In Short v. City of Birmingham
At trial, evidence presented by the City showed that, on May 10, 1980, at approximately 2:15 A.M., two Birmingham police officers assigned to Vice Detail saw the defendant dressed in female clothing in the vicinity of 5th Avenue North and 18th Street in the downtown area of Birmingham.
If a female wore female clothing, this could not be used as evidence of intent to solicit prostitution. Therefore, the birth sex of Short is an essential qualification in the state's argument.
- Does using this argument in court violate the equal protection clause?
- If not in 1980, would it violate our modern interpretation of the equal protection clause? I am unsure if the reasoning Gorsuch applied to the Civil Rights act in Bostock is valid precedent when interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment.