Obama Administration Case Study

One current court case is dealing with a federal judge releasing an injunction to momentarily restrict transgender students from using school bathrooms as well as locker rooms of their choice (Eldeib). In blocking students from using something as simple as a restroom or locker room, a student’s identity can be misconstrued. Especially with a student who may already feel differently about their identity. A mother in Denton, Texas, hopes to change the legal problems revolving around the controversy of bathroom laws in Texas schools. Amber Briggle states her 8-year-old transgender son has felt he needs to wait to use the restroom until he would arrive home. As well as this, Briggle confirms her son, MG’s grades dropped drastically. His grades continued to worsen until he was given a restroom alteration, allowing him to feel comfortable. (Wright). Along with MG, many students do not feel safe in their schools because of having to hide their transgender identity. Students may not feel safe just because Texas is such a conservative state. Ken Paxton and other state leaders even exchanged in transphobic rhetoric at the 2016 Texas GOP convention. Because of the strong conservative viewpoints in Texas, young people as well as students in the area may not feel accepted as who they are, leading them to disguise their true self. School is already a tough time in a child or teens life, and being discriminated against because of how one identifies does not make a student’s lifestyle any easier. Because transgender students in Texas schools are entitled to free expression of gender identity, they are also permitted to dress how they please. As well as wearing the clothes a transgender students feels most comfortable with, it is permissible to address these students by their preferred name. Because transgender

Every person in the United states is entitle to their rights based on the amendments. Transgender students are protected by Title IX and cannot be neglected in schools by anyone or they will stop receiving federal money. “The Justice and Education Departments issued guidance that, under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, schools receiving federal money may not discriminate based on a student’s transgender status and that the departments would treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of enforcing Title IX.” (According to New York Times). This should be applied to every single school not only schools that get federal money because every transgender student should be protected by a law just as every other cisgender student. Every single citizen in the United states is protected by their civil rights which is “the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and

I stand before you, in this court, to try and sway the majority decision regarding Safford United School District v. Redding (June 5, 2009). With agreeance of Justice Clarence Thomas, the act of searching Ms. Redding for drugs that violated the school’s policy, was not a direct violation of her fourth amendment right. It is no secret that maintaining order in any school environment can be a challenging task. It is more evident in today’s society school officials must take an even more proactive stance, when it does come down to maintaining order. With the recent surge of violent crimes and drug abuse that plague our schools, officials should have the right to try to prevent these actions from perpetuating into an epidemic.

In a public school, it was determined that a person can always refuse a search, there is need for reasonable suspicion for a search, as opposed to probable cause and the exclusionary rule does not apply. In TLO, the initial suspicion to search TLO’s purse was justified due to the suspicion that she had been smoking in the bathroom. The majority opinion, written by Byron R. White, stated, “Under ordinary circumstances, a search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be ‘justified at its inception’ when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either law or the rules of the school.” The Court ruled in favor of the school because there was a reason to believe that the defendant had broken a school rule prohibiting smoking in the restrooms. This clarification by the Court holds that even students in a public school are protected by

I further believe that in order to teach children, school districts need a certain amount of authority and structure to keep students safe and effectively teach them. School districts need to provide a positive learning environments that includes free speech for both students and teachers for optimum learning. However, I have concerns that school regulations could have far reaching affects not originally intended and when school's regulations are not applied equitably. I agree with the Supreme Court's descending decision in this case and the District Court's decision that the action of the school authorities was reasonable.

The supreme court case that I decided on was the case of Gavin Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board (ED. VA.) (Unknown, 2017). This case is about an 18-year-old male that attends a Virginia high school in Gloucester County Virginia. Gavin has male features and facial hair like a male and a deep voice like a male; however, he is in the process of being a transgender. The problem is Gavin uses the men’s restroom and is fighting for a transgender restroom throughout the school. The school board’s policy denies transgender students access to the restrooms used by rest of the student body because it violates the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Unknown, 2017). The school states that students must use the restrooms according to their

Texas recently brought a case forward blocking President Obama’s transgender bathroom policy. “The Texas case was brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, who led a group of plaintiffs that included 12 other states and two school districts. The plaintiffs argued that the Obama administration guidance came with the implicit threat that federal education funds could be withheld if school districts refused to allow transgender students to use the bathroom of their chosen gender identity. The guidance also had implications for federal student privacy laws, threatening education officials with sanctions if they fail to address students by their preferred gender pronouns. In a statement, Paxton praised the ruling as correcting "illegal federal overreach" by the Obama administration” (Korte, 2016). The Texas judge ruled that Obama’s bathroom policy could be

