National
2011 to bring new marriage fights across U.S.
R.I., Md. best bets for progress, while N.C., Ind. face bans

Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, shown here at a meeting with LGBT supporters, backs same-sex marriage rights. (Photo courtesy of Chafee’s office)
With “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealed, the issue of marriage returns to center stage in 2011 as many states are poised to enact same-sex marriage or civil unions legislation — or pursue measures that would repeal or block such rights for gay couples.
With new governors or changes to their state legislatures, Rhode Island, Maryland and New York could advance same-sex marriage legislation as soon as this year.
But changes in the political dynamic after the 2010 elections also mean that marriage rights could be repealed in New Hampshire and amendments banning same-sex marriage could go forward in North Carolina, Indiana and Pennsylvania.
Meanwhile, legislation to enact civil unions could advance in Hawaii and Delaware.
Rhode Island is among the states that could see early action in passing a same-sex marriage bill.
Newly seated Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I), who supports same-sex marriage, has replaced Gov. Donald Carcieri (R), who opposed gay nuptials.
In his inauguration address, Chafee encouraged the Rhode Island General Assembly “quickly consider and adopt” a same-sex marriage bill to send to his desk.
“When marriage equality is the law in Rhode Island, we honor our forefathers who risked their lives and fortune in the pursuit of human equality,” he said.
Same-sex marriage bills were introduced in both chambers of the Rhode Island General Assembly last week. House Speaker Gordon Fox, who’s gay, supports the passage of a marriage bill through his chamber.
Kathy Kushnir, executive director of Marriage Equality Rhode Island, said she thinks the marriage bill will come before the House Judiciary Committee before the end of January.
“So we’ll be holding hearings, and then, we’ll be looking at, of course, the committee vote and the floor vote as soon as possible,” she said.
Karen Loewy, senior staff attorney for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the prospects for passing a marriage bill in Rhode Island are “really fantastic” and called Chafee an “active supporter” of the legislation.
“It was part of his inaugural address,” she said. “He’s really committed to getting a marriage bill passed.”
The Senate isn’t expected to take action on the marriage bill until the House finishes action on the measure. The legislative session ends in June, so the marriage bill would have to reach the governor’s desk by that time.
Kushnir said the biggest challenge in passing a marriage bill in Rhode Island is ensuring that lawmakers address the legislation as they take on other issues facing the state.
“There are really important issues also — the economy, jobs and the budget — that are before the legislature,” Kushnir said. “But you know what? Everyone knows that passing marriage equality and treating everybody equal here in Rhode Island does very well for all of those issues.”
Loewy said passage in the Senate remains “a stronger challenge,” but support should exist in the chamber to pass a marriage bill.
“Even there, I think, you’ve got folks who are ready to understand how important this is for same-sex couples in Rhode Island,” she said.
LGBT rights supporters are also optimistic about the chances of a same-sex marriage bill passing in Maryland, where the configuration of the Senate for the first time provides a path for passage.
Last month, a majority of members who support same-sex marriage were named to Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, ensuring for the first time that a same-sex marriage measure would clear the panel and reach the Senate floor for a vote. Up until now, the committee has blocked the marriage bill, even though the chamber was in Democratic control.
Sen. Richard Madaleno of Montgomery Country, who’s gay, last week expressed confidence about passage of the marriage bill.
“I have never been so optimistic about getting this done,” he said. “Today at lunch I sat quietly by myself with a list of the members of the new Senate going over again and again in my head where the votes are, and I’m feeling really good right now both for the floor vote and the cloture vote.”
The bill is being introduced by Majority Leader Kumar Barve (D-Dist. 17) and Del. Keiffer Mitchell (D-Dist. 44). The Senate version will be advanced by Majority Leader Rob Garagiola (D-Dist. 15) and Madaleno.
Supporters in the Senate believe they have the 24 votes needed to pass the marriage bill on an up or down vote but are less certain about whether they have the 29 votes needed to invoke cloture and stop an expected filibuster by same-sex marriage opponents.
Another obstacle could be a referendum on the marriage law. Nearly all observers of the General Assembly expect opponents to initiate petitions to call for a referendum, which would stop the bills from taking effect until after voters decide on the issue.
In New York, supporters of same-sex marriage are looking to the state legislature to approve a bill extending marriage rights to gay couples that would be sent to newly seated Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D) desk for his signature.
As in previous years, a marriage bill is expected to be able pass again in the State Assembly, where Democrats have retained control of the chamber, but the situation is different in the Senate, where Republicans have regained control after the election.
