老熟女午夜福利

WASHINGTON 鈥� Attorneys representing a 15-year-old West Virginia transgender girl, Becky Pepper-Jackson, and her mother Heather Jackson today filed their response brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in their challenge to a 2021 West Virginia law barring Pepper-Jackson from participating on girl鈥檚 athletic teams. Becky and her mother are represented in West Virginia v. B.P.J by the 老熟女午夜福利, the ACLU of West Virginia, Lambda Legal, and Cooley LLP. 鈥淚 play for my school for the same reason other kids on my track team do鈥搕o make friends, have fun, and challenge myself through practice and teamwork,鈥� said Becky Pepper-Jackson, 15, of West Virginia. 鈥淎nd all I鈥檝e ever wanted was the same opportunities as my peers. Instead, I鈥檝e had my rights and my life debated by politicians who鈥檝e never even met me but want to stop me from playing sports with my friends. I know this case isn鈥檛 just about me, or even just about sports. It鈥檚 just one part of a plan to push transgender people like me out of public life entirely. I鈥檓 proud to stand up alongside my mom for what I believe and who I am and I want other transgender kids to know they aren鈥檛 alone.鈥� 鈥淚鈥檝e always raised my children to stay true to themselves, no matter what anyone else tells them,鈥� says Heather Jackson, mother of Becky Pepper-Jackson. 鈥�"I'm so proud of Becky and the young woman she's becoming, one who is hardworking, kind, and a team player. My daughter and every transgender kid like her deserves the freedom to be themselves and a future where no one is discriminated against just because of who they are.鈥� 鈥淭his case is fundamentally about the ability of transgender youth like Becky to participate in our schools and communities,鈥� said Joshua Block, Senior Counsel for the ACLU鈥檚 LGBTQ & HIV Project. 鈥淪chool athletics are fundamentally educational programs, but West Virginia鈥檚 law completely excluded Becky from her school鈥檚 entire athletic program even when there is no connection to alleged concerns about fairness or safety. As the lower court recognized, forcing Becky to either give up sports or play on the boy鈥檚 team鈥搃n contradiction of who she is at school, at home, and across her life鈥搃s really no choice at all. We look forward to defending her rights, and the rights of every young person, to be included as a member of their school community, at the Supreme Court.鈥� 鈥淏ecky simply wants to be with her teammates on the track and field team, to experience the camaraderie and many documented benefits of participating in team sports,鈥� said Lambda Legal Counsel, Nonbinary & Trans Rights Project Director, Sasha Buchert. 鈥淚t has been amply proven that participating in team sports equips youth with a myriad of skills 鈥� in leadership, teamwork, confidence, and health. On the other hand, denying a student the ability to participate is not only discriminatory, but harmful to a student鈥檚 self-esteem, sending a message that they are not good enough and deserve to be excluded. In the end, can we not just let the kids play?鈥� The Supreme Court has also agreed to hear Little v. Hecox, a challenge brought by a transgender student against Idaho鈥檚 2020 ban on transgender athletes and requirements for sex testing. The 老熟女午夜福利, the ACLU of Idaho, Legal Voice, and Cooley LLP represent the plaintiffs in this case. The two cases charge the bans with violating the rights of transgender and cisgender female students under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In addition, West Virginia v. B.P.J. argues that the bans violate Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs. Federal courts have blocked enforcement of these bans in both lawsuits. Since 2020, 27 states have banned transgender youth from playing school sports. Many of these bans allow for invasive forms of sex testing that put all female student-athletes at risk and embolden intrusive challenges to student athletes' sex. In Florida, a 15-year-old junior varsity volleyball player was the subject of a police investigation after an anonymous accusation, prompting local officials to draft a 500-page report investigating her medical history, body weight, and anatomy. In Utah, a teenage basketball player was accused of being transgender by a member of the state board of education, leading to threats of violence against her and her family, and a teenager in Maine faced a similar attack from a state senator. In May, President Donald Trump similarly targeted a 16-year-old transgender girl for participating in a high school track meet. Under an Arizona ban, a cisgender male student was prohibited from participating on the boy鈥檚 team at his high school because of a clerical error that listed him as female on his original birth certificate. Many women athletes have spoken out against bullying and discrimination against transgender student-athletes, including Billie Jean King, Megan Rapinoe, Dawn Staley, Sue Bird, and Brianna Turner, as well as leading organizations fighting for gender equality in athletics including the Women鈥檚 Sports Foundation, the Women鈥檚 National Basketball Player鈥檚 Association, and the National Women鈥檚 Law Center. Today's brief in West Virginia v. B.P.J. can be found here. Today's brief in Little v. Hecox can be found here. These cases are part of the ACLU鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.

