The Supreme Court refused to hear a case Monday regarding Texas’ effort to overturn California’s travel ban on states that allegedly implemented anti-LGBTQ laws.
The lawsuit titled Texas v. California responded to a California law that enacted state-funded travel bans in 2016 to states that passed laws allegedly discriminating on the basis of sexuality, gender identity and expression, according to court documents. Justice Samual Alito, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented from the rest of the court, believing that Texas has the right to have disputes with other states heard in the Supreme Court.
“When they [Texas and California] entered the Union, these two behemoths relinquished the full measure of sovereign power that they once possessed, but they acquired the right to to have their disputes with other States adjudicated by the Nation’s highest court,” Alito wrote in his dissent.
The Supreme Court refused to take up a case from the state of Texas seeking to overturn a California law banning state employee travel to the Lone Star state in light of policies it deemed discriminate against LGBTQ people https://t.co/yEItbBFGJo pic.twitter.com/7HSniHbl1x
— The Hill (@thehill) April 26, 2021
Alito said that since the issue at stake is a delicate issue, the Court could make an effective decision based on its responsibility of making an unbiased decision unlike the federal and state courts. (Related: California Adds Iowa To ‘Travel Ban’ Due To Its Refusal To Cover Gender Transitions In Medicaid)
“Unlike the regional courts of appeals, the federal district courts, and the state courts, we are not tied to any region or State and were therefore entrusted with the responsibility of adjudicating cases where the suspicion of local bias may run high,” he said.
California added Texas to its list after the state passed a law allowing foster care and adoption agencies to deny service to same-sex couples. Other states included in the travel ban include Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky and Mississippi.
Alito said in his dissent that the court should consider Texas’s case, and bemoaned that it did not even allow Texas to file a complaint.
“It [the court] will not even permit the filing of Texas’ bill of complaint. This understanding of our original jurisdiction should be reexamined. At a minimum, we should note probable jurisdiction and receive briefing and argument on that question,” Alito said.
Texas said in its suit that California is singling out the state based on its own disagreement with the laws.
“California has singled out Texas and other States for discriminatory treatment because of California’s disagreement with those States’ internal policies,” Texas’ suit said. “Resolving such conflicts among sovereigns falls within the core of this Court’s original and exclusive jurisdiction.”
In December 2020, Texas’ suit argued that the travel ban violated the Privileges and Immunities, the Commerce, and the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact email@example.com.