House Bill 142 (Session 2017 of the North Carolina General Assembly)

Last updated

House Bill 142 (HB 142) is a 2017 law that was enacted in the state of North Carolina that repealed House Bill 2. The bill states that all "state agencies, boards, offices, departments, institutions, branches of government, including The University of North Carolina and the North Carolina Community College System, and political subdivisions of the State, are preempted from regulation of access to multiple occupancy restrooms, showers, or changing facilities, except in accordance with an act of the General Assembly." It also enacted that no local government in this state may enact or amend an ordinance regulating private employment practices or regulating public accommodations until December 1, 2020. [1]

Contents

Passage

House Bill 142
North Carolina House of Representatives North Carolina Senate
AyesNoesExcused absentsTotalAyesNoesExcused absentsTotal
# %# %# %# %# %# %# %# %
Republican caucus4054.05%3344.59%11.35%118100%2365.71%1028.57%25.71%48100%
Democratic caucus3065.22%1532.61%12.17%960%640%00%
Total7059.32%4840.68%21.69%3266.67%1633.34%24.17%

On March 30, 2017, the North Carolina Senate passed HB 142, with 32 ayes, 16 noes, and 2 excused absents. That same day, the North Carolina House of Representatives passed HB 142, with 70 ayes, 48 noes, and 2 excused absents, which Governor Roy Cooper signed into law that very day, becoming Ch. SL 2017-4. [2]

Lawsuits

Carcaño v. Cooper

Carcaño v. Cooper is a landmark legal case challenging the constitutionality of North Carolina's House Bill 2 (HB 2) and its replacement, House Bill 142 (HB 142). The case, originally filed in March 2016 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal, sought to overturn the provisions of HB 2, which required individuals to use public bathrooms corresponding to the sex on their birth certificates and restricted local governments from passing anti-discrimination ordinances. [3] [4] The plaintiffs, including Joaquín Carcaño, a transgender man and employee of the University of North Carolina, amended their lawsuit in 2017 to challenge the constitutionality of HB 142.

They argued that the new law continued to harm transgender individuals by preventing local governments from protecting them from discrimination and by leaving the status of bathroom access for transgender people in legal limbo. The lawsuit claimed that HB 142 violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. [4] [5] U.S. District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder presided over the case. In October 2018, Judge Schroeder ruled that the plaintiffs could proceed with their challenge to HB 142, allowing the case to move forward. The lawsuit focused on the restrictions placed on local governments and the impact on transgender individuals' rights. [5]

In July 2019, a settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and the state. Under the terms of the settlement, North Carolina agreed that nothing in HB 142 would prevent transgender individuals from lawfully using public facilities that correspond with their gender identity. The settlement also stated that executive branch agencies, including the University of North Carolina, could not bar transgender individuals from using such facilities. [3] [6] The settlement in Carcaño v. Cooper was seen as a partial victory for LGBTQ+ rights advocates. While it clarified that transgender individuals in North Carolina could use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity, it did not fully overturn the restrictions on local non-discrimination ordinances imposed by HB 142. The case highlighted ongoing legal and social struggles over LGBTQ+ rights in the state and the broader United States. [4] [6]

Kadel v. Folwell

Kadel v. Folwell is an ongoing legal case challenging the exclusion of coverage for gender-affirming care under North Carolina's State Health Plan for state employees. The lawsuit, filed in 2019 by several transgender individuals represented by Lambda Legal and the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF), argues that the exclusion of gender-affirming care from the health plan violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 2016, the North Carolina State Health Plan, which provides health insurance for state employees, including teachers and government workers, removed coverage for gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy and surgeries, for transgender individuals. This exclusion was reintroduced by State Treasurer Dale Folwell, who oversees the health plan, after it had briefly been included in 2017. [7]

The plaintiffs in the case include several transgender state employees and their dependents who were denied coverage for medically necessary gender-affirming care under the health plan. They contend that the exclusion discriminates against them on the basis of sex and transgender status, thereby violating their constitutional rights and federal law. [8] The lawsuit asserts that the exclusion of gender-affirming care violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against transgender individuals. The plaintiffs also argue that the exclusion violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, by imposing unequal terms and conditions of employment on transgender employees. [7] [8]

