minors

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices on Tuesday heard a free-speech challenge to state laws against “conversion therapy” and sounded likely to rule the measures violate the 1st Amendment.

California and more than 20 other states have adopted laws to forbid licensed counselors from urging or encouraging gay or transgender teens to change their sexual orientation or gender identity.

They were adopted in reaction to a history of dangerous and discredited practices, including treatments that induced nausea and vomiting or administered electric shocks.

Lawmakers and medical experts said these efforts to “cure” LGBTQ+ teens were cruel and ineffective and caused lasting harm.

But these “talk therapy” laws have been challenged by a number of Christian counselors who believe they can help young people who want to talk about their feelings and their sexual identity.

The court on Tuesday heard an appeal from Kaley Chiles, a counselor from Colorado Springs, Colo. She says she is an evangelical Christian, but does not seek to “cure” young people of a same-sex attraction or change their gender identity.

But she sued, alleging the state law seeks to “censor” her conversations and threatens her with punishment.

She lost before a federal judge and a U.S. appeals court, both of whom said the state has the authority to regulate the practice of medicine and to prevent substandard healthcare.

But the justices, both conservative and liberal, said the Colorado law appeared to violate the 1st Amendment.

“What’s being regulated here is pure speech,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Moreover, he said, the state law enforces a double standard. It would punish a licensed counselor who agrees to talk to a teenage client who wants to “overcome same-sex attractions,” but not if she encourages the teen to accept or affirm those attractions.

Justice Elena Kagan said she too saw a potential 1st Amendment violation. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor said there was less evidence that talk therapy alone has caused real harm.

In defense of the law, Colorado state solicitor Shannon Stevenson said the law applies only to licensed counselors. It does not extend to others, including religious ministers.

The practice of medical care “is a heavily regulated area. A doctor doesn’t have a 1st Amendment right to give wrong advice to patients,” she said.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and others suggested counselors could still face a medical malpractice lawsuit, even if the court rules the state law violates the 1st Amendment.

TUCSON — A federal judge in Arizona temporarily blocked the Trump administration from removing dozens of Guatemalan and Honduran children living in shelters or foster care after coming to the U.S. alone, according to a decision Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez in Tucson extended until at least Sept. 26 a temporary restraining issued over the Labor Day weekend. Márquez raised concern over whether the government had arranged for any of the children’s parents or legal guardians in Guatemala to take custody of them.

Laura Belous, attorney for the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, which represents the children, said in court that the minors had expressed no desire to be repatriated to their native Guatemala and Honduras amid concerns they could face neglect, possible child trafficking or hardships associated with individual medical conditions.

Lawyers for the children said that their clients have said they fear going home, and that the government is not following laws designed to protect migrant children.

A legal aid group filed a lawsuit in Arizona on behalf of 57 Guatemalan children and 12 from Honduras between the ages of 3 and 17.

Denise Ann Faulk, an assistant U.S. attorney under the Trump administration, emphasized that the child repatriations were negotiated at high diplomatic levels and would avoid lengthy prohibitions on returning to the U.S.

Nearly all the children were in the custody of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department’s Office of Refugee Resettlement and living at shelters in the Phoenix and Tucson areas. Similar lawsuits filed in Illinois and Washington seek to stop the government from removing the children.

The Arizona lawsuit demands that the government grant the children their right to present their cases to an immigration judge, to have access to legal counsel and to be placed in the least restrictive setting that is in their best interest.

The Trump administration has argued it is acting in the best interest of the children by trying to reunite them with their families at the behest of the Guatemalan government. After Guatemalan officials toured U.S. detention facilities, the government said that it was “very concerned” and that it would take children who wanted to return voluntarily.

Children began crossing the border alone in large numbers in 2014, peaking at 152,060 in the 2022 fiscal year. July’s arrest tally translates to an annual clip of 5,712 arrests, reflecting how illegal crossings have dropped to their lowest levels in six decades.

Guatemalans accounted for 32% of residents at government-run holding facilities last year, followed by Hondurans, Mexicans and Salvadorans. A 2008 law requires children to appear before an immigration judge with an opportunity to pursue asylum, unless they are from Canada and Mexico. The vast majority are released from shelters to parents, legal guardians or immediate family while their cases wind through court.

The Arizona lawsuit was amended to include 12 children from Honduras who have expressed to an Arizona legal aid group that they do not want to return to Honduras, as well as four additional children from Guatemala who have come into government custody in Arizona since the lawsuit was initially filed Aug. 30.

Judge Márquez said she found it “frightening” that U.S. officials may not have coordinated with the children’s parents. She also expressed concern that the government was denying the children access to review by an experienced immigration judge, and noted that legal representatives for the children were notified of preparations for child departures with little notice, late at night.

“On a practical matter, it just seems that a lot of these things that [the Office of Refugee Resettlement] has taken upon themselves to do — such as screening and making judicial determinations that should be made by an immigration judge with expertise and time to meet with a lawyer and meet with a child — is just surpassed by saying ‘we’re reuniting them’” with parents, Márquez said in court as she pressed Faulk for more information.

Billeaud and Lee write for the Associated Press.

District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan’s emergency order follows a legal complaint brought on behalf of 10 children.

A United States judge has blocked the administration of US President Donald Trump from deporting unaccompanied Guatemalan children for at least the next two weeks, in the government’s ongoing hardline anti-immigration push.

