Tag: Jonathan Skrmetti

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Tennessee’s Gender Affirming Care Ban for Children Goes to U.S. Supreme Court for Arguments

(Credit: Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash)

Tennessee’s Attorney General is set to defend the state’s gender affirming care ban for minors in the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday against challengers who say the 2023 law endangers children.

While attorneys for the plaintiffs claim the law violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said lawmakers took “measured action” in 2023 when they prohibited gender affirming care for children to protect them from “irreversible, unproven medical procedures.”

“Lawmakers recognized that there is little to no credible evidence to justify the serious risks these procedures present to youth and joined a growing number of European countries in restricting their use on minors with gender-identity issues,” Skrmetti said in advance of oral arguments at the high court in Washington, D.C.

One of Tennessee’s main claims is that the Constitution doesn’t stop states from regulating medical practices involving “hot-button social issues.” Primarily, though, the state says the law doesn’t discriminate based on sex.

“Little to no credible evidence to justify the serious risks these procedures present to youth,” said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti of gender affirming care for minors. (Photo: John Partipilo)

But the father leading the legal challenge against Tennessee’s law said the ban on gender affirming medical care is “an active threat” to his daughter’s future.

“It infringes not only on her freedom to be herself but on our family’s love,” the father said Monday morning in an online press conference. He said his daughter started taking puberty-blocking medications and then hormone therapy at age 13, only after nine months of conversations and consultation with experts and physicians, and is “happy and healthy” as she prepares for college.

Another father, an Ohio lobbyist who identified himself in the press conference as a Republican, said his son was near suicide in 2012 before starting the years-long process of changing sexes.

“One thing I learned was being transgender is a real thing, and if it’s a real thing, in my view, it transcends any political ideology,” the man said.

Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, three families of transgender children say Tennessee’s law violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Dr. Susan Lacy of Memphis is among the plaintiffs as well.

Chase Strangio, an attorney for the ACLU, said Tennessee banned hormone therapy and puberty-delaying medication for children only when prescribed to allow adolescents to live and identify with a sex “inconsistent” with their sex at birth, making it a violation of their rights.

“We are simply asking the Supreme Court to recognize that when a law treats people differently based on their sex, the same equal protection principles apply regardless of whether the group impacted by the law happens to be transgender,” Strangio said.

It’s about whether politicians can restrict access to healthcare treatments in order to impose their narrow, harmful, stereotypical view of gender.

– Sasha Buchert, Lambda Legal

Sasha Buchert of Lambda Legal said the case’s outcome will determine whether families will continue to have the freedom to make medical decisions with their doctors. Otherwise, “unqualified politicians will step into the shoes of families and medical professionals to make those decisions in ways that undermine the care, safety, and dignity of transgender youth,” Buchert said.

Buchert said the argument goes beyond access to gender affirming care, which has been restricted in 24 states, to whether the courts will uphold decades of legal precedent affirming that the state must “show its work when it chooses to discriminate on the basis of sex.”

“It’s about whether politicians can restrict access to healthcare treatments in order to impose their narrow, harmful, stereotypical view of gender,” Buchert said.

Tennessee Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson (R-Franklin) and House Majority Leader William Lamberth (R-Portland) filed the gender affirming care ban bill in 2023 after a right-wing media outlet reported that Vanderbilt University Medical Center was providing the treatment to children. The hospital said it wasn’t performing surgeries on minors.

U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn headlines anti-transgender rally in Nashville

Johnson and several other lawmakers introduced the bill in a rally at the Capitol attended by hate groups. It passed the legislature largely along party lines, although three Democrats voted for it in the House.

In a brief filed with the Supreme Court, Skrmetti backed up his argument by saying European countries that pioneered gender affirming care treatment started pulling back because of concerns about safety and effectiveness. The brief said Tennessee lawmakers considered European restrictions and listened to accounts “of regret and harm” from people who switched back to their original sex.

