House Bill 2 Case Summary

Summary of the case
Charlotte City Council filed a case to ensure that visitors, workers, and residents will not be discriminated from any aspect. Governor McCrory signed House Bill 2 that blocked the local governments from passing act with nondiscrimination defending for the LGBT citizens and needs transgender citizens to use bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their biological sex. Based on the case, the Charlotte City Council approved the suggested amendments to the city’s Nondiscrimination Ordinances on February 22, 2016. The amendments added family status, gender expression, sexual orientation, gender identity, and marital status to the list of the protected traits in the previous Nondiscrimination Ordinances. However, the Nondiscrimination
Ordinances prohibited the discrimination based on the national origin, religion, color, and race. Lastly, the amendments prohibited public accommodations, passenger vehicle for hire, and commercial nondiscrimination (American Civil Liberties Union, 2016).
Constitutionality of the House Bill 2’s provisions under federal law
Under the federal law, I will advise Governor McCrory that the North Carolina’s novel discrimination bill is unconstitutional. Several cases can be used to confirm the advice. For example, in the United State’s Supreme Court, there was a case between Romer and Evans. The case stated that the Colorado’s constitutional amendment violated the gay’s rights under the United State’s protection rights. The amendment stated that lesbians and gays are the unpopular groups, and they should be prohibited from exercising their right of persuading their local governments to allow them to enjoy their rights. There was no explanation for such a withdrawal of rights. The ruling favored Romer. However, as far as Governor McCrory and the majority of the North Carolina legislate are concerned, it is considered as if there was no final decision on the case. The same way Colorado did some two decades ago, the lawmakers are required to consider Charlotte’s case by affirming that all residents are required to enjoy equal rights. Since there was no city that can make a decision that was being tried by Charlotte, no advocate for the individual, transgendered, or gay can make the case to her or his city so that the law can see its significance and amend.
The House Bill 2’s defenders had an argument that the House Bill 2 does no singling, unlike the amended constitution in Romer that singled out town ordinances in protecting homosexuals from discrimination.
Instead, the North Carolina law launches a floor for the nondiscrimination ordinances throughout the city on all the populace it protects (Johnson, 2004). In this case, the House Bill 2 is not constitutional because there is no federal judge in the U.S. that would take the contention seriously. Although the bill was written by the legislature and the governor approved it through his signature, the bill can be considered unconstitutional because it was an emergencey session that had required enough time to be approved. As a governor, the signing can be defended by having a talk regarding the privacy in using the locker rooms.
The House Bill 2 is a direct and a distinctive response from the legislature to Charlotte’s widening of the previous rights to the transgendered, lesbian, and gay. In this case, when the government deprives a particular minority group’s rights that are enjoyed by other citizens, the government will be considered to be violating the rights of the minority people in the society. Based, the case, the bill is violating the rights of the minority people in the city. Therefore, the government should reconsider amending the group to avoid discrimination of a single group of people in the
city.
The Gov. McCrory is required to support the unconstitutionality of the bill by stating that the bill has zero prospects to be enacted, and it will not favor the minority people in the city. A good bill is required to understand the rights of every person in the city, rather than to neglect the rights of other people. The government is in a better position to claim that the bill violates slay of the constitutional rights involving the right to privacy, protection clause, and Title XI (Holpuch, 2016).
The case between the United States and the Virginia Military Institute can also help the governor in defending the unconstitutionality of the bill. The Virginia Military Institute was considering males in the higher learning. The United States came in to defend the admission of only males terming the decision as unconstitutional since it was violating the equal protection clause. The ruling of the District Court was favoring VMI. However, the Fourth Circuit was reversed because the admission of the VMI was unconstitutional (Amstein, 1994). Therefore, the governor is required to take an example of the case and Gin courage of defending the unconstitutionality of the House Bill 2.
Besides, the governor can relate the case with the case between Johnson and the Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County. According to the case, the Transportation Agency promoted Diane Joyce rather than considering the qualifications of Paul Johnson. Both candidates were qualified as the road dispatcher. However, Joyce was considered for the job. The promotion was carried out in favor of sex. The promotion of the agency was not followed, and there was no existence of the quota system. The promotion was considered unconstitutional (Collaros, 1990).
Based on the three sample cases, the governor is required to defend for the unconstitutionality of the House Bill 2 by providing factual evidence from different cases as depicted in the paper. Lastly, the North Carolina City Council is required to understand that all people require enjoying their rights, and there is no need of denying the rights of people taking advantage that the people belong to a minority group in the society.