Still, Republican Leader Dean Skelos suggested prior to the election that if Republicans regain power in the Senate, he would allow a vote on same-sex marriage to come, even though — like all GOP senators — he previously voted against the marriage bill.
“Let me just say, when we win back the majority, there is legislation that I believe all of you interested in, that I believe should be voted on again,” Skelos said in October. “We’re not going to stifle discussion. We are not going to stifle votes. And it is truly my belief that people should be allowed to vote their consciences.”
Even if the legislation comes up for a vote in the Senate, the prospects for passage are uncertain. When the bill previously came up for a vote late in 2009, the measure failed 24-38.
Two lawmakers who support same-sex marriage were elected to the Senate since the last vote on the legislation, but that change is far from the 32 votes needed to pass a bill in the Senate.
Ross Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, said the “political dynamic remains very promising” for passing a same-sex marriage bill as well as a transgender civil rights bill in New York.
“The phrase that I’ve been using is that there’s a clear and credible path to victory in the not distant future,” Levi said.
Asked whether passage would be likely in the next two years given the makeup of the legislature, Levi replied, “For me, it’s not talking about timeline, it’s about the work we have to do to make sure that we can have a successful vote as soon as we can.”
Dan Pinello, a gay government professor at the City University of New York, said he’s not optimistic about passage of a marriage bill in the legislature over the course of the next two years.
“[Skelos] has said a few things suggesting that [he would bring the bill to a vote], but that’s not a guarantee,” Pinello said. “So, yeah, he could bring it up for a vote, but that’s no guarantee it’s going to pass. I just don’t see it happening, sadly.”
Pinello said the next opportunity to advance same-sex marriage could be in 2013 as a result of the redistricting this year. He said political power should shift from upstate to downstate, which would give Democrats a majority in the Senate.
“Upstate tends to be Republican and downstate tends to be Democratic, so it’s likely even though Republicans will be redrawing the Senate district lines, there’s no way they can still maintain a majority, given the demographic shifts the Census will reveal,” Pinello said.
Repealing marriage in N.H.?
While several states are poised to advance marriage rights, other places could see a rollback of relationship recognition for same-sex couples.
The most prominent of those states is New Hampshire, where opponents of same-sex marriage may have the political power to repeal the marriage law enacted in 2009.
Gov. John Lynch (D), who signed the marriage bill into law, is expected to veto the bill should it come to his desk. But after the election, Republicans now have a super majority in both chambers of the legislature and could override his veto.
Four bills have already been introduced in the legislature to repeal the marriage law.
State Rep. Leo Pepino (R), who introduced one of the bills, said he thinks there is support to repeal the marriage law, according to the Nashau Telegraph.
“I think we have the votes [to repeal],” Pepino said. “We have a lot of really good conservatives and a good conservative doesn’t believe in gay marriage. … It’s a matter of ethics.”
GLAD’s Loewy said the chances of repealing the marriage law in New Hampshire are “hard to quantify,” adding she doesn’t know whether the votes are present to take such action.
“The LGBT community in New Hampshire is very much gearing up for a fight to protect marriage the best way we know how: by talking to legislators about how taking away marriage is going to hurt their families and their kids,” Loewy said.
Loewy added she’s hoping that New Hampshire won’t go down the path of repealing the law and would instead pursue “issues like jobs and the economy that everybody knows is the priority.”
“I think, like I said, the community has a lot of work to do, but, I think, it’s absolutely fair to expect and hope that that’s not the path that New Hampshire’s going to go down,” she said.
Mo Baxley, executive director of the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, said the Granite State has never taken away the rights of its citizen, but that is what some anti-gay lawmakers are proposing to do.
“The married gay and lesbian couples here have in no way impacted anybody else’s marriage,” she said. “Let’s move on. Marriage has been debated to death here and the priority right now is the economy and the budget.”
Other states are prepared to advance constitutional amendments that would ban same-sex marriage.
One such state is North Carolina, where Republicans swept into power in both the House and Senate following the November elections.
Ian Palmquist, executive director of Equality North Carolina, said his organization is “fully expecting” that a constitutional amendment banning both same-sex marriage and marriage-like unions will advance this year.
“I think there’s a chance of blocking it, but it’s a very tight vote at the moment,” he said.
Palmquist said he’s getting mixed signals on when the vote would come up and said it could be anytime between February and July.
In North Carolina, passing a constitutional amendment requires a third-fifths vote of approval from both chambers of the state legislature followed by a majority of voters at the ballot box.
Palmquist said the measure could be on the ballot in 2011, but he expects it would come to voters in 2012. Such a move would enable conservatives to turn out their base during a presidential election year.