Skrmetti’s brief says the federal government, which entered the legal battle on the side of the plaintiffs, is trying to displace Tennessee’s law “by reading its preferred policies into the Constitution.” The attorney general’s brief says Senate Bill 1 contains no sex classification and differentiates between minors seeking gender transition drugs and those seeking treatment for other medical purposes.

Plaintiffs in the case say the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down the lower court’s decision to block the law, failed to look at the case with “heightened review,” a legal standard for evaluating constitutionality based on characteristics such as gender.

But Skrmetti’s brief says the court should decline such “doctrinal revolution” because sex isn’t a “but-for cause of SB1’s age- and used-based restrictions.”

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com. Follow Tennessee Lookout on Facebook and X.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Leaders Push “Kids Online Safety Act”; Critics Fear Censorship

Credit: Thomas Park from Unsplash

Tennessee leaders continue to push legislation they say would protect kids online, but civil rights groups say promotes censorship. 

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti led a group of 31 attorneys general from red and blue states earlier this week urging Congress to pass the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). The bill is sponsored by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee). 

The law would require some mandatory safety protections for minors on social media sites such as TikTok and Facebook. These would be the  strongest settings available up front, said Skrmetti, “rather than burying these features behind opt-in screens.”

The KOSA would also take away what Blackburn called “manipulative design features and algorithmic recommendations that keep children endlessly scrolling.” It would also give parents new tools “to identify harmful behaviors and improved capabilities to report dangerous content,” Blackburn said in a statement. 

In the letter to Congress this week, Skrmetti was joined by AGs from conservative states such as Alabama and Mississippi but also such progressive states as New Hampshire and Massachusetts. 

“As the chief legal officers of our states, we’ve seen firsthand how social media companies prioritize profits over our kids’ safety,” Skrmetti said in a statement. “KOSA provides additional tools to protect children’s mental health from the harmful effects of social media.”

Despite bipartisan support, KOSA has drawn criticism from civil rights groups such as the ACLU, which argues the bill could infringe on First Amendment rights. Critics contend that provisions requiring platforms to prevent harm could lead to censorship of legitimate and educational content, particularly around sensitive topics such as sexual health and mental wellness. The group heavily criticized the bill when the Senate passed it in July. 

“KOSA compounds nationwide attacks on young peoples’ right to learn and access information,” said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU. “As state legislatures and school boards across the country impose book bans and classroom censorship laws, the last thing students and parents need is another act of government censorship deciding which educational resources are appropriate for their families.”

The ACLU said that the list of design features outlined in the bill are defined so broadly that platforms would likely have to censor any content that was found objectionable by the government. That content could include anything from sexual health resources to information about gender identity, or how to get help for an eating disorder. 

Anjali Verma, a 17-year-old student, also voiced concerns about the legislation’s potential to harm rather than protect youth. “It’s called the Kids Online Safety Act, but they have to consider kids’ voices, and some of us don’t think it will make us safer,” Verma said in a statement. “We live on the internet, and we are afraid that important information we’ve accessed all our lives will no longer be available. We need lawmakers to listen to young people when making decisions that affect us.”

The AGs’ letter says social media platforms target minors, know their products are addictive, but only care about the bottom line. “Many social media platforms target minors, resulting in a national youth mental health catastrophe,” reads the letter. “These platforms make their products addictive to minor users, and then profit from selling minor user data to advertisers. 

“These platforms fail to disclose the addicting nature of their products, nor the harms associated with increased social media use. Instead, minor users receive endless tailored and toxic content. Further, increasing evidence suggests these platforms are aware of the negative mental health effects social media burdens its underage users with, but choose to continue these practices.”

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

TN AG Supports Warning Labels on Social Media, But Do Labels Work?

Photo by Josh Withers on Unsplash

The Tennessee Attorney General has joined a bipartisan group last week to urge the U.S. Surgeon General to slap a warning label on social media platforms to protect young people’s mental health. 