In addition, the plaintiffs claim that the exclusion violates the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which prohibits discrimination in health care programs and activities that receive federal funding, under Section 1557 of the ACA. [9] U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs presides over the case. In 2020, Judge Biggs denied a motion by the defendants to dismiss the case, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the exclusion of coverage for gender-affirming care could constitute sex discrimination under both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII. [10] As of 2024, the case is still ongoing, with the plaintiffs seeking a ruling that would require the State Health Plan to cover gender-affirming care for transgender employees and their dependents. [7] [8] [11]

United States v. State of North Carolina

United States v. State of North Carolina was a significant legal case in which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the state of North Carolina in response to the enactment of House Bill 2 (HB 2), also known as the "Bathroom Bill." The lawsuit was part of the broader legal and political conflict over the rights of transgender individuals and the extent of state power to regulate public accommodations based on gender identity. House Bill 2, signed into law by Governor Pat McCrory in March 2016, required individuals to use public bathrooms that corresponded with the sex listed on their birth certificates, rather than their gender identity. The bill also preempted local governments from enacting non-discrimination ordinances that provided protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. The law sparked nationwide controversy and led to economic boycotts, protests, and widespread criticism from civil rights organizations.

In response to the law, the U.S. Department of Justice under Attorney General Loretta Lynch sent a letter to Governor McCrory on May 4, 2016, stating that HB 2 violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, as well as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities. The DOJ gave the state a deadline to confirm that it would not enforce the law, but North Carolina refused to comply. [12] On May 9, 2016, the DOJ filed a lawsuit against the state of North Carolina, Governor Pat McCrory, and several state agencies, alleging that HB 2 violated federal civil rights laws. The lawsuit argued that the law discriminated against transgender individuals by denying them access to public facilities consistent with their gender identity and by perpetuating a hostile environment for LGBTQ+ people. [13]

North Carolina, in turn, filed a countersuit on the same day, seeking a declaratory judgment that HB 2 was lawful and did not violate federal law. The state argued that the federal government was overstepping its authority by attempting to redefine "sex" under Title VII and Title IX to include gender identity. [14] The legal battle was closely watched and became a focal point of the national debate over transgender rights. However, before the case could be resolved in court, the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 142 (HB 142) in March 2017, which repealed HB 2 but placed a moratorium on local governments enacting new non-discrimination ordinances until December 2020. [15] Following the repeal, on April 14, 2017, the United States Department of Justice issued a two-sentence court filing that said it had dropped its lawsuit against the state of North Carolina over House Bill 2 because the North Carolina legislature had replaced House Bill 2 with House Bill 142. [16] The dismissal did not address the merits of the case, leaving some aspects of the legal questions unresolved. [17] [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Utah</span>

The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Utah have significantly evolved in the 21st century. Protective laws have become increasingly enacted since 2014, despite the state's reputation as socially conservative and highly religious. Utah's anti-sodomy law was invalidated in 2003 by Lawrence v. Texas, and fully repealed by the state legislature in 2019. Same-sex marriage has been legal since the state's ban was ruled unconstitutional by federal courts in 2014. In addition, statewide anti-discrimination laws now cover sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and housing, and the use of conversion therapy on minors is prohibited. In spite of this, there are still a few differences between the treatment of LGBTQ people and the rest of the population, and the rights of transgender youth are restricted.

