OA51: The Grimm Reality About Transgender Bathrooms

In today’s episode, we take a look at the recent Supreme Court decision to rescind its grant of certiorari in the 4th Circuit opinion of Grimm v. Gloucester County School District.  What happened, and what does this mean for transgender rights?

First, we begin with an examination of the Trump administration’s revised Executive Order (sometimes called the “Muslim Ban”) restricting entry from now six Muslim-majority nations. As you may recall, we first addressed this issue back in Opening Arguments episode #43.  Does this revised order comply with the law and solve the problems outlined by the 9th Circuit, or is it still “obviously unconstitutional,” as many news sources claim?  You’ll know better than the New York Times soon enough!

In our main segment, we look at Title IX’s prohibition on “sex” discrimination and discuss whether it applies to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity while walking through the somewhat unique procedural history of the Grimm decision.

Next, we evaluate whether former President Obama would be likely to prevail in a lawsuit for defamation against President Trump for the claim that Obama “wiretapped Trump Towers” prior to the election.  Is this Bat Boy??

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #14 about IIED.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday’s show.  Don’t forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)!

Recent Appearances:

Andrew was a guest on The Gaytheist Manifesto podcast, discussing the history of Title IX.

Show Notes & Links

  1. If you missed it, you’ll want to check out OA Episode #43, in which we first discussed the 9th Circuit’s Opinion that we revisit in this episode.
  2. This is the full text of President Trump’s revised Executive Order (“Muslim Ban”).
  3. According to this Guardian article, Hawaii has already sued to block the Revised EO.
  4. This is the decision in Church of Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), which is the touchstone for whether Trump’s Revised EO violates the First Amendment.
  5. Click here to read the (overconfident) New York Times article, “Don’t Be Fooled” that asserts that the Revised EO is blatantly unconstitutional.
  6. This is the text of 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (“Title IX”).
  7. This is the memorandum issued by the Obama DOJ providing guidance as to how to interpret Title IX.
  8. And click here for the 4th Circuit’s now-vacated opinion in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board that we discuss during the show.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download

Leave a Reply