The order, which was issued on Sunday in response to a complaint filed by a pro-immigrant advocacy group, came as some Guatemalan children were reportedly already put onto planes at a Texas airport and huddled inside.

District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan’s emergency decree followed a petition from the National Immigration Law Center in relation to 10 children aged between 10 and 17.

After initially preventing the deportation of the group, Sooknanan, who is based in Washington, DC, widened the order to include all Guatemalan children who had reached the US without a parent or guardian.

Sooknanan also brought forward a hearing about the issue on Sunday due to reports that some of the children were in the process of being removed from the US during the country’s Labor Day holiday weekend.

“I do not want there to be any ambiguity,” the judge said on Sunday, noting that her decision applied broadly to unaccompanied Guatemalan minors.

The flurry of legal activity came days after reports in the US media that the Trump administration was preparing to start child deportations to Guatemala this weekend, following an agreement with the Central American country.

Such a move would constitute a “clear violation of the unambiguous protections that Congress has provided them as vulnerable children”, according to the National Immigration Law Center’s legal challenge.

Although the children should be under the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the US government was set on “illegally transferring them to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody to put them on flights to Guatemala, where they may face abuse, neglect, persecution, or torture”, the complaint added.

On Friday, Guatemala’s Foreign Minister Carlos Martinez confirmed that his country was willing to receive hundreds of children who were in the US.

Since the start of his second presidential term in January, Trump has attempted to start deporting refugees and immigrants en masse.

His administration’s anti-immigration actions, which have included sending hundreds of people to a notorious prison in El Salvador, have been beset by legal difficulties.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the most high-profile face of the Trump administration’s crackdown and a Salvadoran man legally residing in the US state of Maryland, was mistakenly deported in March. He was severely beaten and subjected to psychological torture in prison there, his lawyers say.

Abrego Garcia now wishes to seek asylum in the US. His lawyers told a judge in recent days that he fears further persecution and torture should the Trump administration succeed in deporting him to Uganda, as it plans to do.

Nigeria’s Lost Children – The Crisis of Out-of-Sch | RSS.com

On The Crisis Room, we’re following insecurity trends across Nigeria.

According to UNICEF, Nigeria has the highest number of out-of-school children in the world, an estimated 20 million. That’s one in every ten children globally.

Many of them roam the streets of towns and major cities without guardianship or structured education. And behind those numbers are cycles of neglect, forced labour, trafficking, and recruitment into armed groups.

It’s a very quiet crisis, but one with consequences that could worsen insecurity, poverty, and instability for generations.

Today, we’ll hear from experts and advocates on how Nigeria got here and what it will take to break the cycle.

Hosts: Salma and Salim

Guests: Aliyu Dahiru, Dr Labo, Philip Dimka, Mohammed Sabo Keana,

Audio producer: Anthony Asemota

Executive producer: Ahmad Salkida

Aug. 13 (UPI) — A federal appeals court has ruled that Arkansas may enforce its ban on minors receiving gender-affirming care, overturning a lower court’s decision that found the law unconstitutional.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its ruling Tuesday, stating the lower court erred in June 2023 when it struck down Arkansas’ Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act for violating the First Amendment and both the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause.

It said the lower court’s ruling was incongruent with a recent Supreme Court decision that upheld Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban for minors.

“Because the district court rested its permanent injunction on incorrect conclusions of law, it abused its discretion,” the appeals court ruled.

Arkansas’ Republican attorney general, Tim Griffin, celebrated the ruling.

“I applaud the court’s decision recognizing that Arkansas has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological health of children and am pleased that children in Arkansas will be protected from risky, experimental procedures with lifelong consequences,” he said in a statement.

Gender-affirming care includes a range of therapies, from psychological, behavioral and medical interventions with surgeries for minors being exceedingly rare. The medical practice has been endorsed by every medical association.

Despite the evidence and the support of the medical community, Republicans and conservatives, often with the use of misinformation, have been targeting gender-affirming care amid a larger push threatening the rights of the LGBTQ community.

Arkansas passed the SAVE Act in 2021, but then-Gov. Asa Hutchinson vetoed it that same year, calling the ban a “product of the cultural war in America” that would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. The GOP-majority legislature then overrode his veto, making Arkansas the first state to pass a bill banning gender-affirming care for minors in the United States.

Four transgender minors and their parents then challenged the law, saying it violated their rights, resulting in the 2023 ruling overturning the ban, which marked a victory in the fight for LGBTQ healthcare until Tuesday.

“This is a tragically unjust result for transgender Arkansans, their doctors and their families,” Holly Dickson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, said in a statement.

“As we and our clients consider our next steps, we want transgender Arkansans to know they are far from alone and we remain as determined as ever to secure their right to safety, dignity and equal access to the healthcare they need.”

The ruling comes as Republicans seeking to restrict transgender healthcare have gained a support in the White House with President Donald Trump who has implemented several federal policies that align with their efforts.

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order making it federal policy that there are only two genders, male and female, both of which were determined at “conception.” He has also banned transgender Americans from the military and has sought to bar transgender athletes from competing on teams and in competitions that align with their gender identity.

Twenty-six states and the territory of Puerto Rico have banned gender-affirming care for minors, according to the Movement Advancement Project.