In the United States, the rights of transgender people vary considerably by jurisdiction. In recent decades, there has been an expansion of federal, state, and local laws and rulings to protect transgender Americans; however, many rights remain unprotected, and some rights are being eroded. Since 2020, there has been a national movement by conservative/right-wing politicians and organizations to target transgender rights. There has been a steady increase in the number of anti-transgender bills introduced each year, especially in Republican-led states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Alabama</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals in the U.S. state of Alabama have federal protections, but still face legal challenges and discrimination on the state level that is not experienced by non-LGBT residents. LGBTQ rights in Alabama—a Republican Party stronghold located in both the Deep South and greater Bible Belt—are severely limited in comparison to other states. As one of the most socially conservative states in the U.S., Alabama is one of the only two states along with neighboring Mississippi where opposition to same-sex marriage outnumbers support.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in West Virginia</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of West Virginia face legal challenges not faced by non-LGBT persons. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal since 1976, and same-sex marriage has been recognized since October 2014. West Virginia statutes do not address discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Florida</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Florida have federal protections, but many face legal difficulties on the state level that are not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity became legal in the state after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas on June 26, 2003, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy law. Same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since January 6, 2015. Discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations is outlawed following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County. In addition, several cities and counties, comprising about 55 percent of Florida's population, have enacted anti-discrimination ordinances. These include Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa, Orlando, St. Petersburg, Tallahassee and West Palm Beach, among others. Conversion therapy is also banned in a number of cities in the state, mainly in the Miami metropolitan area, but has been struck down by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. In September 2023, Lake Worth Beach, Florida became an official "LGBT sanctuary city" to protect and defend LGBT rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in North Carolina</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of North Carolina may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents, or LGBT residents of other states with more liberal laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Arkansas</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Arkansas face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Arkansas. Same-sex marriage became briefly legal through a court ruling on May 9, 2014, subject to court stays and appeals. In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States nationwide including in Arkansas. Nonetheless, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity was not banned in Arkansas until the Supreme Court banned it nationwide in Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Indiana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights in the U.S. state of Indiana have been shaped by both state and federal law. These evolved from harsh penalties established early in the state's history to the decriminalization of same-sex activity in 1977 and the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2014. Indiana was subject to an April 2017 federal court ruling that discrimination based on sexual orientation is tantamount to discrimination on account of "sex", as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ruling establishes sexual orientation as a protected characteristic in the workplace, forbidding unfair discrimination, although Indiana state statutes do not include sexual orientation or gender identity among its categories of discrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Tennessee</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Tennessee may experience some legal challenges that non-LGBTQ residents do not. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in the state since 1996. Marriage licenses have been issued to same-sex couples in Tennessee since the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in South Dakota</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of South Dakota may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in South Dakota, and same-sex marriages have been recognized since June 2015 as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges. State statutes do not address discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in South Carolina</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of South Carolina may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in South Carolina as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws. Same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples. However, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is not banned statewide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Kentucky</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Kentucky still face some legal challenges not experienced by other people. Same-sex sexual activity in Kentucky has been legally permitted since 1992, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy statute for same-sex couples. Same-sex marriage is legal in Kentucky under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. The decision, which struck down Kentucky's statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriages and all other same-sex marriage bans elsewhere in the country, was handed down on June 26, 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Idaho</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Idaho face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Idaho, and same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since October 2014. State statutes do not address discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law. A number of cities and counties provide further protections, namely in housing and public accommodations. A 2019 Public Religion Research Institute opinion poll showed that 71% of Idahoans supported anti-discrimination legislation protecting LGBTQ people, and a 2016 survey by the same pollster found majority support for same-sex marriage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Kansas</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Kansas have federal protections, but many face some legal challenges on the state level that are not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Kansas under the US Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws that only apply to same-sex sexual acts. The state has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations since 2020. Proposed bills restricting preferred gender identity on legal documents, bans on transgender people in women's sports, bathroom use restrictions, among other bills were vetoed numerous times by Democratic Governor Laura Kelly since 2021. However, many of Kelly's vetoes were overridden by the Republican supermajority in the Kansas legislature and became law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act</span> Act passed in the U.S. state of North Carolina in 2016

The Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, commonly known as House Bill 2 or HB2, was a North Carolina statute passed in March 2016 and signed into law by Governor Pat McCrory. The bill amended state law to preempt any anti-discrimination ordinances passed by local communities and, controversially, compelled schools and state and local government facilities containing single-gender bathrooms to only allow people of the corresponding sex as listed on their birth certificate to use them; it also gave the state exclusive rights to determine the minimum wage.

A bathroom bill is the common name for legislation or a statute that denies access to public toilets by gender or transgender identity. Bathroom bills affect access to sex-segregated public facilities for an individual based on a determination of their sex as defined in some specific way, such as their sex as assigned at birth, their sex as listed on their birth certificate, or the sex that corresponds to their gender identity. A bathroom bill can either be inclusive or exclusive of transgender individuals, depending on the aforementioned definition of their sex.