The ruling halts a Trump administration directive that would have excluded certain immigrant children from Head Start, a program serving families who are eligible nationwide. The decision ensures immigrant families can continue to access early education, child care, and critical support services while the ACLU鈥檚 lawsuit moves forward.

Care workers warn that a new Labor Department rule would cut vital wage and hour protections, threatening millions of caregivers who support seniors and people with disabilities.

WASHINGTON 鈥� The 老熟女午夜福利 has filed a public comment opposing the Department of Labor鈥檚 (DOL) proposed rule, 鈥淎pplication of the Fair Labor Standards Act to Domestic Service,鈥� which would eliminate hard-won wage and hour protections for millions of the nation鈥檚 paid caregivers, who are disproportionately Black and Brown women and are among the poorest workers in the labor force. The proposal would change the definition of in-home 鈥渃ompanionship鈥� services under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law whose protections include a minimum hourly wage and overtime pay for work performed beyond 8 hours in a single day, or 40 hours in a single week. Under the proposed new definition, millions of home care workers would no longer be entitled to those protections. Additionally, while agencies and other third-party employers of home care workers currently are required to comply with the FLSA, DOL proposes to excuse those employers from the statute鈥檚 requirements. These actions would undo DOL鈥檚 2013 regulations, which extended FLSA protections to home care workers after decades of exclusion. 鈥淓ven though they currently are entitled to receive the minimum wage and overtime, home care workers are among the most vulnerable in our nation鈥檚 labor force, facing wage theft and unsafe working conditions, and living in poverty,鈥� said Gillian Thomas, senior counsel in the ACLU Women's Rights Project. 鈥淭he Department of Labor 鈥檚 proposed rule change would strip away the meager economic security that FLSA coverage provides to these essential workers, who take care of our elders and our loved ones with disabilities. By enabling greater exploitation by corporate home care providers, DOL will drive more workers out of a field already facing a profound labor shortage and deprive millions of families of the care they rely on.鈥� ACLU鈥檚 comment highlights that the exclusion of home care workers from the FLSA鈥檚 protections stems directly from the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. When Congress passed labor laws like FLSA and the Social Security Act in the 1930s, lawmakers carved out from those statutes鈥� coverage domestic workers as well as agricultural workers鈥攖he two fields in which formerly enslaved people and their descendants were most likely to work鈥攊n order to win southern lawmakers鈥� support. Although Congress eventually amended the FLSA to bring such workers within the law鈥檚 protection, DOL did not fully effectuate that intent until it issued regulations in 2013. 鈥淭oday, home care workers still are disproportionately women of color, and most of whom are women and people of color, provide essential care yet remain among the poorest and least protected in our economy. Rescinding DOL鈥檚 2013 rules not only will make them much poorer鈥攊t will shamefully revive a legal exclusion firmly rooted in racism and misogyny,鈥� added Thomas. DOL鈥檚 2013 rule recognized the realities of the modern home care industry, in which workers are well-trained professionals who are supporting families of their own, and in which third-party agencies鈥攔ather than care recipients themselves鈥攅mploy care workers, reaping billions in profits. Entitlement to minimum wage and overtime pay has provided economic security for a workforce made up overwhelmingly of women, and particularly Black women and immigrant women. Such protections not only have helped lift wages for one of the nation鈥檚 lowest-paid professions, but also has ensured stable, quality care for seniors and people with disabilities. ACLU鈥檚 comment further explains that the proposed rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act. DOL has effectively suspended the 2013 rule without proper notice and comment, and its justifications for abandoning longstanding protections are arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. The ACLU urges the department to preserve the 2013 rule, which corrected a historic injustice, advanced gender and racial equity, and strengthened the home care workforce. The full comment is available here.