Courts & the Law, HB2, News

Plaintiffs in HB2 lawsuit intend to challenge HB142; defendants won’t take position on law until it’s filed

The lawsuit over House Bill 2 is at a standstill until the plaintiffs file an amended complaint to include a challenge to HB142, which repealed the sweeping anti-LGBTQ law and replaced it with different discriminatory language.

A report was filed with the federal court Friday with updates on the case from all parties involved, including their positions, or lack thereof, on moving forward.

In the document, the plaintiffs — Joaquin Carcaño, Payton Grey McGarry, Angela Gilmore, Hunter Schafer, Beverly Newell and Kelly Trent — state they intend to file an amended complaint asserting federal constitutional and statutory claims against HB142.

The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU and Lambda Legal.

A couple paragraphs from the report give a preview of what might be included in the amended complaint:

“Although H.B. 142 purports to ‘repeal’ H.B. 2, in actuality H.B. 142 perpetuates many of H.B. 2’s harms, as well as H.B. 2’s stigmatization of transgender individuals and those who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual
(collectively “LGBT” people).

H.B. 142 discriminates against transgender individuals in exercising one of life’s most basic and essential functions: using the restroom. Under Section 2 of H.B. 142, state agencies and local governments are forbidden from establishing—and transgender individuals are barred from obtaining the protection of—policies ensuring the right of transgender individuals to use the restroom or other single-sex, multi-user facilities consistent with their gender identity. Further, until December 2020, Sections 3 and 4 of H.B. 142 block local governments from protecting LGBT people against discrimination in employment and public accommodations. By targeting all LGBT people for disfavored treatment and singling out transgender individuals for additional discrimination, H.B. 142 violates the most basic guarantees of equal treatment and due process under the U.S. Constitution.”

The defendants in the case — the University of North Carolina, legislative leaders and Gov. Roy Cooper — state in the report that it would be premature to take a position on HB142 before an amended complaint is filed with the court.

Cooper states in the filing that he “may be in position to consent to Plaintiffs’ filing of a Fourth Amended Complaint, and intends to proceed as appropriate thereafter depending on the nature of the allegations.”

You can read the full document here.

Check Also

Cooper nominates special Superior Court judges for confirmation

Gov. Roy Cooper nominated three people this week ...

Top Stories from NCPW

  • News
  • Commentary

North Carolina election employees could soon be facing stricter scrutiny. House members rolled out a [...]

In one of the largest campaign donation forfeitures in state history, 48 improper donations from the [...]

Friends, neighbors, colleagues of commission chairman Jim Womack submit nearly identical letters cla [...]

When N.C. House Speaker Tim Moore and Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger addressed reporters last [...]

In the aftermath of the recent successful push to ward off huge cuts to food assistance programs in [...]

There are a lot of important statistics that confirm just how out of whack the U.S. economy has grow [...]

The post Bite the Apple & NC’s HB2 Legacy appeared first on NC Policy Watch. [...]

When I headed off to college, I could not have predicted that many of the funding streams, positions [...]

Now hiring

NC Policy Watch is now hiring a Managing Editor – click here for more info.