreme Court will take up transgender rights for the first time in the case of a Virginia school board that wants to prevent a transgender teenager from using the boys' bathroom at his high school. The justices said Friday they will hear the appeal from the Gloucester County school board sometime next year. The high court's order means that student Gavin Grimm will not be able to use the boys' bathroom in the meantime. The court could use the case to resolve similar disputes across the country, said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "Obviously, for transgender people, the stakes of this case are incredibly high. Whatever the court rules in Grimm may ensure that transgender people are accepted and included as equal members of our society, or it may relegate them to outsiders for decades to come," Minter said. A lower court had ordered the school board to accommodate Grimm, but the justices in August put that order on hold while they considered whether to hear the appeal. Grimm, a 17-year-old high school senior, was born female but identifies as male. He was allowed to use the boys' restroom at his high school for several weeks in 2014. But after some parents complained, the school board adopted a policy requiring students to use either the restroom that corresponds with their biological gender or a private, single-stall restroom. Grimm is backed by the Obama administration in his argument that the policy violates Title IX, a federal law that bars sex discrimination in schools. "I never thought that my restroom use would ever turn into any kind of national debate," Grimm said in a statement issued after the court announced it will hear his case. "The only thing I ever asked for was the right to be treated like everyone else. While I'm disappointed that I will have to spend my final school year being singled out and treated differently from every other guy, I will do everything I can to make sure that other transgender students don't have to go through the same experience." Gloucester County school board chairman Troy Andersen praised the court for agreeing to hear what he called a difficult case. "The board looks forward to explaining to the Court that its restroom and locker room policy carefully balances the interests of all students and parents in the Gloucester County school system," Andersen said. The Education Department says transgender students should be allowed to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identities. Among the issues in the case is whether the department's guidance should have the force of law. Similar lawsuits are pending around the country. The Obama administration has sued North Carolina over a state law aimed at restricting transgender students to bathrooms that correspond to their biological genders. A federal judge in Texas has sided with Texas and 12 other states in issuing a nationwide hold on the administration's directive to public schools, issued in May. The directive tells schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom and locker room consistent with their gender identity. The case probably will be heard in the winter, and it is by no means certain that there will be a ninth justice to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. Senate Republicans have refused to act on Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the high court. A tie vote would be a victory for Grimm, who won in the lower courts, but would leave the issue unresolved nationally. The Supreme Court split 5 to 3 in August to put the court order in Grimm's case on hold. At the time, Justice Stephen Breyer said he was providing a fifth vote to go along with the four more conservative justices to "preserve the status quo" until the court decided whether to weigh in. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented. Grimm had urged the court not to take up his case. The school board asked the court to settle the matter now. It said that allowing Grimm to use the boys restroom raises privacy concerns and may cause some parents to pull their children out of school. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond sided with Grimm in April, saying the federal judge who previously dismissed Grimm's Title IX discrimination claim ignored the Education Department's guidance on bathroom use. The appeals court reinstated Grimm's Title IX claim and sent it back to the district court for further consideration. The judge then issued the order in favor of Grimm.
5 Comments
Prop. 64 legalizes recreational marijuana the right way Diane Goldstein This November, California voters will finally have a chance to embrace common-sense reform that takes a realistic approach to marijuana policy. Proposition 64, which will be on the statewide ballot this fall, is backed by a broad-based coalition of elected leaders, doctors, public health officials, law enforcement leaders and others who have come together to make sure that this important policy is done the right way, taking steps to protect kids and to better serve our communities. Hundreds of thousands of Californians have added their names to this statewide effort. The signatures are in, and the measure has been certified for the ballot. Now it is time for voters to have their say. California was the first state in the union to approve the use of medical marijuana with the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996. For two decades after that vote of the people, we had a poorly regulated, quasi-legal system of marijuana cultivation, use and sale without any statewide regulatory controls. As a 21-year veteran of law enforcement, I have seen firsthand the failures of marijuana prohibition. By passing Proposition 64, California has an opportunity to show the nation that there is a better way when it comes to criminal justice and public health policy. We can take a common-sense approach to marijuana policy to ensure our kids and neighborhoods are kept safe, and that local governments maintain the power to make important decisions about the needs and priorities of their communities. While a handful of other states including Colorado and Washington have already passed marijuana reform laws, we have taken additional time in California to make sure we get it right. That starts with protecting kids, which is a key focus and goal of Proposition 64. This measure includes toughest-in-the-nation protections for children, requiring purchasers to be 21, banning advertising toward children, requiring clear labeling and independent product testing to ensure safety, and prohibiting marijuana businesses next to schools. While Proposition 64 creates a statewide framework to protect public health and safety, it also takes important steps to maintain local control over key decisions. The authors of this proposal took careful steps to ensure that local communities like San Diego are protected, and can make their own decisions about how to tax and control marijuana in their jurisdictions. Cities will still be able