“It would definitely be a challenge to defeat it at the ballot,” Palmquist said. “There is majority support in North Carolina for some form of relationship recognition. We certainly would use that to try to stop this kind of amendment from moving forward.”
Another state where LGBT rights supporters are anticipating a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and marriage-like unions is Indiana.
In previous years, advocates had been able to block the amendment in the House because Democrats held a narrow majority in the chamber, but the situation has changed now that Republicans took control of the House and expanded their control of the Senate following the November elections.
Don Sherfick, legislative chair for Indiana Equality, said the prospects for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage passing this year are good in Indiana.
“I guess I would be less than honest if I were to say that things were looking rosy for continuing to unequivocally being able to fight such a thing coming through,” he said.
Anticipating hearings in either the House or Senate or both chambers within six weeks, Sherfick said Indiana Equality is mounting a public relations and lobbying campaign to try to block the amendment.
“People will at least know what they’re doing and we’ll set our sights on fighting it in the next legislature,” he said.
Bil Browning, an Indiana native and editor of the Bilerico Project, said he’s 99.9 percent certain that the Indiana Legislature would pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
“The two things they wanted to do most and first and foremost was a bill that would require a woman to have a sonogram three days before any planned abortion — in the hopes that she’ll see it and not want to have the abortion — and a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage,” Browning said.
For a constitutional amendment to pass in Indiana, it must pass the state legislature twice — a first time and then again after an election — before the measure comes before voters. If the legislature passed an amendment this year, the soonest it could get to voters is 2014.
Browning said gay rights supporters can hope for a change in the makeup of the legislature after the next election as a way to block the amendment from final passage.
“Two years from now, if we can retake the Indiana House it’s probably dead, but for at least passing this session, I’d say [the chances] are 99.9 percent,” he said.
Browning said one factor working in advocates’ favor in Indiana is that all the Fortune 500 companies headquartered in the state previously testified before the legislature against the amendment.
Additionally, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), who has called for a “truce” on social issues, is widely considered to be thinking about a run for president and may want to steer clear of marriage prior to 2012. Still, the amendment wouldn’t require his signature for passage.
A similar situation can be found in Pennsylvania, where Republicans took control of the House and retained control of the Senate.
Malcolm Lazin, executive director of the Philadelphia-based Equality Forum, said passage of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is “of concern” because of new Republican control of the House.
“We were able to successfully block it in the past because the House was controlled by the Democrats,” Lazin said. “That dynamic has now changed. In addition, there is now a Republican governor of Pennsylvania.”
As in Indiana, for a constitutional amendment to pass in Pennsylvania, the measure has to be approved by a majority vote in both chambers of the legislature — once and then again after an election — before going to voters as a ballot measure.
Ted Martin, executive director of Equality Pennsylvania, predicted that the amendment would be introduced in both the House and Senate, but was skeptical of lawmakers’ ability to push it through the legislature.
Martin said the likelihood of the measure passing in the House committee is high, but its passage on the House floor is less certain. For the Senate, which has been controlled by Republicans for more than two decades, Martin said he doubts the measure would make it through committee.
“The Senate, in the past, has always taken a less active tone about it,” Martin said. “They’ve become much more libertarian in their view. Just to remember, we were able to block this in committee three times before.”
Hawaii, Del. to take up civil unions
As many states take on the marriage issue — either to advance gay nuptials or ban them — two other states are prepared to enact civil unions early in 2011.
In Hawaii, LGBT advocates are ready to advance a civil unions bill that newly seated Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) has pledged to sign.
Last summer, a civil unions bill in the Aloha State was vetoed by former Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, but with her gone, gay rights supporters see a clear path toward passing the legislation.
Alan Spector, co-chair of Equality Hawaii, said he expects that the civil unions bill will easily pass the legislature to reach Abercrombie’s desk soon after the session starts on Jan. 19.
“With the November 2010 election behind us, and a new governor and new leadership, we’re pretty confident that we will pass the bill early in 2011,” Spector said.
Spector estimated that the legislation would be introduced in the third week of January and ideally would make it to the governor’s desk by March.
“The process can go as quickly as a month or it can take the whole session — or it can on into 2012,” Spector said. “It all depends on what happens, but we’re pretty optimistic that it’s going to go quickly this year.”
Advocates are pursuing civil unions in Hawaii instead of marriage because in 1998, voters approved a constitutional amendment granting the legislature the power to ban same-sex marriage, which lawmakers then pursued.
Similarly, LGBT advocates in Delaware are ready to advance legislation this year that would enact civil unions in the First State.
