NEWNow you can listen to Pak Gazette articles!
First in Fox: The legal team that represents the defendants in an upcoming case of the Supreme Court to protect women’s sports has responded after the transgender plaintiff asked the court to leave the case.
The Defense Team, led by the IDAHO Attorney General, Raul Labrador and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), Kristen Waggoner, presented his response after the former transgender athlete of the Boise Lindsay Hecax University, requested the initial demand of the athlete to fight for trans inclusion in women’s sports of 2022 Listen to the case.
CLICK HERE to get more sports coverage in Foxnews
“After five years, the Idaho law that protects women’s sports has finally reached the Supreme Court of the United States. Now, the [American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which is representing Hecox] He wants to drop the case because they know the strength of our argument. But the legal arguments of a male athlete do not change the facts: Idaho girls can still be forced to compete against children, “Labrador told Pak Gazette Digital.
“That is not fair, it is not safe and strips young women of equal opportunities. We urge the Court to affirm that states have the authority to preserve and protect women’s sports.”
The little v. Hecox The demand was initially filed By hecox in 2020, when the Trans athlete wanted to join the women’s country Cross Cross and have the law of the State to prevent Trans athletes from competing in blocked women’s sports.
A hecox joined an anonymous biological student, Jane Doe, who was concerned with the potential to be subject to the process of verification of sexual disputes. The challenge was successful, since a federal judge blocked the state law of Idaho.
A 9th panel of the Court of Appeals of the United States Circuit confirmed a court order that blocked state law in 2023, before the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in July. Hecox then asked Scotus earlier this month to withdraw the challenge, claiming that the athlete “has decided to retain and abstain permanently to practice any female sport in BSU or in Idaho.”
But now, Labrador and Waggoner argue that the attempt to hecax to dismiss the case is prohibited by the stay of all the procedures he has previously agreed. Defensor lawyers also argue that Hecox still has an interest in preserving the decision after maintaining the option of practicing women’s sports.
“This case is not debatable simply because Hecox claims to have decided not to practice women’s sports,” said the answer.
Within the transgender volleyball crisis of Gavin Newsom
Ultimately, the defense in this case is looking for a larger image result than simply if hecaox can practice women’s sports. Labrador told Pak Gazette Digital that he is asking the Court to protect the rights of states to protect women’s sports.
Labrador He previously said that he hopes that the Supreme Court will throw a decision with a broader impact that simply let a State make its own specific law on the subject. He wants a new national precedent. “I think that’s what they are going to do,” Labrador told Pak Gazette Digital in an exclusive interview.
“I think they will have a great decision about whether men can participate in women’s sports and, more importantly, how to determine if transgender people are protected by the Federal Constitution and state and federal laws.”
The general prosecutors of 27 states and the territory of Guam of the United States have signed in Amicus Briefs to support defense in the next case of Scotus.
AGS from Arkansas, Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisian Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming, and the United States Guam territory are launching their support behind the defendants, as seen in the copies of the writings obtained by Pak Gazette Digital.
The list includes the AGs from Idaho and West Virginia, who only signed the writings for the case that is not based on their state, since they are already accused in the case within their state.
“In the center of these cases there is a fundamental question: are the States defending the laws that preserve the equity and opportunity for female athletes? The answer must be yes. Throughout the country, girls are already asked once again to exceed the structural disadvantages that title IX was designed to eliminate. This is not about the presumption of the presence of the integrity of the athletic women the athletics “, which says the exception of the exception.
“We must protect these opportunities because law, science and public will are on our side. We believe that the Court will also be.”
Pak Gazette Digital has communicated with hecox lawyers to obtain an answer.