Surgeon General Dr. Vivek H. Murthy called for such labels in June with an op-ed piece in The New York Times. In it, Murthy said, ”the mental health crisis among young people is an emergency — and social media has emerged as an important contributor.” Risks of depression and anxiety are nearly doubled for adolescents who spend more than three hours per week on social media, Murthy said. 

Murthy rang the alarm bell on social media use last year in a detailed advisory on youth and social media. Parts of it went broad, what you’d expect in a scientific paper from the government. For example, it reads “scientific evidence suggests that harmful content exposure as well as excessive and problematic social media use are primary areas for concern.” But the report also gets into the nitty-gritty of real harms.   

”Despite social media providing a sense of community for some, a systematic review of more than two dozen studies found that some social media platforms show live depictions of self-harm acts like partial asphyxiation, leading to seizures, and cutting, leading to significant bleeding,” reads the advisory. “Further, these studies found that discussing or showing this content can normalize such behaviors, including through the formation of suicide pacts and posting of self-harm models for others to follow.”

Twenty other studies reviewed by the Surgeon General found social media could “perpetuate body dissatisfaction, disordered eating behaviors, social comparison, and low self-esteem, especially among adolescent girls.” 

Last week, Tennessee AG Jonathan Skrmetti added his voice to this effort. He joined a letter with some unlikely allies — liberal havens like California, Massachusetts, and more. It also had red-state support from typical allies like Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and others.

“Algorithmic social media platforms have had a devastating effect on kids’ mental health,” Skrmetti said in a statement. “The evidence of the damage done by these platforms continues to mount. My office is in litigation against several social media corporations and remains committed to ensuring that this entire industry does right by our kids.”

But do government warning labels work? That is, if these platforms come with a new box on the screen telling kids they are harmful, will they change their behaviors? A couple of historical examples say no, or not really, or it’s hard to say.  

The most-famous warning labels came after a similar Surgeon General’s advisory on cigarettes in 1964. By 1965 cigarette packs carried those warnings that say “smoking may be hazardous to your health.” 

Do they work? One recent study says no. 

“Placing graphic warning labels on U.S. cigarette packs did not have an effect on smoking behavior; however, these findings suggest that they may enhance other tobacco control strategies to reduce cigarette smoking,” reads the summary of a 2021 report in the journal Substance Abuse and Addiction. 

For the study, 357 smokers were given different packs — some with the warning label, the others were blank. After three months, there was no difference in smoking behaviors.  

Another famous government warning label may have induced children to consume even more of the product that label deemed harmful. Any 90s kid is familiar with the black-and-white label on some CDs that read “Parental Advisory Explicit Lyrics.” 

The idea for those stickers came not from a doctor nor a child behavioral professional but from a group of four women married to lawmakers. The “Washington Wives” famously included Tipper Gore, married to Al Gore from Tennessee. Together, they convinced Congress the stickers would shield kids from the sexually explicit lines in Prince’s “Darling Nikki” or AC/DC’s “Let me Put My Love Into You.”

Did those stickers work? Hard to say. Just as there was little data to prove the music was actually harmful, little data seems to exist of the sticker’s effect on protecting children. Frank Zappa told a congressional panel that the legislation for the stickers was “an ill-conceived piece of nonsense that fails to deliver any real benefits to children…” 

As for any word from any government agency, a curious (and probably old) memo from the Washington State Attorney General says ”most experts and critics alike, feel the label is too vague and that it doesn’t offer any information at all.” 

”Critics also say that ratings can cause a ’boomerang’ or ’forbidden-fruit effect’ and may actually attract children,” reads the memo.  

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Dems Urge AG to Join USDA Task Force on Food Price Gouging

Photo by gemma on Unsplash

The rate of food price increases is expected to slow in the remainder of the 2024 through 2025 after several turbulent years that have left some wondering if consumers have been gouged. 

The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) latest Consumer Price Index report predicts all food costs will rise by 2.3 percent this year. Those costs are expected to rise by 2 percent next year. However, food-at-home prices (think grocery store prices) are expected to only rise by 1.2 percent while food-away-from home prices (think restaurants) are expect to rise 4.1 percent.   

