Three women from Laconia, New Hampshire, want to go topless on the beach. Their pursuit of this dream has been thwarted at every turn. At the state level, the federal level, and now the Supreme Court has refused to hear their appeal.
Related: State of NH to SCOTUS – We Got This Public Nudity Thing ‘Covered’
The Supreme Court on Monday decided not to “Free the Nipple,” refusing to hear an appeal by three women fined by a city in New Hampshire for exposing their breasts in public who argued that banning female but not male toplessness violates the U.S. Constitution.
The justices left in place a 2019 ruling by New Hampshire’s top court upholding the women’s convictions for violating an ordinance in the city of Laconia that makes it illegal to show female breasts in public “with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple.”
New Hampshire asked the court not to bother saying they have it covered.
In its filing this week, the state said there has been no meaningful disagreement. Nearly every state high court and federal appeals court has upheld similar ordinances, it said. … The conflict the women identify is, therefore “illusory,” the state said, and the court need not “wade into areas better left for the policy-making of local legislative bodies.”
I’m not sure how much that played into the decision not to take the case or if this is simply a matter of how America works and that a majority of people in it agree. That the nation, based on local ordinances, and most court rulings are content with things as they are.
Not that this has stopped the left. As I noted here,
In previous remarks, I wondered? Why doesn’t this ruling apply to recent laws that eliminate “privacy in spaces where “erogenous zones” intimately associated with the procreation function could be exposed to members of the opposite sex by statute.”
So-called gender-equality laws require the comingling of biologically male and female people and parts in what were once sex-specific spaces. To protest that ‘right’ in New Hampshire is now discriminatory and subject to legal action. But the presumption that the parties involved have no sexual inclinations based on how they claim to be presenting is absurd and contradicts the 8th Circuit Courts rejection of similar cases in Springfield, Missouri.
Matters into which the court has yet to wade, and at least one of which, free the nipple, SCOTUS is content to leave to lower courts and states where it belongs.
| HotAir
