Missing your old Con Law class? Check out the Eleventh Circuit's recent decision in Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County, Florida. The case involved a school board policy that allowed elementary school officials to develop a gender-identity-related "Student Support Plan" for a child without parental permission or involvement. The parents sued the school board, arguing that the board violated their fundamental parental due process and familial privacy rights.
The Court ultimately held that the trial court correctly dismissed the claims, reasoning that the parents were challenging "executive" action, that the "shocks the conscience" standard applies, and that the board's alleged actions didn't so shock. But the more interesting debate came in the lengthy concurrences, where Judges Rosenbaum and Newsom sparred over the continuing utility of the entire substantive due process doctrine—particularly, the differences in how it applies to legislative versus executive actions. Oh, and Judge Tjoflat thought that the Littlejohns' claim should have been allowed to proceed.
A lot to unpack here.Substantive Due Process by John Byrne on Scribd
11 comments:
Fun to watch the Eleventh (qualified immunity for all and good luck ever suing the government) have to start facing the reality that if they allow right wingers to bring cases that advance, it will eventually apply the other way too. Eventually they will come up with some doctrine or exception that protects conservative actions to the detriment of liberal ones.
While I do love Newsom's style and think he's one of the most compelling writers on the court, he's off his rocker on the 14th Amendment. And Rosenbaum elegantly (and rightly) handed his ass to him.
Anyone else get the impression that 95-year-old Tjoflat just can't wrap his Silent Generation mind around trans issues? That dissent was tough to read, not the least because it was horribly disorganized, trite, and scattershot.
Test
Who's his clerk??
When I wrap my much younger mind around trans issues I see a psychological issue for medical doctors and parents, not an issue for educators. President Trump is mostly right, there are two sexes, male and female. There is also intersex, androgen insensitivity syndrome, where the external genitalia does not match a XX or XY chromosome pattern, someone like Blume, a young person with undescended testicles, male XY chromosome, and a vulva, not a penis.
https://www.youtube.com/@blumekind_
After the age of majority, a person has a liberty interest to act for themselves. Until then, children should be protected from trends and fads. See former trans kid Chloe Cole on Why She Left Transgenderism. "Social media introduced this idea that I could be a boy," Chloe Cole says.
https://youtu.be/3am6G-D-VtQ
Chloe Cole, now an adult, regrets having double mastectomy at age 15 now that she accepts and embraces herself as the woman she was born to be, a female.
Um...ok. There's certainly this. But then there's also the version of life where you don't spend 25 lines obsessed with genitalia on a legal blog...
Knowing boy from girl is a much better version of life than the law of CON, the 169 page decision in CA11 No. 23-10385, which in my view is a con job on the American People. BTW, do you have a mother, or a birthing person? I have a mother, that is my version of life. When selecting a mate, I initially choose my partner on the basis of genitalia, not pronouns. After the age of majority, a person has a liberty interest to act for themselves. Until then, children should be protected from trends and fads, even on a legal blog.
One's gender identity isn't a "fad" or a "trend." It's not even new. There has never been and will never be a moment in history in which we do not have trans human colleagues. Move on.
Not only that, but our trans human colleagues make up less than 1% of our human population. Certainly not the epidemic this very concerned caller has been hoodwinked into believing. And absolutely not worth the legislative resources being poured over a nonissue solely to scapegoat a vulnerable community and distract from things like defying lawful orders of a district court.
@12:24 - an appellate opinion is a "con job"? WTF? It cites cases as old as Marbury, and 14th amendment doctrine going back decades. Who all is in on the con? And when did it start?? You poor thing.
Post a Comment