Food prices surged in the onset of the Covid pandemic, raising all food prices by a bit more than 3 percent in 2020. This increased to nearly 4 percent in 2021. 

But food prices leapt up by nearly 10 percent in 2022, the highest increase in food prices since 1979, according to the USDA. Some of this can be explained by a bird flu outbreak that affected egg and poultry prices, and the war in Ukraine, which the feds say compounded other economy-wide inflationary pressures like high energy costs. This trend slowed last year, with food prices rising by nearly 6 percent.

So, prices have gone up. But is it price gouging? That’s what the USDA wants to know and is empowering states to help root out it out. 

In July 2023, the USDA and a bipartisan group of attorneys general in 31 states and the District of Columbia formed a task force to find price gouging and other anti-consumer business behavior and end it. 

To get there, the Agricultural Competition Partnership (ACP) combined experts, state and local officials, and market research. Also, the USDA will funnel money and other resources to state attorneys general so they can keep a close eye on activities in their states.

“By placing necessary resources where they are needed most and helping states identify and address anticompetitive and anti-consumer behavior, in partnership with federal authorities, through these cooperative agreements we can ensure a more robust and competitive agricultural sector,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said at the time. 

So far, Tennessee has not joined this group. However, two Nashville Democrats — Sen. Charlane Oliver and Rep. Aftyn Behn — urged Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti to do so last month. 

“High prices at the grocery store have weighed heavily on Tennessee families, and they deserve to know that their state government is taking every possible step to ensure fairness in the marketplace,” Oliver said in a statement. “Joining this task force would demonstrate our commitment to protecting consumers and promoting economic fairness for all Tennesseans.”

Oliver and Behn worked this past legislative session to eliminate Tennessee’s sales tax on groceries. The effort was thwarted and the two said, “Republicans in the state legislature opted to pass a $5.5 billion tax handout for large corporations instead.” 

However, they think joining the USDA task force on price gouging is one way that could help control costs of everyday goods for Tennesseans.  

“Corporate consolidation and anti-competitive practices in food and agricultural markets have had a detrimental impact on the U.S. economy, leading to unfair competition and increased prices for families,” reads their letter to Skrmetti last month. “By joining the Agricultural Competition Partnership, your office would play a crucial role in addressing these issues and working towards solutions that can bring down the cost of groceries for Tennessee families.

“Additionally, this partnership can help find ways to boost wages for family farmers and small agricultural businesses, which are vital components of our state’s economy.” 

Skrmetti’s office has not commented publicly about the request. But during National Ag Day in March, his office tweet-thanked the state’s “farmers for feeding our state and the nation!” They also tweeted photos of Skrmetii in a chore vest, work gloves, and rolled-up sleeves holding a baby goat and a bale of hay. 

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Skrmetti Calls Google Decision a ‘Win’ For Tennessee

Photo: Firmbee.com on Unsplash

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has called a recent ruling against technology corporation Google a “big win” for the state.

On Monday Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia “ruled that Google violated federal antitrust law,” a statement from Skrmetti’s office said. The lawsuit was originally filed on behalf of several states including Tennessee in October 2020.

Skrmetti said his office was part of the trial team that “proved Google is an illegal monopolist.” These members included J. David McDowell, Chris Dunbar, Austin Ostiguy, and Tyler Corcoran.

“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act,” court documents said.

The court ruled that the tech company specifically violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act on the grounds of “monopolization of their search and advertising business.” It acknowledged that search engines make money through digital advertisements, and that Google has dominated the market “for more than 15 years.”

“Google’s dominance has gone unchallenged for well over a decade,” documents said. “In 2009 80 percent of search queries in the United States already went through Google. By 2020, it was nearly 90 percent and even higher on mobile devices at almost 95 percent.”

Documents said Google has a major advantage over search engines such as Bing through default search engines or “search widgets.” The courts also said Google pays large amounts of money to secure “preloaded defaults” with browser developers, mobile device manufacturers, and wireless carriers.

