SCOTUS Slams Lawyers For Petty Bigotry... Which Is What They Wanted Anyway

The Supreme Court is earning plaudits for smacking down prejudiced amici briefs... but what did they really accomplish?

Supreme Court 1While places like Texas are working overtime on a so-called “bathroom bill” to serve the twin goals of salving the insecurities of morons and ensuring the state government continues to ignore its embarrassing deficiencies, the Supreme Court is gearing up to hear the G.G. case about transgender restrooms and the requirements of Title IX. And as you might imagine the gaggle of organizations that make their nut fishing for donations from those with pockets as deep as their seeded prejudices are super excited about this one.

So much so that three of them violated the rules of the Supreme Court over it.

Gavin Grimm, captioned by his initials because he’s still a minor, wants to use the men’s room at his high school. Is the school’s decision to keep him out because he was born female unlawful gender discrimination under Title IX? That’s the question on the table. Not on the table is litigating Gavin Grimm’s gender, which is legally and medically male.

But as reported by Slate, Liberty Counsel, the National Organization for Marriage, and the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (who filed two briefs in conjunction with NOM), filed amici briefs with the caption: “Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., by her Next Friend and Mother, Deirdre Grimm.” Now that there is most definitely not the caption of the case and that didn’t escape the notice of Scott Harris, the Clerk of the Supreme Court, who promptly sent counsel letters:

It has come to the attention of this office that the cover of your amicus brief in this case identifies the respondent as “G.G., by her next friend and mother, Deirdre Grimm.” In fact, the caption for the case in this Court, as in the lower courts, identifies the respondent as “G.G., by his Next Friend and Mother, Deirdre Grimm.” (Emphasis added.) Under Rule 34, your cover is to reflect the caption of the case. Please ensure careful compliance with this requirement in this and other cases in the future.

You got cold clerked, son.

Mark Joseph Stern thinks this was a dumb move because it likely disqualifies these briefs, even for justices who might’ve been inclined to rule against the Grimm:

Sponsored

The briefs reject the very validity of Grimm’s identity in a manner that is both offensive and petty. Indeed, these organizations are so eager to deny Grimm this basic dignity that they intentionally flouted the rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is difficult to imagine a justice citing anything these groups’ briefs say—even those who vote against Grimm. Liberty Counsel, NOM, and the CCJ have given the game away, revealing that while they claim to care about bathroom predators, they are really attempting to repudiate trans people’s identity.

That’s definitely true, but how often do justices really give a damn about an amicus brief? Certainly some entities — say, for example, filings by non-party state attorneys general — are important enough to get some love as amici. But usually an amicus brief is just a pretty document that non-profits can wave around at fundraisers. If anything, these shenanigans probably helped their odds of getting cited… by the other side. While the school district tries to play off how this is about stopping predators and not a matter of gender, some enterprising justice can say, “you say that, but weren’t these briefs submitted trying to litigate the kid’s gender?”

If that’s the case, then you might think sabotaging their side is the sort of thing Liberty Counsel, NOM, and the CCJ would feel bad about, but consider what’s really at stake for them. No votes on the Court are changing over this. The justices have known how they’ll vote on this case since before they saw the cert petition. All that’s happened is a few groups got to pull this petty, bigoted captioning move and then suffered no real punishment whatsoever. Now they can take this admonishment letter on the cocktail circuit to crow about how the activist, politically correct Supreme Court is a threat to our cherished medieval values and how they “bravely” stood up to those liberal bullies by refusing to extend common f**king courtesy to a minor.

No, these folks knew what they were doing and they got exactly what they wanted.

SCOTUS Reprimands Anti-LGBTQ Groups for Misgendering Trans Student Gavin Grimm [Slate]

Sponsored


HeadshotJoe Patrice is an editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.