Judge wonders if anti-transgender doctors sued 'because they wanted there to be discrimination'
Source: The Advocate
Judge wonders if anti-transgender doctors sued 'because they wanted there to be discrimination'
“I don’t even understand why they brought this case,” Fifth Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes said of the suit being handled by anti-LGBTQ+ lawyer Jonathan Mitchell.
BY TRUDY RING
JANUARY 12 2024 11:51 AM EST
Federal appeals court judges and a Justice Department attorney this week expressed skepticism about a lawsuit filed by two Texas doctors challenging the Biden administration’s policy against anti-transgender discrimination in health care, with one judge wondering if they sued simply “because they wanted there to be discrimination.”
In 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced it would consider Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which bans sex discrimination in health care, to also ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This is in keeping with the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which applied the same standard to federal law banning sex discrimination in employment.
Some conservatives objected to this. Shortly after HHS made the announcement, internist Susan Neese and pathologist Ralph Hurley sued HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and the federal government in U.S. District Court in Texas, arguing that Section 1557 should apply to biological sex only. They are represented by Jonathan Mitchell, a far-right lawyer who crafted Texas’s “bounty hunting” law directed at residents seeking abortions; brought suit against the Affordable Care Act’s mandate for coverage of HIV prevention drugs; and represented a Texas judge who refuses to marry same-sex couples.
At the trial court level, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that the Bostock decision doesn’t apply to Section 1557. He was appointed by Donald Trump and is known for his anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-abortion rulings. The federal government appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, contending the doctors don’t have legal standing to challenge HHS’s enforcement of Section 1557, as they haven’t done anything to violate it, nor do they appear likely to.
-snip-
Read more: https://www.advocate.com/law/texas-anti-trans-discrimination