The company argued that users choose their service over others because of their performance, and that they pre-load their browsers onto products such as Apple and Android for affordability. They also argued that due to the competitive nature of search-engine sites “barriers to entry are not as high as Plaintiffs claim.”

“We will continue to work alongside our AG partners and the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division to protect consumers from Google’s anticompetitive conduct,” Skrmetti said.

United States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said this is a historic win for the American people, and that this “landmark decision holds Google accountable.”

“No company — no matter how large or influential — is above the law. The Justice Department will continue to vigorously enforce our antitrust laws,” Garland said in a statement.

Google released a statement attributed to Kent Walker, president of Google’s global affairs, on X (formerly known as Twitter) saying the decision “recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available.”

Walker said he appreciated the court acknowledging the trust that Google has garnered from consumers and that it is “superior” to rivals such as Apple and Mozilla.

“Given this, and that people are increasingly looking for information in more and more ways, we plan to appeal. As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use,” Walker said.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature Uncategorized

Trump Cleared for Tennessee Ballot; AG’s Office Declines Opinion Request

Jonathan Skrmetti (Photo: tncourts.gov)

Donald Trump can appear on Tennessee election ballots in November after the Tennessee Attorney General refused to issue an opinion on the matter last week. 

Rep. Vincent Dixie (D-Nashville) requested the opinion from Tennessee AG Jonathan Skrmetti, a Republican, earlier this month. Dixie pointed to a Tennessee law that says anyone convicted of an “infamous crime” is “disqualified from qualifying for, seeking election to or holding a public office in this state.” 

Dixie said the law is meant “to protect the public from individuals who refuse to adhere to the laws they are meant to uphold.” He then pointed to Trump’s convictions on 34 felony counts of election interference last week.  

Skrmetti’s office said it could only render opinions to officials “in the discharge of their official duties.” The letter added emphasis to the words “in the discharge of their official duties” but did not offer further details. 

Dixie-Ltr.-6.6.24Download

“Your letter also rests on an incorrect premise that (the state law’s) reference to ‘a public office in this state’ somehow includes the U.S. President,” reads the letter from Tennessee solicitor General Matt Rice. “The U.S. Presidency is not a public office in Tennessee. And any State effort to add new qualifications for the U.S. President would raise serious constitutional questions.” 

Dixie said he was “disappointed” but “not surprised” by the response from the AG’s office. 

“This just highlights the broken criminal justice system in this country,” Dixie said in a statement. “There is no rational explanation for a way that a person can possibly be elected [President of the United States] by this state, and if that same person lived in Tennessee, they wouldn’t even be able to cast a ballot and vote. How does that make sense?”

Dixie’s request came after Trump was convicted in New York last month on 34 felony counts. Trump was convicted of all counts as part of a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election by falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to a porn star who alleged she had sex with him.

Secretary of State Tre Hargett’s office told Tennessee Lookout earlier this month that Trump will be on Tennessee’s election ballot.  

Stockard on the Stump: Secretary of State guarantees Trump will be on Tennessee ballot
Categories
News News Blog News Feature

Judge Halts New Trans Protections In Tennessee Schools

(Credit: Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash)

A federal judge will temporarily allow some transgender discrimination in Tennessee and other states, skirting new changes to Title IX. 

Those changes came in President Joe Biden’s first day in office with an executive order that added gender identity and sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination law. Biden later extended those protections to educational environments. The rules are set to go into effect on August 1. All of these changes came after the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibited companies from firing a person on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. 

In April, Tennessee led a coalition in a lawsuit to block Biden’s new additions to Title IX. The group included Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Virginia, Christian Educators Association International (CEAI), and “A.C.”, a 15-year-old high school girl who lives in West Virginia. 

The states argued that the new law would chill free speech and religious freedom because teachers would, under the new rules, have to use a student’s “preferred pronouns,” according to the suit. The law would also mandate schools to open up bathrooms and locker rooms to all genders. The states also argued that the new rules subverted Congressional review and overreached into states’ powers to make such laws. 

