Adblocker detected! Please consider reading this notice.
We've detected that you are using AdBlock Plus or some other adblocking software which is preventing the page from fully loading.
We don't have any banner, Flash, animation, obnoxious sound, or popup ad. We do not implement these annoying types of ads!
We need money to operate the site, and almost all of it comes from our online advertising. If you want ad free viewing experience please subscribe at www.watchnews.pro
Please add planetnews.com to your ad blocking whitelist or disable your adblocking software.
On Tuesday, Texas filed a lawsuit asking the Supreme Court of the United States to withdraw California law banning the state employees from attending the taxpayer-funded business tours to meetings in the Lone Star State. Generally, cases have to worsen from the lower courts before reaching to the state’s Supreme Court; however, the high court has selective authority about the civil clashes between states.
Since 2016, California ban its public officials from travelling for business purposes to states, California estimates unfair to LGBTQ people. Policymakers ratified the prohibition after North Carolina endorsed a law requiring individuals to use the bathrooms that agreed with their sex assigned at birth. Texas added to LGBTQ list in 2017 after it voted for a law permitting temporary care and adoption agencies to reject facilities for religious beliefs, that California seemed as biased against LGBTQ community.
However, the law needs agencies to refer potential parents to other companies willing to work with them. Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, asked the Supreme Court of the United States to revert the law of California on Monday, calling the bar economic welfare and an effort to penalize the citizen of Texas for regarding the right of ethics for short-term care and adoption providers.
Paxton said that the California law opposes doesn’t stop anybody from contributing to the welfare of a child. Refusing states based on nothing greater than the political differences interrupted down the ability of the states to serve as democracy laboratories while still working collectively as one country – the very thing their state’s Constitution projected to prevent.
The claim of Lawsuit
The litigation claimed that the ban of California against the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution, the Interstate Commerce Clause as well as the assurance of Equal Protection, the fourteenth Amendment. The California ban affects the eleven states such as South Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky and Iowa. Many other states, like Tennessee and Oklahoma, reacted with their own prohibitions on government-sponsored travel to the Golden State.
Under the ban, not only the employees of the state but also researchers and athletes at universities of the state can’t use the money of the country for travel purpose, and they can fundraise from other sources.