Title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination "on the basis of sex" in educational programs and activities that receive financial assistance from the federal government. The Obama administration interpreted Title IX to cover discrimination on the basis of assigned sex, gender identity, and transgender status. The Trump administration determined that the question of access to sex-segregated facilities should be left to the states and local school districts to decide. The validity of the executive's position is being tested in the federal courts.

The legal and regulatory history of transgender and transsexual people in the United States begins in the 1960s. Such legislation covers federal, state, municipal, and local levels, as well as military justice. It reflects broader societal attitudes which have shifted significantly over time and have impacted legislative and judicial outcomes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arkansas House Bill 1570 (2021)</span> 2021 Arkansas state law

Arkansas House Bill 1570, also known as the Save Adolescents From Experimentation (SAFE) Act or Act 626, is a 2021 law in the state of Arkansas that bans gender-affirming medical procedures for transgender people under 18, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and sex reassignment surgery. The law also bans the use of public funds for and prohibits insurance from covering gender transition procedures, while doctors who provide treatment in violation of the ban can be sued for damages or professionally sanctioned. The measure makes Arkansas the first U.S. state to make gender-affirming medical care illegal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Facility Requirements Based on Sex Act</span>

The Facility Requirements Based on Sex Act, also known as Committee Substitute for House Bill 1521 , is a 2023 Florida anti-trans bathroom law which mandates that individuals must use restrooms, locker rooms, and changing facilities that correspond to their sex assigned at birth in some public, private and state-licensed facilities. It is one of two states (Utah) to make it a misdemeanor, in certain circumstances, for transgender people to use bathrooms or facilities consistent with their gender identity. It is the most populous state in the United States with a bathroom law. The law has generated significant controversy and legal challenges.

References

  1. ↑ "HB 142 (SL 2017-4)". www.ncleg.net.
  2. ↑ "House Bill 142 / S.L. 2017-4 (2017-2018 Session) - North Carolina General Assembly". www.ncleg.net.
  3. 1 2 Carcaño v. Cooper. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved August 12, 2024.
  4. 1 2 3 Carcaño v. Cooper Case Details. Lambda Legal. Retrieved August 12, 2024.
  5. 1 2 "Federal Judge Approves Settlement in NC Transgender Bathroom Lawsuit". The Charlotte Observer, June 28, 2019. Retrieved August 12, 2024.
  6. 1 2 "What NC's HB2 Repeal Really Did and Didn't Do". The News & Observer, March 28, 2019. Retrieved August 12, 2024.
  7. 1 2 3 Kadel v. Folwell Case Details. Lambda Legal. Retrieved August 12, 2024.
  8. 1 2 3 Kadel v. Folwell. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved August 12, 2024.
  9. ↑ Kadel v. Folwell Case Overview. Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund. Retrieved August 12, 2024.
  10. ↑ "Kadel v. Folwell - Order Denying Motion to Dismiss". CourtListener, June 5, 2020. Retrieved August 12, 2024.
  11. ↑ "Federal Judge Allows Lawsuit Over NC Trans Health Care Ban to Proceed". Human Rights Campaign, June 8, 2020. Retrieved August 12, 2024.
  12. ↑ "Department of Justice Letter to Governor McCrory on HB 2". U.S. Department of Justice, May 4, 2016. Retrieved August 12, 2024.
  13. ↑ "Complaint in United States v. State of North Carolina". U.S. Department of Justice, May 9, 2016. Retrieved August 12, 2024.
  14. ↑ "North Carolina Countersuit Against DOJ". Politico, May 9, 2016. Retrieved August 12, 2024.
  15. ↑ "House Bill 142 Text". North Carolina General Assembly, March 30, 2017. Retrieved August 12, 2024.
  16. ↑ "Justice Department drops North Carolina LGBT rights lawsuit after law change". Reuters, April 14, 2017. Retrieved August 12, 2024.
  17. ↑ "DOJ Drops Lawsuit Against North Carolina After HB2 Repeal". Reuters, April 14, 2017. Retrieved August 12, 2024.
  18. ↑ "Justice Department Drops Federal Legal Action Over North Carolina's 'Bathroom Bill'". NPR, April 14, 2017. Retrieved August 12, 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.