The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Beauty Pageants Have First Amendment Right to Limit Contestants to "Natural Born Females": No Rehearing En Banc
The Ninth Circuit has just decided not to rehear this case, so the panel opinion remains the law.
The order, which appears not to be accompanied by any dissents from denial of rehearing en banc (or concurrences in the denial) is here:
A judge of this court sua sponte requested a vote on whether to rehear this case en banc. A vote was taken, and the matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(f). Judges Forrest and H.A. Thomas did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case. Rehearing en banc is DENIED.
Here's the key part of the Nov. 2 panel majority opinion, in Green v. Miss United States of America LLC (Judge Lawrence VanDyke, joined by Judge Carlos Bea, with Judge Susan Graber dissenting):
Anita Green, who self-identifies as "an openly transgender female," sued the Miss United States of America pageant, alleging that the Pageant's "natural born female" eligibility requirement violates the Oregon Public Accommodations Act ("OPAA"). The district court granted the Pageant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the First Amendment protects the Pageant's expressive association rights to exclude a person who would impact the group's ability to express its views.
We conclude that the district court was correct to grant the Pageant's motion for summary judgment, but reach this conclusion not under the First Amendment's protection of freedom of association but rather under the First Amendment's protection against compelled speech….
As with theater, cinema, or the Super Bowl halftime show, beauty pageants combine speech with live performances such as music and dancing to express a message. And while the content of that message varies from pageant to pageant, it is commonly understood that beauty pageants are generally designed to express the "ideal vision of American womanhood." In doing so, pageants "provide communities with the opportunity to articulate the norms of appropriate femininity both for themselves and for spectators alike."
Equally important to this case is understanding the method by which the Pageant expresses its view of womanhood. Given a pageant's competitive and performative structure, it is clear that who competes and succeeds in a pageant is how the pageant speaks. Put differently, the Pageant's message cannot be divorced from the Pageant's selection and evaluation of contestants. This interdependent dynamic between medium and message is well-established and well-protected in our caselaw….
Many pageants deploy a similar approach. For example, "Miss Asian America" attempts to honor "Asian culture, beauty, and intelligence," in part by limiting its contestants to only those who have at least one-fourth Asian ancestry. The "Christian Miss" pageant strives to "help[] young women shine bright in this world," in part by limiting contestants to only those who can affirm certain Christian doctrines. Finally, "Miss International Queen" hopes "[t]o create equal[ity] and acceptance in society" for individuals who identify as transgender, in part by limiting contestants to members of that community….
The [Miss United States of America] Pageant would not be able to communicate "the celebration of biological women" if it were forced to allow Green to participate. As the district court explained, the Pageant's decision to limit contestants to "natural born female[s]" undoubtedly conveys that message, because:
Someone viewing the decision to exclude transgender women (and cisgender males) from a beauty pageant would likely understand that the pageant organizers wished to convey some message about the meaning of gender and femininity, and would probably also grasp the specific implication that the pageant organizers did not believe transgender women qualified as female.
The First Amendment affords the Pageant the ability to voice this message, and to enforce its "natural born female" rule.
Note that my UCLA Amicus Brief Clinic students and I filed a brief in this case on behalf of the Libertarian Law Council and the Institute for Free Speech.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
My money's on Green in the "Writing your name in the Snow" event
So, do you think that the she-male challenged the judge to an arm-wrestling contest to determine the verdict?
And what do you think our little Mr. Lola thought when it saw that one of the judges' last names was Van Dyke?
I guess trans women must have some kind of unfair advantage in beauty contests. Like how Caitlyn Jenner wins every golf tournament she plays in all the time but with swimsuits and bland platitudes about world peace.
No one said it was anything about preventing an advantage. It was about promoting their idea of womanly beauty, which includes what they believe a woman is. Because you disagree with a message does not change that it IS a message.
Judicial anonymity to avoid the Judge Duncan treatment?
And from the 9th, no less. Stopped clocks &c.
