SCOTUS rules on transgender athletes, limits on campaign finance for candidates

July 1

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on many major cases, one being in favor of state laws that put a ban on transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports, with the court striking down campaign finance rules that place limits on spending by a national political party committee for individual candidates.

Roy Herrera, Founding Partner of Herrera Arellano LLP, joined “Arizona Horizon” to discuss the impact these ruling have and what to expect moving forward.

The Court also removed the limitation coordinated party expenditures, saying that limiting the amount goes against the First Amendment. The decision involved a law which limited the amount of money political parties could spend in coordination with their candidates.

Herrera said the law mentioned in this case, and other like it that were enacted post-Watergate, have been eroded over the years on the basis of the First Amendment, so he does not expect this ruling to result in political corruption.

Lower courts found that not allowing transgender athletes to participate in girls’ and women’s sports was a violation of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution; however, the Court said otherwise, giving states the right to ban transgender athletes from participating in sports.

“There’s actually an Arizona connection here because we have a law that has been on the books here in Arizona since 2022,” Herrera said. “That was on pause as well because there was a lower federal court judge who had indicated that it violated Title IX.”

In another ruling, the Court ruled that the president can fire officers of agencies at will, overturning over 90 years of precedent. There are exceptions, however, for the Federal Reserve where those on the Board of Governors cannot be fired.

“We have seen, in almost all of these decisions, a real divide between the conservatives and the liberals, you’re not seeing a whole lot of crossover vote,” Herrera said. “That only serves to make this even more controversial.”