SCOTUS Unanimously Sides with Transgender Refugee, Affirming Her Identity in Historic Ruling

[Nevilledog]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/u-supreme-court-unanimously-sides-165545537.html

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the court's opinion in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, which is historic for its humanizing language to describe a transgender woman who fled persecution in Guatemala

The U.S. Supreme Court this week passed a decision that makes history not just for its impact on the law — but for its language about transgender people and non-citizens living in the United States.

Every judge — including the most conservative on the court — agreed with the court's ruling, and traditionally right-leaning justices co-signed the official opinion of the court, which uses proper she/her pronouns to describe a transgender woman who fled Guatemala after being assaulted and persecuted on the basis of her gender identity and sexual orientation.

The opinion also referred to the petitioner as a non-citizen, rather than an "illegal alien" (a dehumanizing term that has been in conservative opinions in the past).

*snip*

[gratuitous]

1. The ruling is good news

The fact that even the hidebound neanderthals on the Court can do the right, humane thing by Estrella Santos-Zacaria means that they are aware of their cruelty in other settings, and choose to be cruel nevertheless.

[ProfessorGAC]

2. I Also Thought It Quite Important

Makes me wonder how this conflicts with the anti-trans movement sweeping the red states.

[Sympthsical]

4. It was an easy case for conservatives to side with

At issue was a lower court reading a broader meaning into a Congressional statute. Conservative justices prefer narrowing legislative intent as much as possible. If they allowed the lower court's rationale to fly, then people could start reading into and arguing all kinds of things about Congressional intent on jurisdictional issues. A lot of previous Court rulings have been intent on keeping jurisdictional questions very specific.

Conservatives fight against broad intent for various reasons. Think of the EPA, for example. They do not think the EPA should have the vast powers it does, and conservative judges happily knock them down with "Congress never intended for this."

It's also an attempt to get the courts less gummed up by making the process at hand less messy. If the exhaustion requirement (you've used all your legal tools and presented all you intend to) is jurisdictional, then it gets all kinds of messed up. "Ok, you did this in this jurisdiction, but did you do it in that one? No? Then we can't help you."

It opens up a lot of chaos and redundant hurdles for petitioners to seek redress. The salient line:

Exhaustion is typically nonjurisdictional for good reason. Jurisdictional treatment of an exhaustion requirement could undo the benefits of exhaustion. That is, exhaustion promotes efficiency, including by encouraging parties to resolve their disputes without litigation.

It's a good decision, but as noted, it's really the language Justice Jackson used that's revelatory. The technical aspects were about how you'd expect the Court to rule.

The opinion is interesting, if you're into that sort of thing.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/598/21-1436/#tab-opinion-4738594

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Thanks

Quite helpful.
Makes more sense because the federalist drones so hate the government for which they work.

[RandySF]

3. Big implications

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Wait, wait, what? Clarence voted with the Court??

[underpants]

7. Good.

[bucolic_frolic]

8. Maybe they can see society splintering and decided to be humane for once

[not fooled]

9. My take is more cynical

the cons are getting ready to gut the "administrative state" in earnest, by destroying the ability of Federal agencies to do their jobs.

[link:https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a43757262/supreme-court-chevron-deference-case/|]

IME before those types of decisions are puked up by the engineered con majority we often see some slight "give" on more social issues (that their big money masters don't care about) to lull the populace before the gut punch of vicious conservatism (for the benefit of said masters) gets delivered.

[MayReasonRule]

10. The Headline Is Bullshit Click-Bait. There Was No Decision About Pronouns.

A more appropriate title for the article would just be...

“Supreme Court Uses Transgender Person’s Preferred Pronouns In Decision.”

Using the correct pronouns is unfortunately just dicta. The Court didn’t decide anything about pronouns.

The decision in no way legally recognized them.

[Nevilledog]

12. The headline is accurate. They used her proper pronouns in the ruling.

You misunderstood that the decision had anything to do with pronoun usage.

[MayReasonRule]

13. The Article's Headline Has Nothing To Do With The Nature Of The Decision, The Usage Was Dicta

You posted the exact title from the original article, no insult was intended toward y'all Nevelledog.
"Dicta" is not opinion.
"Dicta" is said in passing without formal pronouncement.

Evidently we agree. Other commenters have misconstrued what actually happened in this instance.

Happy Friday!
Eat well, sleep well, stay well and laissez bon temps rouler!!

[Nevilledog]

15. The problem is you are reading affirming as related to a ruling. That's not the meaning here.

BTW I'm a lawyer

[MayReasonRule]

16. How Does Dicta "Affirm" Anything? It's Merely Used "In Passing", Right?

BTW I'm not an officer of any court, lol.

Happy Friday again BTW...

[Nevilledog]

18. Because they're affirming that she identifies as a woman.

My guess is you'd prefer that they used the word "referred" instead of "affirmed".

[MayReasonRule]

19. Best I Can Tell They Merely Quoted The Dicta From The Prior Case

I prefer that folks be kind to one another.

I prefer that SCOTUS not be packed with Y'all Qaeda Christo-Fascists!

I prefer for folks to be accepted and affirmed by the courts and our society writ-large as they identify.

I prefer that folks not conclude that SCOTUS magically pulled their head out of their Nazi asses, wiped the shit out of their eyes and now see the world through the eyes of reason when all they did in this case was ignore the hair in their soup while Gorscuh affirmed his own opinion from Bostock.

I like to dance and celebrate victory as much as anyone, I just don't see one in this case.

Happy Saturday!

[former9thward]

11. The Biden administration was seeking to deport this person.

They felt a favorable ruling would create havoc with the immigration rules. The SC rejected their argument and allowed Santos-Zacaria to stay.

[MayReasonRule]

14. That's Precisely Correct. The Decision Had Less Than Zero To Do With Pronouns.

[Aristus]

17. Thank you, Justice Jackson.

Ma’am.

[MayReasonRule]

20. Celebrating Usage Of Prior Dicta From Previous Decisions Seems A Hollow Victory At Best

The 5th circuit had to have been smoking something psychedelic to have made their ridiculous holding in the first place.

All SCOTUS did was undo something that was patently insane and went against Gorsuch's prior holdings.