Still not much this “champions of expression” blog finds interesting regarding Florida’s state censorship and political punishments (or Idaho’s), or the Fox-Dominion Systems case that likely will be studied for decades, but a regular stream from the transgender-lesbian-drag queen-Muslim-persecuted white male beat.
This is what losing a culture war looks like. Toward the end.
Be patient Jerry, just a matter of time before poor Misunderstood Child Molesters are recognized as a "Lifestyle"
May we ask who you are addressing as "Jerry"? Is that "Arthur's" real name?
If you were Jerry Sandusky wouldn't you rather go by "Arthur"??
Mr. Drackman contends incessantly that I am Jerry Sandusky.
Whether this is because (1) he is that delusional, (2) Prof. Volokh pays him to respond to my comments in this regard, or (3) he is just a typical Volokh Conspiracy fan has not been reliably determined.
Be careful what you wish for; if your culture warriors win you will be hanging from a crane.
If you want to watch this at a beauty pageant, nobody is stopping you! I promise. Take as many photos as you want.
The idea that the government can prevent a private entity from setting its own rules for participation in its events is absurd.
compare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGA_Tour,_Inc._v._Martin
Scalia & Thomas were right (as usual).
The idea that the government can prevent a private entity from setting its own rules for participation in its events is absurd.
Private entities such as Twitter, Facebook, Google, Stanford, and the University of Pennsylvania?
All of those may set their own rules, so long as they don't lie about it.
Prof. Volokh and the Federalist Society seem to think you're wrong.
With some restrictions. The Supreme Court did rule that the ADA required the PGA to allow Casey Martin to use a golf cart in its tournaments.
Of course I don’t think that’s applicable here, since having or not having a vagina is not disability, nor do breast prostheses function as an aid to overcome a disability.
Has anybody successfully argued menstruation or other period-related problems as a disability?
I wonder why one of the Ninth Circuit judges requested en banc review, but did not write a dissenting opinion when the request was denied. I doubt that judge was persuaded to vote against en banc review.
Perhaps not quite feeling Artie's level of bravado re being on the winning side of history, and staying anonymous to hedge one's bets.
Or perhaps you are not a lawyer and your legal opinions are predictably unreliable.
Perhaps, as I've posited from time to time, it's you who are not the lawyer. Perhaps the moon is make of green cheese. Maybe it's Maybelline. So what?
Hey, smile when you address legendary Penn State Defensive Coach Jerry Sandusky!
SMP0328: That's actually the norm, I think. Sometimes judges feel there's something really important and useful to say about denial of en banc; but often they figure that, if their colleagues didn't want to rehear the case, then there's little to be gained from writing a detailed opinion explaining one's disagreement (especially when there's a panel dissent already).
Yes. Also, a dissental is often seen as a de facto cert petition. But it seems highly implausible that this SCOTUS would take the case, let alone rule in favor of the putative contestants. If I'm a circuit court judge who opposes this decision, the last thing I want is to bring it to SCOTUS's attention.
I checked into this, and it turns out I erred slightly. Of the Ninth Circuit cases where there's a call for a vote on rehearing en banc, and the calls fails, about half yield a published dissent from denial and about a half don't. I did Westlaw queries for both kinds of decisions since 1/1/2018 (so the last five years and change), and found the split to be 20 with published dissents and 30 without. So I now wouldn't say that silent denial is the norm in such situations, but it certainly isn't unusual.
This case had correctly held that compelled speech gets strict scrutiny. A different panel of the 9th circuit erroneously held last week in San Franciscans for Prop B that compelled speech only gets permissive “exacting” scrutiny. So perhaps the movant was concerned about the lack of consistent rulings.
Just curious, are entrants required to submit birth certificates? Have any states ceased to record gender? Or permit parent identification of gender rather than hospital forms?
You, or your parents if you are a minor, can get a "corrected" birth certificate.
One state had Obama submit a birth certificate to prove he was a U.S. citizen. There was going to be a battle over its legitimacy. The administrative body insisted on expert testimony and did not accept the challenger as an expert on fake Hawaiian birth certificates.
Winifred Hussein Obama?
