YukamiEsrovane
LightNews LightNews
banner
yukamiesrovane.bsky.social
YukamiEsrovane
@yukamiesrovane.bsky.social
9 followers 20 following 1 posts
INACTIVE

They/Them

Howdy, the name is Yuka!
- Amateur Activist
- Non-Binary
- Horror Genre Enthusiast
- Traditional and Digital Artist
Posts Replies Media Videos
yukamiesrovane.bsky.social
Hey hey, first post here.

Have my profile picture drawn by yours truly!
January 16, 2025 at 5:59 AM
Reposted by YukamiEsrovane
erininthemorning.com
Incredible news! Montana’s Supreme Court just affirmed that the state’s gender affirming care ban is likely unconstitutional.

This makes the state the first state Supreme Court to rule that trans medical care is protected.

This applies REGARDLESS of what the US Supreme Court does.
targets, the District Court reasonably concluded that the balance of the equities tips toward preliminary relief pending full consideration of the merits. Its analysis of the last two preliminary injunction factors was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The court did not manifestly abuse its discretion, and its injunction was not overbroad. 156 Finally, both parties have submitted notices of supplemental authority, citing recent cases considering challenges to various laws regarding gender-affirming care. Without exception, the additional authority pertains to claims grounded in the equal protection clause or otherwise based on alleged unlawful discrimination. Some of the authorities also reference new developments in research and evidence that was not part of the record presented to the District Court in the preliminary injunction proceedings. Because, on the record here, the District Court's conclusions on Montana's express privacy protections are sufficient to uphold its preliminary injunction, we affirm on that basis. The parties will have the opportunity during the merits proceeding for full development of the record, where their experts may offer insight on any new research, and for briefing on the current case law relative to their claims. CONCLUSION 157 The District Court made no error of law and did not manifestly abuse its discretion. We affirm its grant of a preliminary injunction on the basis of Plaintiffs' right to privacy claim. The case will proceed to trial, at which point the District Court will finally resolve the disputed facts and issue a final determination on the constitutional issues presented. /S/ BETH BAKER 32 We Concur: /S/ MIKE McGRATH /S/ LAURIE MCKINNON /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON /S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
December 11, 2024 at 6:36 PM