New lawsuits are likely coming in Texas as LGBTQ+ people working for the state are now being targeted in dress code regulations.

Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller has issued an order to his employees to dress "in a manner consistent with their biological gender" as part of a dress code and grooming policy.

Brian Klosterboer, attorney for the ACLU of Texas, said the new policy violates Title Seven, which bans employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, as well the First Amendment's right to free expression and the Equal Protection Clause.

"Unfortunately, it sends a pretty devastating message to people who work at this department that they're not welcome if they deviate at all from gender stereotypes," Klosterboer stressed.

The memo, dated April 13 and signed by Miller, said those found to be in violation will be asked to go home and change. It further states those who do not adhere can face "remedies up to and including termination." The agency's previous dress code restrictions did not reference "biological gender."

Klosterboer believes state agencies should be focused on doing their jobs, not trying to make political points by discriminating against their own employees.

"They're trying to take us a back in time to the decades when the government and private employers could, and openly did, discriminate based on gender," Klosterboer argued. "But that really defies modern court precedent, as well as the regulation from federal agencies."

As agriculture commissioner, Miller is known for his fondness of Western wear. His new dress code encourages Western business attire, including boots - but not open-toed shoes for women.

"It's just pretty absurd that people are allowed to wear Western wear, but not to dress consistently with their gender identify," Klosterboer contended. "And it's unclear and vague how they're even going to enforce this. Are they going to be picking and choosing between cowboy hats? Which one is too masculine or feminine?"

The Agriculture Commissioner has previously advocated for statewide legislation to restrict gender-affirming care for transgender children.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

Prison reform advocates in Minnesota continue to speak out following a lockdown at the correctional facility in Stillwater.

People incarcerated there want better conditions, and their supporters say systemic issues need to be addressed.

A coalition is now calling for two state offices to conduct an independent human rights investigation after those being held at Stillwater staged a peaceful protest earlier this month.

The issues include a lack of air conditioning during excessive heat and poor water quality.

David Boehnke, an organizer with the Twin Cities Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee, said it adds to longstanding concerns across the correctional system.

"There's a pattern and practice here," said Boehnke, "and there's just a refusal to look at these types of inhuman conditions and create actual solutions."

Boehnke contended these individuals are having their rights violated while still being expected to perform the work they're ordered to do in carrying out their sentences.

He suggested treating them better can lead to better outcomes after they're released.

The Department of Corrections cites staffing issues for some of the concerns, and argues that some of the claims are false.

Advocates say while the prison population is their primary concern, Marvina Haynes - founder of the group Minnesota Wrongfully Convicted Judicial Reform - pointed out that rough conditions can negatively affect correctional staff, too.

"Officers are working in inhumane conditions," said Haynes, "and it just causes a more stressful environment."

Haynes also has a brother incarcerated at Stillwater, and she says inmates have provided details of brown water inside the prison. That's one of the claims corrections administrators have said is false.

Meanwhile, the union representing corrections officers at Stillwater echoes concerns about operations at the facility.




get more stories like this via email

Grassroots voting rights groups in Alabama said they are delighted by a federal court decision to discard the state's proposed congressional maps for a second time.

United Women of Color and the Ordinary People Society, two of the organizations advocating for more fair representation for voters of color, are among those celebrating the move They see the decision as a necessary step toward achieving the goal.

Rodreshia Russaw, executive director of the Ordinary People Society, which is a member of the Alabama Election Protection Network, hopes it serves as an example for other states in the same fight.

"Our hope is that we will be a model state," Russaw asserted. "As is being seen now not only in Georgia, and also in Louisiana, for fair maps, for equitable maps."

The three-judge panel initially doubted the state's proposed map during the Aug. 14 hearing. Upon finding the map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the court instructed a special master and cartographer to redraw the maps by Sept. 25.

The court's decision sends a strong message on fair representation, but also places financial responsibility on Alabama taxpayers to bear the cost of hiring the special master.

Angela Curry, executive director of United Women of Color, said the court decision is encouraging but she has concerns about the implications for next year's primary elections.

"Either their one plan is to either delay until it affects the 2024 primaries and/or have it go back to the Supreme Court, in hopes that one of the conservative judges will change their vote," Curry observed.

As the redistricting process proceeds, both groups say it is more proof the work of advocating for fair representation of Black voters is not over. The state has appealed to the Supreme Court about the federal court's decision. A tentative hearing for objections has been scheduled for Oct. 3.


get more stories like this via email

Some Pennsylvania patients with long-term chronic illnesses are hoping to make legal headway, allowing them to seek medical aid in dying across state lines.

Andrea Sealy, a patient advocate and cancer patient who has endured a double mastectomy, more than 10 surgeries and multiple rounds of radiation, lives just 10 minutes from New Jersey and would prefer to have choices in death should she need them.

Sealy noted she lives a full a life, but if her health declines, she does not want legal stipulations to get in the way of her quality of life or death.

"I don't want to die, I want to have that free will and option when a situation comes about," Sealy explained. "I would like to avoid any suffering and also to spare my family and loved ones the same. I want to feel free to live until then, as well."

Pennsylvania law does not currently allow for medical aid in dying. State lawmakers introduced the Compassionate Aid in Dying Act earlier this year. If passed, it would allow a person with a terminal illness to get a doctor's prescription to ease their suffering if they choose to use it.

New Jersey has such a law, but Sealy is one of the patients challenging its residency stipulation in U.S. District Court.

Kevin Diaz, chief legal advocacy officer for Compassion & Choices, said medical aid in dying is the only medical treatment barred to nonresidents anywhere in the country. He sees it as unconstitutional and argued everyone should have their rights.

"People really should not have their medical care determined by what ZIP code they live in," Diaz contended. "And if there's medical care that is two miles away from you, or 50 miles away from you, just because it's in another state that you should be able to access it, assuming that you know it's available and lawful and it's something that really is in your best interest."

The lawsuit is the third in the nation to challenge a medical aid-in-dying law's residency requirement. Nationwide, 10 jurisdictions have passed laws with a residency mandate, but two states have removed the requirement following legal challenges by Compassion & Choices.