CEAI opposed the rules on grounds of free speech and shared private facilities. Its members — particularly educators in K-12 public schools —  wish to “live and work consistent with their shared belief that God created human beings as male and female and that sex is an immutable trait.” 

A.C., the 15-year-old student, said a transgender female was allowed to compete on her middle-school track team. The other student’s biology is an unfair advantage, A.C. said, and she did not feel comfortable dressing in front of the other student.

A federal judge agreed with the plaintiffs in a Tuesday ruling.

“There are two sexes: male and female,” wrote Chief Judge Danny Reeves, United States District Court of Eastern Kentucky. But Reeves said in a footnote that the statement was conceded by U.S. Department of Education officials in oral arguments. “The parties have agreed to little else.”

Reeves ordered a preliminary injunction against the new rules but only in those states who joined in the lawsuit. The stay extends to the Christian educators group and A.C. in those six states. 

Tennessee schools and universities would have to let boys into girls’ locker rooms and other private spaces.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti

“If the rule we stopped had been allowed to go into effect on August 1 as scheduled, Tennessee schools and universities would have to let boys into girls’ locker rooms and other private spaces,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement. “If the rule went into effect, our schools would have to punish teachers and students who declined to use someone’s preferred pronouns.

“These are profound changes to the law that the American people never agreed to.  This rule was a huge overreach by federal bureaucrats, and the court was right to stop it.”

Chris Sanders, executive director of the Tennessee Equality Project, said, “We have a state government going into battle against trans and non-binary students via their pronouns,” in an opinion piece in The Tennessean Monday. 

Government employees should not have more of a right to define a student’s identity than the student does.

Chris Sanders, executive director of the Tennessee Equality Project

“Students are better served by policies that respect their identities,” Sanders said. “They are at school to get an education without barriers, not to serve as an opportunity for adults to exercise virtue by choice. 

“Experiencing an agent of the state using the wrong pronoun in front of one’s peers day after day is something students should not endure. Government employees should not have more of a right to define a student’s identity than the student does.”

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Sen. Taylor Reveals Plan for Ousting DA Mulroy

Brent Taylor exiting the SCEC (Credit: Jackson Baker)

State Senator Brent Taylor confided to the Memphis Flyer on Sunday the basic outlines of the procedure he intends to set in motion to remove Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy  from office. 

The plan, as the senator indicated,  will depend on legislative action in a coming session of the General Assembly, either a regular session or a specially called one. 

Taylor, a persistent  critic of Mulroy for what the senator considers laxity in local law enforcement, says his plan is based on Article VI, Section 6, of the state constitution and would call for a removal  resolution to be passed by both chambers of the legislature, to be followed by gubernatorial action to appoint a successor as Shelby  DA.

State House Speaker Cameron Sexton has also acknowledged discussing the idea of ousting Mulroy with state Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. Taylor promised to elaborate on details of his thinking and Sexton’s at a press conference at 2 p.m. Monday at the headquarters of the Memphis Police Association on Jefferson Avenue.

Both Taylor and Sexton fired off condemnations last week of Mulroy’s announcement of a diversionary program for non-violent previous offenders charged with illegal possession of firearms.

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

State Lawmaker Seeks AG Opinion on Trump on Tennessee Ballot

Nashville state representative Vincent Dixie. Credit: State of Tennessee

A state lawmaker requested a legal opinion from Tennessee’s Attorney General last week on whether or not Donald Trump qualifies to appear on Tennessee’s presidential ballot, following his convictions in New York. 

Rep. Vincent Dixie (D-Nashville) requested the opinion from Tennessee AG Jonathan Skrmetti, a Republican, in a letter sent Friday. In it, Dixie pointed to a Tennessee law that says anyone convicted of an “infamous crime” is “disqualified from qualifying for, seeking election to or holding a public office in this state.” 

Dixie said the law is meant “to protect the public from individuals who refuse to adhere to the laws they are meant to uphold.” He then pointed to Trump’s convictions on 34 felony counts of election interference last week.  

