The following information is from Judicial Watch.
Judicial Watch has achieved a significant legal victory against the City of San Francisco, forcing it to end a taxpayer-funded program that prioritized race and gender identity. The Guaranteed Income for Trans People (GIFT) program, launched in 2022 by Mayor London Breed, provided $1,200 monthly payments for up to 18 months to qualifying individuals. The program specifically favored Black and Latino transgender individuals, prompting accusations of unconstitutional discrimination.
The settlement agreement resolves the lawsuit, Phillips et al. v. Breed et al., filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of taxpayers. The lawsuit argued that the GIFT program violated the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. Under the settlement, the city has committed to:
- Paying $3,250 in attorney’s fees and costs.
- Ending the GIFT program by September 2024.
- Refraining from creating new programs with similar discriminatory criteria.
The settlement agreement was authorized through Ordinance No. 290-24, which passed by a 7-3 vote of the Board of Supervisors and was signed by Mayor Breed. The ordinance granted authority to the city attorney to settle the case under the outlined terms.
“The [San Francisco] City Attorney is hereby authorized to settle the action entitled ‘Michael Phillips, et al., v. London Breed, et al.,’ San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-24-611915, on substantially the same terms as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.”
The GIFT program sparked significant backlash, with critics condemning it as “woke racism” and a misuse of taxpayer dollars. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton celebrated the settlement as a decisive win for taxpayers.
“This settlement is a major victory for taxpayers who oppose woke racism and transgender extremism. It ensures taxpayer money is not illegally used to fund blatantly unconstitutional programs.”
Tom Fitton, President, Judicial Watch
This case is a prime example of Judicial Watch’s ongoing work to hold government officials accountable and prevent the misuse of public funds for divisive and unconstitutional initiatives.
For more details, read the full article here.
As these types of programs keep losing in court, it is for the same reasons which are they are discriminatory. I don’t understand why they felt that their brand of discrimination would pass the ‘smell test’ when they obviously smell to high heaven.