SCOTUS makes landmark decision recognising transgender person's pronouns | The Independent
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
US Supreme Court uses correct pronouns for transgender migrant in recent opinion
Abe Asher Friday 12 May 2023 05:15
The US Supreme Court made headlines this week for a ruling written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that uses the correct pronouns and name for a transgender woman.
With Wednesday's ruling, the court removed a procedural barrier for a non-US citizen to appeal a denial of protection from removal decision. It was a legal victory for Estrella Santos-Zacaria, a migrant from Guatemala who reached the US, fleeing persecution on the basis of her gender and sexual orientation and is seeking to stay in the country.
Throughout the opinion, which was joined by the court's three other liberal justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Ms Jackson uses "she" and Ms Santos-Zacaria's pronouns to refer to her, even though she was assigned male at birth. Ms Jackson also uses Ms Santos-Zacaria's chosen name instead of her dead name.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion that did not misgender or dead name Ms Santos-Zacaria, which embattled Justice Clarence Thomas joined.
Legal scholars and observers of the court noted that not only did the opinion correctly gender Ms Santos-Zacaria, but also that it used more humanising language for non-citizens than past opinions have.
"The Court reads the statutory word "alien" to mean a non-citizen (in a footnote)," former US attorney Joyce Alene wrote on Twitter. "Non-citizen, not illegal alien or similar dehumanising term. 7 justices signed on to Jackson's decision in full & the concurrences don't mention it. This is huge progress on both fronts."
The court's ruling struck some as particularly meaningful, given that it comes from a majority-conservative body in the midst of a wave of anti-transgender bills in state legislatures. There have already been more anti-LGBT+ bills introduced in state legislatures this year than in any other year in American history.
The ruling also comes as Title 42, the pandemic-era restrictions on migration to the US, ended on Thursday. In preparation for the lifting of Title 42, president Joe Biden announced new measures restricting access to asylum earlier this week in a move that has frustrated progressives.
Tags
Who is online
442 visitors
This is very interesting. I'll be watching as some anti-trans laws hit the SCOTUS in the future to see where the court goes. Many prior rulings haven't been super friendly to the anti-LGBTQA+ crowd and this looks to follow that trend, but we'll see.
Interesting to say the least. As you stated it will be interesting to see anti-trans laws that come before SCOTUS.
I can't remember and I'm too lazy today to look it up, but I think it was Gorsuch's Title IX ruling that said the court can't remove sexuality from sex. I'm wondering how that could play into some of these rulings. Lawyers and judges (especially the SCOTUS) like to razor thin some of these ideas so it may not, but I do find it interesting.
Somebody just glancing at that might think the Court just made a ruling on forcing people to use these stupid ass pronouns.
The ruling makes it slightly easier for migrants to appeal a denial of protection from removal from the U.S. by finding that a noncitizen does not need to request certain forms for administrative review to meet the needs to satisfy the requirements for challenging a Board of Immigration Appeals ruling.
The Justices are free to be politically correct and I am free not to be.
The Justices are just being polite.
These fraudulent females don't deserve respect, in my opinion.
Then don't be offended when others don't respect you.
As a normal and rational person who isn't buying this trans bullshit, I'm not offended that you don't respect me.
Unattributed...
Polling shows a majority accept LGBTQA+ people as they are, including trans and non-binary. A majority would indicate what a "normal" level of acceptance is even if the accepted isn't "normal". Rational people a long time ago educated themselves on the issue and accept them even if they don't always agree with some of their choices. We are left with the willfully ignorant and bigotted people as those who refuse to accept others they don't agree with. For the record acceptance doesn't require agreement. I accept many, many things I don't agree with and respect a well thought out and logical opinion and position.
I said don't be surprised if you reap what you sow and said nothing of my feelings and opinions of you.
And that would be their folly.
Correct. People are free to be a disrespectful assholes and reap the consequences of their actions.
And we see that quite often on NT, in fact right on this article.
We did heard their opinions on the term deplorable, so I would think some might practice a bit more decorum when discussing others. Of course for those who aptly fit the deplorable moniker I'd expect nothing less.
I hadn’t ever given any thought to how the Court would handle an opinion like this, but I’m pleasantly surprised to see that even the conservatives on the bench chose to be respectful. Gives me a little hope.
Yes, legally, this is what the word “alien” has always meant, which is a reason I have no problem with it. I’ve looked through quite a few immigration statutes and I don’t believe the specific combination of “Illegal” plus “alien” to make “illegal alien” as a term per se appears anywhere in the law. On the other hand, there are references to aliens present without permission and I think probably being in the country “illegally.”
Maybe it’s just because it doesn’t affect me personally, but I’ve always struggled a little with why this is seen as so offensive by some. It strikes me as pretty straightforward language to describe a person’s status.
There is a move, in recent years, though, to adjust our language such that we don’t refer to people as a characteristic relevant to the current context. For example, there is a trend toward referring to people as “enslaved person” rather than “slave.” In the immigration context, I suppose it could be “alien present illegally” rather than “illegal alien.”
I find the approach can be an unnecessarily tortured use of language. I hope I don’t cease to be a “father” or “husband” and start being referred to as a “person with children or spouse”
In any event, I generally prefer to refer to a person in whatever way they prefer if only out of politeness.
I agree. People have gone out of their ways to use various terms of others as derogatory and then over correct the other way.
I think this the most practical and respectable way to go about life.