to make zoning decisions that can limit how and where marijuana-related businesses can operate — and even ban commercial marijuana activity by ordinance. Locals will also retain the authority to tax marijuana sales and production to generate revenue for key local services. The independent Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) found that Proposition 64 will both raise revenue and decrease costs. By collecting unpaid taxes from marijuana, the LAO says Proposition 64 will bring in over $1 billion of revenue every year to help local education, law enforcement and environmental priorities, and give local jurisdictions the authority to impose additional levies and fees as they see fit. Proposition 64 will also save $100 million in reduced law enforcement costs. Together, that is a benefit of $11 billion over the next decade. Proposition 64 is designed to work hand-in-hand with new rules for medical marijuana, which passed with bipartisan support in Sacramento last year. It will create a comprehensive system to control, regulate and tax responsible adult use of marijuana, while protecting children, safeguarding local control, protecting public health and public safety and defending our environment and water. The types of licenses that will be made available to cultivators, distributors and sellers will be overseen by public health and safety officials, and will include careful tracking of marijuana from seed to sale. The time has come for a thoughtful, reasonable policy approach to marijuana that protects kids, ensures consumer and worker safety and provides revenues to local governments and communities. Using the new regulatory framework for the medical industry, and guidance from the Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy, the initiative’s authors took the time to get marijuana regulation right for our state and our local communities. It’s time for a more thoughtful approach to marijuana policy in California. It’s time to pass Proposition 64. Diane Goldstein is a retired Lieutenant Commander of the Redondo Beach Police Department. Copyright © 2016, The San Diego Union-Tribune Legalizing recreational marijuana hurts youth, families
Katie Dexter As a longtime San Diegan, parent and local school board member, I have deep concerns about Proposition 64, the measure that could permit the large-scale production, advertising and retail sales of recreational marijuana in California. What we know from other states, like Colorado and Washington, that have gone down this road is that usage goes up. In fact, Colorado leads the nation in teen use of marijuana; and with this increased use comes obvious negative repercussions. Proposition 64 will not only directly affect you, but more importantly, the young people and families that you care about. In March, the AAA Foundation for Highway Safety reported that deaths in marijuana-related car crashes doubled since the state of Washington approved legalization. Further, after legalization in Colorado, marijuana-involved fatal crashes increased 34 percent. Currently, California averages over 300 fatal crashes a year due to marijuana-impaired driving. According to these statistics, if Proposition 64 passes, fatal crashes involving marijuana could go from 300 to 600 every year. Still, Proposition 64 proponents refuse to include a DUI standard for marijuana, making it extremely difficult to keep impaired drivers off our highways. Driving under the influence is already a serious problem plaguing our roads and freeways. Proposition 64 only makes that problem worse. Opponents of Proposition 64 include Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Association for Highway Patrolmen, the California Hospital Association and others concerned about how this ballot measure impacts public health and safety. Despite what proponents claim, the truth is that Proposition 64 allows for marijuana growing and production near schools and parks. A careful read of the measure reveals it actually forbids local governments from banning indoor residential growing of marijuana — even next door to elementary schools — provided the crop is limited to six plants (providing approximately eight people with enough marijuana everyday for a year). Proposition 64 also rolls back the limitation of tobacco advertising on television and other forms of media. The initiative is written so marijuana advertising could occur on popular television shows viewed by families and teens including “The Voice,” “The Big Bang Theory,” NCAA college football or even during the Olympic Games. Parents and teachers struggle every day to monitor youth exposure to alcohol and tobacco. Proposition 64 elevates recreational marijuana above alcohol or tobacco and holds it to an even lower regulatory standard. Simply put, it will make the job of parents and teachers even more difficult. A leading supporter of Proposition 64 told a number of newspapers recently that his wife was “scared as hell” about Proposition 64 because of the potential impact on kids. A number of years back, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law that made the possession of a small amount of marijuana equivalent to, or even less than, the fine for a traffic ticket. Californians no longer face the issue of teens or young people getting put in jail for minor marijuana possession, and we haven’t for decades. We have long since been able to treat and address their problems and addiction instead, and we do not need Proposition 64 to continue to do that. Further, this initiative will do nothing to eliminate or curb black market or cartel trafficking and sales in California. Instead, this gives them a legal foothold. According to an analysis by the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office, Proposition 64 allows heroin and meth dealers with felony convictions into the legal marijuana business. San Diegans are acutely aware there’s an all-out assault on underprivileged neighborhoods already reeling from alcohol and drug addiction problems. Proposition 64 deepens that problem. In the school district I serve, there are neighborhoods with no grocery stores, only liquor stores and smoke shops. If Proposition 64 passes, it will add a string of non-medical pot shops to go with those liquor stores, and that is not in the best interest of our communities or our children. A similar initiative in 2010 was overwhelmingly defeated by California voters because its negative impacts outweighed any positives. Now those seeking to make their fortune in the marijuana industry are spending millions to pass Proposition 64. But, like any initiative, there are winners and losers. They’ve got it wrong again. If Proposition 64 passes, youth, schools and neighborhoods will be on the losing end. I strongly urge your “No” vote on Proposition 64. Dexter is a trustee of the Lemon Grove School District and past president of the San Diego County School Boards Association. Copyright © 2016, The San Diego Union-Tribune |
Article Archives: |