Easy case.
Actually it’s not. Males are at a disadvantage in beauty contests because hairy balls are not seen as “beautiful”. Just a heads up, that hot chick at the Oscar party is a dude.
Generally speaking, the outlets touting these dudes as "hot" are deploying a LOT of photoshop to make it seem vaguely plausible. In person they usually nail the uncanny valley.
Males are at a disadvantage in beauty contests because hairy balls are not seen as “beautiful”.
According to the trans authorities, having a "genital preference" is transphobic, and as low as being a Nazi. This describes the lesbian who doesn’t find the trans-woman-with-a-dick sexually attractive as well as the heterosexual male’s similar reaction to the same trans woman.
Vastly more important issue is the delusional belief and the embracement of that delusional belief that somehow a mental illness can be cured with drugs and mutilations of the human body. Basic biology
And yet the parade of MAGA women with bleach blond hair, botox, and lip fillers is endless.
I guess Kim Kardashian is at least MAGA friendly, but I didn’t know the rest of the tribe were MAGA too (except Bruce of course).
And yet the parade of MAGA women with bleach blond hair, botox, and lip fillers is endless.
What are they pretending to be? Better looking than they really are?
Also, all MAGA women are mentally ill? I bet you think you're not a sexist creep.
I would not describe all MAGA women as mentally ill.
I would describe most of them as delusional, obsolete bigots.
You have at least been honest here. You believe that women are obsolete.
My MAGA wife has none of those. She does do a lot of yoga, though, and uses my Roman chair more often than I do. Do they count?
'that delusional belief'
I actually think most of the outrage is because it works - 99% of people who transition are happy they did so. If you keep framing it in the nastiest way possible you might drown out that rather pertinent fact.
Just like the First Amendment protects the Boy Scouts' right to exclude gay troop leaders in service of their vision of moral rectitude (while sexually abusing boys and covering up that abuse), the First Amendment protects the USA Pageant's right to exclude trans women in service of their celebration of "biological womanhood" (while promoting sexist and misogynistic ideals and harboring sexual abuse behind the scenes).
Looks like they were never able to keep gay troop leaders out, huh?
Yeah, what types of males sexually abuse boys?
Men having sex with young boys has nothing to do with Homosexuality!!!!!!!!!!
Kirkland types.
These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators. Downscale bigots.
This is your blog, which carefully cultivates a following of bigots.
Why not ask your deans what they think of the Volokh Conspiracy?
'The lady doth protest too much, methinks.' C'mon, Kirkland. You know you prefer hanging out here to associating solely with catamites, child molesters, and other assorted perverts.
Yup.
Largely, heterosexual ones. Usually relatives or close friends of the family.
People who are attracted to other people of the same sex are not called "heterosexual".
Gay people are everywhere. The ones who get away with sexually abusing kids tend to be the ones who "pass" as straight and/or conservative. Just ask Jim Jordan.
Wait until you discover how gays reproduce or what the term "chicken-hawk" means in the gay community.
Jordan doesn't set off my gaydar. Santos does, but if I could reasonably disavow him, I would. Same with Tennessee Lt Gov Randy (!) McNally.
I predict a future VC blog post on the ethics of "outing" soon.
The Boy Scouts also, unless I missed something, require 10-year-olds to recite allegiance to the Boy Scouts' god in order to participate.
What a bunch of paltry assholes. (The adults, not the children prompted to announce that they are superstitious.)
Your fetishes Rev, while kinky, are probably illegal.
Calm down, horn-dog!
10 year olds aren't even in the Boy Scouts, and neither the Boy Scout Oath nor the Cub Scout Oath say anything about "the Boy Scouts' god." They do, of course, use the word god, but they do not define any particular conception of it.
The Boy Scouts do, indeed, require belief in the "Judeo-Christian" god. They do not accept members who are atheist nor who believe in a pantheon of deities.
The Boy Scout Oath: On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. [Emphasis mine]
I had this argument with an evangelical Christian I worked with, once. He called up the local scout organization and asked them. They confirmed.
