Unbiased AI-powered news
A retired UK Supreme Court judge said she would have wanted to deliver the For Women Scotland judgment on biological sex. The 2025 ruling defined sex under the Equality Act as biological. Public bodies have not yet updated policies to match the decision.
ndtv.comA retired UK Supreme Court judge said she would have wanted to deliver the For Women Scotland judgment on biological sex. The 2025 ruling defined sex under the Equality Act as biological. Public bodies have not yet updated policies to match the decision.
Background on the Ruling In April last year, Supreme Court judges ruled in favour of For Women Scotland, finding unanimously the terms "sex", "man", and "woman" in the Equality Act 2010 refer strictly to biological sex. The ruling was hailed as a triumph by gender critical campaigners who have long sought to protect single-sex facilities for women, arguing that trans women - born male - should not have the right to access female-only services.
Despite the finality of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the influential Lady Hale has not refrained from criticising the judgment. She previously indicated she disagrees with the judgment, saying the legal definition of a woman based on biological sex “has been misinterpreted”.
Speaking at an event at Durham University, the now-retired Baroness told attendees the FWS ruling on biological sex was the case she would most like to have sat on as a judge. In remarks at the Charleston literary festival in East Sussex last August the former Supreme Court judge questioned the meaning of “biological sex”.
She said: “I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as biological sex,” adding her main concern was the “very binary reaction that there has been to” the judgment.
“The role of judges is to apply the law, not to behave like political activists. She told GB News: “We are puzzled why, of all the cases Baroness Hale has sat on over the years, what she thinks is so special about our case.” Just 18 per cent of the British public believe the Supreme Court made the wrong judgment in the FWS case. Incoming Prime Minister Andy Burnham said last month the ruling should be “implemented” and arguments on the matter needed to “stop”. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission shared their advice earlier this month on how businesses and public bodies should protect female-only spaces following the ruling last year. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson approved the advice.”
abcnews.go.comThe Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to review cases testing state and local prohibitions on semiautomatic assault weapons such as the AR-15. The cases, involving restrictions in Illinois and California, are scheduled for argument in the fall term. Nine other Democratic-led states ma…
abcnews.go.comThe Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to uphold birthright citizenship and strike down President Trump's executive order. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion citing the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Japan Times on July 1, 2026 reprinted a July 23, 1926 front-page story describing mob violence that spread from northern and eastern provinces to southern areas over a school dispute. The account details clashes in Ehime-ken that injured more than a dozen people and damaged a…