Anti-LGBTQ+ hate groups support Supreme Court case to ban gender-affirming care
Extremist groups have rallied to file amicus briefs supporting sex discrimination in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court over a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care, Hatewatch has found.
Eighty-three amicus briefs have been in the case. In all, 21 anti-LGBTQ+ hate and antigovernment groups are represented among them. Nineteen percent of the briefs were filed by one or more anti-LGBTQ+ hate groups, including Gays Against Groomers (GAG), American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), American Family Association (AFA), Family Research Council (FRC) and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Groups and individuals associated with a network of anti-LGBTQ+ pseudoscience purveyors filed another 10%.
Since the Supreme Court legalized marriage equality in 2015, anti-LGBTQ+ legal groups have focused their attention largely on challenging legal protections for transgender people.
Filing amicus briefs, which are legal documents by nonparties to a case, are part of this strategy.
罢别苍苍别蝉蝉别别鈥檚 SAFE Act is based on model legislation written by the FRC. It threatens not only trans youth by banning medical care, but also nondiscrimination policies and medical professionals who provide gender-affirming care. The law allows private parties to sue, creating a private cause of action against doctors who provide such care.
At least one unlicensed attorney and another lawyer who is under indictment for attempts to overturn the 2020 election wrote some of these briefs.
鈥楿nlicensed attorney鈥�
Diana Lutfi, who refers to herself as an unlicensed attorney, authored an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case for three anti-LGBTQ+ hate groups.
Lutfi wrote a brief that GAG, Jennifer Bauwens of the FRC and both Raheem Williams and Chloe Cole of Do No Harm 鈥� all anti-LGBTQ+ hate groups 鈥� supported.
In defense of 罢别苍苍别蝉蝉别别鈥檚 ban, the brief argues for discrimination in health care.
鈥淗ealthcare is innately and purposely discriminatory on the basis of sex for good medical reasons; and, regulating or prohibiting access to certain healthcare treatments is not a violation of anyone鈥檚 individual rights,鈥� it says.
Lutfi characterized herself in an emailed comment to Hatewatch as a 鈥淏erkeley-trained bioethics researcher and independent projects/litigation consultant.鈥�
Lutfi added: 鈥淚 am what would be considered an 鈥榰nlicensed attorney,鈥� or a legal fellow who was directly supervised by a licensed attorney.鈥� The supervising attorney is Terry Fowler.
It is not uncommon for unlicensed attorneys to author briefs that licensed attorneys then file. Fowler, the attorney of record for the brief, is a lawyer in Colorado. But the amicus brief he filed lists the attorney鈥檚 address at a UPS Store in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Fowler has not been admitted to the New Mexico Bar, according to the state bar association鈥檚 website.
After Hatewatch contacted the email address listed on the brief, Lutfi responded that she answers requests for comment regarding the brief, including those directed to Fowler.
Lutfi told Hatewatch that Fowler has 鈥渃onsulted with the Colorado Bar regarding his practice of law which is currently strictly limited to this amicus,鈥� and that they were 鈥渘ot concerned that he was in violation of any ABA rules.鈥�
After links to the brief were posted on social media, critical comments from co-signers followed. While some co-signers pointed out grammatical flaws, others commented that the brief mischaracterized their identity, some taking issue with being labeled a 鈥渄etransitioner.鈥�
Co-signers and co-authors, too, pointed out several flaws. One co-author asked, 鈥淚s there a list of corrections being sent via email?鈥�
Indicted lawyer
Attorney John Charles Eastman, a former ADF Blackstone Fellowship faculty member whose license to practice is suspended while he in California, co-authored an amicus brief in the Tennessee case on behalf of the right-wing Claremont Institute.
Eastman鈥檚 law licenses in California and the were suspended earlier this year due to felony charges he faces for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
However, the told Hatewatch he can still practice law at the Supreme Court while he appeals the California suspension.
The Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments in the case for Dec. 4.
Picture at top: Filing amicus briefs, legal documents by nonparties to a case, is part of a strategy by anti-LGTBQ+ groups to challenge legal protections for trandgender people. (Credit: 澳彩开奖)