"They do not accept members who are atheist"
IMHE, I think that might be more accurately stated as 'they do not accept members who are outspoken atheists'. Or at least, I was an atheist and a scout. Neither they nor I made a big deal of it, we all just got along.
It is possible this varies by troop. Mine was sponsored by a local Catholic church, and in addition to not being religious, I didn't come from a Catholic family. I joined that troop because I had friends in it, and that seemed good enough all around.
Can confirm that there were athiests aplenty when I went to the Jamboree and they asked our faith for church service attendance purposes.
There's the rules and then there's the rules as enforced. Just because they aren't uniformly enforced doesn't make them harmless.
David,
You don't know what an abstract is.
You don't know there is an obesity epidemic.
You don't even know who God is.
What do you know? Anything?
"10 year olds aren't even in the Boy Scouts."
-- David Nieporent
"Youth can join Scouts BSA if they are at least 10 years old, currently in the fifth grade and register on or after March 1st"
-- Boy Scouts Of America (official website)
Ms. Kirkland always knows where to find young boys.
You, questing vole, are the commenter and audience this white, male, right-wing blog deserves.
Thank you very much, madam.
Probably the right decision, it'll have to be public opinion that pushes them to be inclusive.
I agree. I also agreed with the Scout decision a few decades ago. Look how that turned out for them.
However, I would just like to note that people don't want trans women athletes in sports because they are afraid their formerly male bodies give them an advantage. Are they now saying that the same formerly male bodies give the trans women an advantage in a beauty contest?! Or, having no other excuse, they fall back on birth certificate as a means to exclude them? (And how about people born between genders who had sex assignment surgery as babies to conform with societal expectations? Do they get to compete as women?)
Anyway, I think Ru Paul's drag race has a lot more to offer people than the average "world peace" style beauty pageant.
Humans only produce small gametes or large gametes.
That's true even if their exterior characteristics are mutated or deformed.
The people who sold you this lie that there is some their biological sex did so because they know so many people don't know a lot or think very much.
No, of course they're not saying that.
No. This isn't about advantage, in this case. This is about getting to decide who is and isn't a woman in the first place. Perhaps you disagree with them on their definition. But if they have a contest to hold up a person as the ideal woman, you can't force them to include someone they consider to be a man.
That's up to the pageant.
All true but I'd hate to see how far they'd go to ensure only the right type of women are in the contest. Medical exams? DNA testing?
But as I said, I agree that they have a right to discriminate.
"Are they now saying that the same formerly male bodies give the trans women an advantage in a beauty contest?!"
No, it gives them a political advantage.
There's no such thing as a "Formerly Male" Body, just a Male Body missing various parts.
If I remove the engine from my Z06 Vette, it's still a Corvette, just without the motivating force. If I somehow put a Ferrari engine in, doesn't make it a Ferrari, just a very unreliable (and ruinously expensive to service) Corvette.
Humans are just machines, albeit complicated ones,
Frank
Why, it might discourage red states from their steady march to fully criminalise being trans. Or no, actually, there's no blunting that hate.
These people are mentally ill, so it is wrong to hate them, but it is not at all wrong (or hateful) to oppose the normalization and celebration of mental illness.
Mental illness is actually quite normal and the people who cope with it can, in fact, be celebrated, but it's really got nothing to do with any of that, does it?
Embracing mental illness is the precise opposite of coping with it.
People who cope with it are celebrated, which helps normalise it and reduce stigma. I hope you don’t go round telling people with depression that they’re not depressed and they shouldn’t expect other people to accept their depression and that they should be kept away from children and that laws should be passed to eliminate depressivenes from public life.
And even if you insist on calling being trans a mental illness, the treatment for it is very succesful on its own terms, so it's a bit like demonising and criminalising psychological therapy.
People who are diagnosed with clinical depression don't run around asking others to celebrate their depression. They do not attempt to convince others that being depressed is, not only normal, but is the only authentic way for them to live. Nor do doctors provide assistance to those who want to express their depression in a more open and profound way by, say, giving them drugs to make them even more depressed.