“It is crucial for Tennesseans to trust that their elected officials are held to the highest standards of legality and ethics,” Dixie said in his letter. “Allowing a candidate with such convictions to appear on the ballot would undermine this trust and the rule of law.” 

The law is meant ”to protect the public from individuals who refuse to adhere to the laws they are meant to uphold.”

Rep. Vincent Dixie

He continued, “The public’s interest in maintaining integrity in our electoral process necessitates that individuals convicted of serious crimes be held accountable and disqualified from holding public office.”

Dixie said the convictions “reflect serious criminal offenses,” including falsification of business records, “a crime prosecuted vigorously in both New York and Tennessee.”

“Given the severity and nature of these crimes, which include lying in official filings and engaging in deceitful practices to influence the outcome of an election, I seek your legal interpretation on whether Donald Trump’s convictions in New York constitute an ‘infamous crime’ under Tennessee law,” he said. “Specifically, does this disqualify him from appearing on Tennessee’s ballot for the U.S. presidential election?”

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

TN AG Fights Feds on Pronouns in Workplace

Photo by Alexander Grey on Unsplash

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti led a coalition of 17 states in filing a lawsuit against the federal government over new rules that would mandate pronoun respect in the workplace. 

In September, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted to approve updates to its workplace harassment rules. The new rules reflect changes in such laws, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to protect employees against discrimination because of sexuality or gender identity (Bostock v. Clayton County), the #MeToo movement, and emerging issues such as virtual or online harassment.

The rules were published and given a period for public comment, and became federal law in late April. 

“Harassment, both in-person and online, remains a serious issue in America’s workplaces,” EEOC chair Charlotte A. Burrows said in a statement at the time. “The EEOC’s updated guidance on harassment is a comprehensive resource that brings together best practices for preventing and remedying harassment and clarifies recent developments in the law.”

The EEOC said between fiscal years 2016 and 2023, more than a third of all discrimination charges received by the agency included an allegation of harassment based on race, sex, disability, or another characteristic covered by the laws enforced by the agency. Also, since fiscal year 2018, harassment has been alleged in over half of federal sector equal employment opportunity complaints. Among the 143 merits lawsuits that the commission filed last year, about 35 percent of them included an allegation of harassment.

However, Tennessee AG Skrmetti said companies should be able to use whatever pronoun they choose to use for their employees. As he has done in several such lawsuits in the past, Skrmetti claims the federal government is overreaching into powers given to states.

“In America, the Constitution gives the power to make laws to the people’s elected representatives, not to unaccountable commissioners, and this EEOC guidance is an attack on our constitutional separation of powers,” Skrmetti said in a statement. “When, as here, a federal agency engages in government over the people instead of government by the people, it undermines the legitimacy of our laws and alienates Americans from our legal system.  

“This end-run around our constitutional institutions misuses federal power to eliminate women’s private spaces and punish the use of biologically-accurate pronouns, all at the expense of Tennessee employers.”

Skrmetti also complained about EEOC’s new rule that would make an employer liable if it limits access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility, such as a shower or locker room, based on biological sex and not on gender identity, the AG said. Skrmetti claimed employers also may be liable if a customer or other non-employee fails to use an employee’s preferred pronouns or refuses to share a restroom with someone of the opposite sex.

Tennessee is joined the lawsuit with attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

More broadly, the EEOC’s new rules protect an array of what the agency calls ”legally protected characteristics,” including race, skin color, religion, disability, age, and more. Workplace harassment includes saying or writing an ethnic, racial, or sex-based slur, forwarding an offensive or derogatory “joke” email, mocking a person’s accent, groping, touching, or otherwise physically assaulting a person, and more. 

If a harassment claim is filed, business owners should investigate the matter and take corrective action, EEOC said. That action can include firing the employee, but it isn’t required. The employer can also mandate informal counseling, give a written warning, mandate harassment training, suspend the employee without pay, reassign them, or demote them to a non-supervisory position.