In 2015 The North Carolina House passed a bill now referred to as the “Bathroom Bill”, legally known as North Carolina HB2. The direct implications from North Carolina HB2 is that people regardless of current or identifying genders, must use the public bathroom that correlates to the gender on their birth certificate. (“HOUSE BILL DRH40005-TC-1B”) HB2 has been pushed by its supporting lawmakers as a protection on the usage of public bathrooms. Lawmakers claim that the bill is made to protect cisgender individuals, those born to their gender, from transgender individuals, from harassment in the bathroom setting. Yet, there have been zero recorded cases of a transgender individual

Regarding the school’s districts claim that students would become distracted by the act of wearing armbands which resulted in the suspension of the students, the court claimed that “in order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would materially and substantially interfere with the operation of the

The Alabama law passed about prohibiting anyone who has had a sex reassignment surgery to be employed as a public school teacher is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Since the law is classifying a group of individuals, transgender, this would fall under the test of heighted scrutiny. The law would not be tested under strict scrutiny because it is not a suspect classification of individuals such as race, nationality, color, or religion. Under the heighted scrutiny test the burden is on the government to show their intent of actions bears a substantial relationship important to a government interest.

The Essential Question surrounding this case is, “May school administrators search a student or their belongings absent of probable cause?”

When it comes to the HB2, it is not going against transgender human beings, it is simply keeping citizens in the community safe. For example, a man could say that he was transgender and called himself a female just to get into the woman’s bathroom and sexually assault a woman or a child. No matter what anyone says, most women tend to be frightened when they are with or around a strange man. For example, in the essay “Just Walk On By: Black Men and Public Space”, it talks about how Staples and a young woman were walking in the same direction on a sidewalk at night. When the young woman realized that Staples was behind her, she instantly became frightened, which is understandable. The young woman began to walk faster trying to get away from Staples not grasping that he wasn’t going to hurt her. Eventually, the woman was out of sight and away from Staples. Even though the essay “Just Walk On By: Black Men and Public Space” does not talk about bathroom safety itself, it does show how people feel harmed by others looks and who is around them because of stereotyping. For women and children, the door is always open for the possibility to become sexually assaulted. With this law passed, it gives women and children a small sense of relief. Supporters of the HB2 stand up for their rights and say that HB2 “defends religious liberty and protects girls in public restrooms

Rule - The court had ruled the school district in favor and held the defendant to the sanctions imposed by the high school. The student had engaged in off-campus cyberbullying of two teacher-coaches but he did not violate his school freedom of speech rights considering that harassment satisfies “substantial disruption” standard for restricting student speech established by the U.S.

President Obama has made an assertive effort to address this epidemic. He tasked the Office of National HIV/AIDS Policy (ONAP) to develop and implement a National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS). The NHAS is has three goals. Firstly, to reduce HIV incidence, next to increase access to care and to optimize health outcomes, and lastly to reduce HIV related health disparities. In the opening page of the NHAS President Obama urges us all to get involved, the states, cities and local government, as well as businesses, churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples. In addition, he asks for the scientific, medical and educational communities to also get involved to work for the eradication of HIV. The President has indeed put his money where his mouth is. The President has allocated monies toward cash/housing assistance, prevention and research. $ 3.1 billion of the Fiscal year 2016 budget has been requested for cash/housing because people are living with HIV. This is the HOWPA, the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program. The request for Prevention of HIV is for the least amount, $940 million. However, the monies requested for research are $2.8 billion. The majority of research is conducted by the National Institutes of Health. In addition, another budget request is for the MAI the Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative. It is a request of $54 million.

The election of Donald Trump as our new president of the United States has stirred up many emotions than seem to run deep within the workplace and also scattered across the world. The biggest concern for many of the citizens pertains to the changes that President Donald Trump will make and how it will impact the Human Resource Department. According to the promises that he made on the campaign trail are listed that will be mostly impact by the Trump administration. The first impact that would be impacted by the Trump administration would be the ACA (Affordable Care Act) would change dramatically. President Donald Trump wants to repeal this act that would cause a great concern to many off the business in the United States. HR would be impacted by the disdain for health care having to be made mandatory and a limitations