And, yes, curing depressives is the goal, just as it should be with men who believe themselves to be women, whites who believe themselves to be asians, giants who believe themselves to be midgets, humans who believe themselves to be parrots, living human beings who believe themselves to be Napoleon(s), etc.
Homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness. A lot of effort went (still goes) into convincing them they should be straight. It doesn't work. Letting homosexual persons live authentically homosexual lives is what worked.
Of course "worked" here is defined as living a happy, well-adjusted life and not keeping their conservative neighbors' imaginary world view intact.
I don't think most people who are trans do much running around demanding people celebrate their transness either, but refusing to be ashamed of it is perhaps the same thing for the purposes of the prejudiced, and the current high profile of trans people is almost entirely down to the people who hate them relentlessly attacking them.
Depression is, depressingly, normal, and mostly isn't cured but managed, usually with a regimen of medication and therapy, and people live that way quite 'authetically' when they get the hang of it.
'giving them drugs to make them even more depressed.'
No, they provide a treatment that has been proven to work for trans people. That's what people don't seem to want to accept. There is a treatment for trans people. It has a 99% satisfaction rating. Hip replacements are at about 80%.
I recall people saying things like "I'm okay with homosexuality as long as they don't shove it my face." Where "shoving it their face" included doing all the things happy heterosexuals do like holding hands in public, wearing wedding rings, sharing romantic dinners at a restaurant, placing your spouse's photo on your desk, referring to your spouse as "husband" or "wife," etc.
The real complaint, I think, is that they want to express uncivil opinions about other people without incurring the accurate reputation that sort of behavior accumulates. The whole free speech without consequences schtick the Right has been doubling down on these days.
You forgot “forcing them to bake my wedding cake when they don’t want to.”
“The current high profile of trans people” is nothing to do with hate. It is entirely a matter of :
1. The attempt to compel speech
2. Men competing in women’s sporting events
3. The concern that teenagers are being encouraged to undergo irreversible “medical treatment” which could make them infertile.
1. Is this about pronouns? Imagine being threatened by pronouns.
2. Trans women have competed in women's sports for a while now with no problem until suddenly the right needed a satanic panic.
3. Utter bullshit, the problem is trans teens CAN'T get access easily to the health care they need and any treatment they do get comes after multiple referrals and screening.
1. Is this about pronouns? Imagine being threatened by pronouns.
Yup, imagine being threatened by pronouns so much that you call for (and sometimes achieve) criminal sanctions, or dismissal from a job, for folk who use pronouns you disapprove of.
2. Trans women have competed in women’s sports for a while now with no problem until suddenly the right needed a satanic panic.
Nonsense.
3. Utter bullshit, the problem is trans teens CAN’T get access easily to the health care they need and any treatment they do get comes after multiple referrals and screening.
Nonsense again.
What are “people born between genders” ?
There are a very small number of people who are born with genetic disorders that give them characteristics of both genders. Such as XXY chromosomes. That's not most of the trans people today, but there are such people.
So this is “gender” used as a synonym for “sex”.
But even used as a synonym for sex there’s no way that an XXY person is anything but male. He’s not intermediate between male and female.
You're completely, possibly deliberately, misunderstanding what a tans person is. The are *literally* people with XXY genes who happen to be female. It's the fundamental problem that they face, and for which they require treatment. Honestly how many other medical problems drive people who are in no way affected by them completely out of their minds? An anti-appendicitis movement would make more sense. The appendix is a natural part of the human body! How dare you mutilate people to remove them, making them less human! AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON TONSILS!
There may be XXY folk who are actually female. The frequency for Klinefelters (XXY) is about 1 in 1000, while the frequency for a Y chromosome without an SRY gene is about 1 in 25000. So you’d expect about 1 in 25 million such folk.
And very likely none of them trans.
Well no, because that's not what being trans is.
Of course not, but I felt it was worth pointing out how incoherent
"You’re completely, possibly deliberately, misunderstanding what a tans person is. The are *literally* people with XXY genes who happen to be female"
was. And still is.
