Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Republicans Finally Introduce Their Obamacare Replacement

Yesterday, House Republicans presented their draft version of a replacement of the Affordable Care Act, which was one of President Donald Trump’s most ardent campaign promises. The new law would keep some of the ACA’s key components, such as prohibiting companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and allowing people under 26 to stay on their parents’ health plan. However, it would reverse the expansion of Medicaid and drop the requirement that bigger companies must provide health insurance for full-time employees. It also does away with the provision that requires Americans to either have health insurance or pay a penalty fee. And it would get rid of federal subsidies for low-income individuals and, as many people have feared, defund Planned Parenthood for one year (more on that below).

According to Republicans, the ACA is “a sinking ship.” But Democrats are highly critical of this new plan. “Republicans will force tens of millions of families to pay more for worse coverage–and push millions of Americans off of health coverage entirely,” said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. And some on social media were also critical of the language used to refer to the new plan, claiming it was out of touch and didn’t acknowledge the real costs of care in the U.S.

Yes, the reason poor have trouble affording health care is all the new iPhones they’re buying. https://t.co/EJsZaejOH1 pic.twitter.com/SWoUp2nvAe

— Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) March 7, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a landmark ruling on jury secrecy, while declining to hear what would have been its first case on transgender rights. In Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado, the court ruled that if racial bias is found to influence a juror’s opinion, an inquiry into the jury deliberations–a secret practice–could be launched. The transgender rights case involved Gavin Grimm, a high school student and transgender man whose school did not allow him to use the boys’ bathroom. Here’s what you need to know about each case: 

Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado

In 2010, a jury found Miguel Angel Peña Rodriguez guilty of sexually harassing two sisters in a racetrack bathroom. One of the jurors, a former police officer referred to as H.C., said he thought Peña Rodriguez was guilty “because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want,” according to sworn statements from his fellow jurors. H.C. said the defendant’s alibi witness was not credible because he was “an illegal,” the sworn statements said. 

On Monday, in a five-to-three decision, the Supreme Court found that racial bias on the part of a juror–like H.C. in the Peña Rodriguez case–warrants an inquiry into jury deliberations. “Racial bias implicates unique historical, constitutional and institutional concerns,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority opinion. He added that for an inquiry to be justified, “there must be a showing that one or more jurors made statements exhibiting overt racial bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations and resulting verdict.”

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan agreed with Kennedy, while Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas dissented. Writing for the dissenting opinion, Alito called the prevailing opinion “startling,” adding that “although the court tries to limit the degree of intrusion, it is doubtful that there are principled grounds for preventing the expansion of today’s holding.”

The Gavin Grimm Case

In 2015, a local school board in Virginia enacted a policy that students must use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender on their birth certificate. This was a blow to transgender students who, like Grimm, want to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity. Grimm, represented by the ACLU,  challenged the policy in court. Last year, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, ruled that the policy is unlawful, concurring with the Obama Administration that Title IX, which protects students from sexual discrimination, also protects transgender rights.

But on Monday, the Supreme Court vacated the appeals court’s ruling, sending it back for further consideration. The case would have been the first transgender rights case to appear in the highest court. The decision to throw away the case for the time being was likely influenced by the Trump Administration’s repeal of an Obama Administration directive requiring public schools to allow students to use whichever bathroom matches their gender identity.

“Thousands of transgender students across the country will have to wait even longer for a final decision from our nation’s highest court affirming their basic rights,” Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, told the New York Times.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Declines Hearing for Gavin Grimm Case, Issues Ruling on Jury Secrecy appeared first on Law Street.

Transgender students across the country are fighting for the right to use restrooms that correspond to their gender identities. And an injunction that has thwarted their efforts will officially not be challenged by President Donald Trump’s team.

The Justice Department filed a legal brief on February 10 withdrawing the government’s objections to the injunction, a move that could impact an upcoming Supreme Court case. In August, a Texas federal judge issued the injunction to prevent President Barack Obama’s administration from enforcing a directive which mandates that public schools allow transgender students to choose restrooms based on their gender identities. Non-compliance, according to the previous administration, would violate Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in public schools.

Judge Reed O’Connor wrote in the injunction that the government didn’t follow proper rule-making procedures–also known as “notice and comment”–and couldn’t implement requirements based on “the interpretation that the definition of sex includes gender identity.” 

Trump’s latest move could affect the outcome of a case involving Gavin Grimm, a transgender student who sued the Gloucester County, Virginia school board after his high school refused to let him use the boy’s bathroom. Grimm–who recently received a shout-out from “Orange is the New Black” actress and trans activist Laverne Cox at the Grammys–is scheduled to go to the Supreme Court in March. But the Washington Post reported that because his case is partially based on Obama’s directive, it may not move forward.

While on the campaign trail in April, Trump said he believed that transgender people should be able to “use the bathroom they feel is appropriate.” At the time, he also criticized HB2, a bill signed by North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory that requires people to use only the restrooms corresponding to their biological sex–although Trump primarily addressed the economic impact of the bill on the state’s businesses.

But after the Obama Administration directive came out in May, Trump said he believed the matter should be left up to the states, not the federal government. He used the same argument when he later contradicted himself and announced his support for HB2.   

The DOJ dropped its opposition to the injunction one day after Jeff Sessions was sworn in as Attorney General. Sessions has a history of voting against the expansion of rights for Americans in the LGBTQ community: he has opposed marriage equality, workplace protections for LGBTQ employees, and the inclusion of sexual orientation under the definition of hate crimes. The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group which scores politicians on their civil rights records, rates him at 0 percent.

Although Trump has promised to protect LGBTQ Americans (specifically from “the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology”) Vice President Mike Pence’s record on LGBTQ rights is similar to Sessions’. And over the summer, the Republican Party updated its platform to support the idea that parents should be free to make medical decisions for their children. Some saw that move as approval of conversion therapy–the use of psychological and sometimes physical discipline, including electroshock treatment, as a means of changing someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Pulls Support for Transgender Bathroom Protections appeared first on Law Street.