Semantic pedantry aside, there are people born expressing outward sexual traits from both sexes--AKA intersex. They're sometimes called "hermaphrodites." The normal approach is for the baby to undergo sexual reassignment surgery to meet whichever sex the parents and doctors feel is most appropriate.
Since we don't understand how all of these things merge together to create a gender identity, it seems pretty presumptuous to assume that the sex assigned at birth will automatically align with their own sense of gender. Declaring someone with XY chromosomes and a vagina at birth automatically male or female does nothing to settle the matter for the individual.
The point, though, is that these people are real and are automatically swept up into the anti-trans legal chaos the Right is creating to support its coming electoral goals.
Here's a question.
Anita Green sued under the Oregon Public Accommodations Act. Oregon's web site states: "All Oregonians have the right to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, marital status or age (above 18).
If the pageant was forced to take Green as a contestant, then couldn't any regular man sue as well? Or women over 80+ years old, wouldn't they have to accept them too?
Your question just highlights the absurdity that "public accommodations" has become. Originally it meant places or businesses of public gathering -- a restaurant, a theater, a sport stadium. It has now been expanded to virtually any public group.
So, when Trump, or a member of the Kennedy family, says "I feel like a woman," they're actually coming out as trans?
"Trump election law fiasco"
What is that?
The record has established that Prof. Volokh's claims and statements are not reliable, especially when he is trying to explain away the unprofessional attributes of this blog.
Well this is a first amendment free association case, which he does seem to have an ongoing interest in.
But really you seem to be confused about what a blog is, a place for people to post writings or links about things that interest them, for other people that may also be interested.
There are plenty of other blogs out there that may post on more of what you find interesting, or bring it up yourself on the open thread.
Trump and his lawyers making baseless, falsehood-laced claims (in and out of court); Trump's pathetic complaints being laughed out of court; courts imposing sanctions for filing those unprofessional documents; and Trump's clownish lawyers being cited and punished for professional misconduct.
For starters.
Like Hillary Rodman's baseless, falsehood-laced claims in 2016, you know she only lost because of Comey/Russian "Bots"(what exactly is a "Bot" anyway?)/Anthony Weiner
Frank
Remember when Bush stole the 2000 election and then failed to prevent 9/11 and then started an asinine war while mismanaging another one all the while shipping jobs to China and destroying the American economy?? Buh Hillary
The Wah Senator Rodman voted for before she was against it? Oh wait, that was John Fitzgerald Kennedy-Kerry, wasn't that erection stolen also??
Failed to prevent 9/11?
lol he was in on it
Okay, I'll play along...
What record?
What claims and statements are unreliable?
What are the unprofessional attributes?
Just because you don't like something doesn't make any of these things you assert without evidence true. Especially since you have a history of providing unrelated links to YouTube videos as "evidence".
The record of this blog.
He says he censors liberals and libertarians to enforce civility standards. He says he refrains from addressing inconvenient (from the Republican/Federalist Society perspective) issues because he avoids comment on matters outside his areas of expertise and focus. Both statements are pure bullshit. he has repeatedly censored liberal-libertarian commenters for criticizing or poking fun at conservatives, yet he routinely waves right-wing comments of the most vulgar and violent nature along like a matador. He dodges important defamation and expression issues when they are troublesome for conservatives, yet serves a buffet of observations about transgender bathrooms, drag queens, Muslims, persecuted white males, lesbians, drag queen beauty pageants, and the like.
One example of unprofessional conduct is sufficient because of its severity: The habitual use of vile racial slurs.
From Prof. Volokh's perspective, you're not helping.
Carry on, clingers.
Since you are opposed to 'vile racial slurs', I assume that you have a collection of agreeable, pleasant, honorable, or virtuous racial slurs that suit your tastes.
I manage to get through the average month without using a vile racial slur.
That is what distinguishes me from the Volokh Conspiracy and Volokh Conspirators.
I also manage to get through the average year without using a vile racial slur. That is what indicates I will never be a Republican, a conservative, or a Federalist Society member.