Peter Schott, political vice president of Delaware Stonewall Democrats, said the “atmosphere is probably better than it’s been in a few years” for passing civil unions in the state.
“We have formed a coalition, which a number of elected officials are on — civic leaders,” Schott said.
LGBT rights supporters know they have the votes in the House, Schott said, but questions about passage in the Senate remain because leadership could refer the legislation to an unfavorable committee.
Schott said supporters of civil unions in Delaware want to pass the legislation this year so it doesn’t come up during the 2012 election season.
Florida
DNC slams White House for slashing Fla. AIDS funding
Following the”Big Beautiful Bill” tax credit cuts, Florida will have to cut life saving medication for over 16,000 Floridians.
The Trump-Vance administration and congressional Republicans’ “Big Beautiful Bill” could strip more than 10,000 Floridians of life-saving HIV medication.
The Florida Department of Health announced there would be large cuts to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program in the Sunshine State. The program switched from covering those making up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, which was anyone making $62,600 or less, in 2025, to only covering those making up to 130 percent of the FPL, or $20,345 a year in 2026.
Cuts to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, which provides medication to low-income people living with HIV/AIDS, will prevent a dramatic $120 million funding shortfall as a result of the Big Beautiful Bill according to the Florida Department of Health.
The International Association of Providers of AIDS Care and Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo warned that the situation could easily become a “crisis” without changing the current funding setup.
“It is a serious issue,” Ladapo told the Tampa Bay Times. “It’s a really, really serious issue.”
The Florida Department of Health currently has a “UPDATES TO ADAP” warning on the state’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program webpage, recommending Floridians who once relied on tax credits and subsidies to pay for their costly HIV/AIDS medication to find other avenues to get the crucial medications — including through linking addresses of Florida Association of Community Health Centers and listing Florida Non-Profit HIV/AIDS Organizations rather than have the government pay for it.
HIV disproportionately impacts low income people, people of color, and LGBTQ people
The Tampa Bay Times first published this story on Thursday, which began gaining attention in the Sunshine State, eventually leading the Democratic Party to, once again, condemn the Big Beautiful Bill pushed by congressional republicans.
“Cruelty is a feature and not a bug of the Trump administration. In the latest attack on the LGBTQ+ community, Donald Trump and Florida Republicans are ripping away life-saving HIV medication from over 10,000 Floridians because they refuse to extend enhanced ACA tax credits,” Democratic National Committee spokesperson Albert Fujii told the Washington Blade. “While Donald Trump and his allies continue to make clear that they don’t give a damn about millions of Americans and our community, Democrats will keep fighting to protect health care for LGBTQ+ Americans across the country.”
More than 4.7 million people in Florida receive health insurance through the federal marketplace, according to KKF, an independent source for health policy research and polling. That is the largest amount of people in any state to be receiving federal health care — despite it only being the third most populous state.
Florida also has one of the largest shares of people who use the AIDS Drug Assistance Program who are on the federal marketplace: about 31 percent as of 2023, according to the Tampa Bay Times.
“I can’t understand why there’s been no transparency,” David Poole also told the Times, who oversaw Florida’s AIDS program from 1993 to 2005. “There is something seriously wrong.”
The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors estimates that more than 16,000 people will lose coverage
U.S. Supreme Court
Competing rallies draw hundreds to Supreme Court
Activists, politicians gather during oral arguments over trans youth participation in sports
Hundreds of supporters and opponents of trans rights gathered outside of the United States Supreme Court during oral arguments for Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. on Tuesday. Two competing rallies were held next to each other, with politicians and opposing movement leaders at each.
“Trans rights are human rights!” proclaimed U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to the crowd of LGBTQ rights supporters. “I am here today because trans kids deserve more than to be debated on cable news. They deserve joy. They deserve support. They deserve to grow up knowing that their country has their back.”

“And I am here today because we have been down this hateful road before,” Markey continued. “We have seen time and time again what happens when the courts are asked to uphold discrimination. History eventually corrects those mistakes, but only after the real harm is done to human beings.”
View on Threads
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon spoke at the other podium set up a few feet away surrounded by signs, “Two Sexes. One Truth.” and “Reality Matters. Biology Matters.”
“In just four years, the Biden administration reversed decades of progress,” said McMahon. “twisting the law to urge that sex is not defined by objective biological reality, but by subjective notion of gender identity. We’ve seen the consequences of the Biden administration’s advocacy of transgender agendas.”

U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, was introduced on the opposing podium during McMahon’s remarks.
“This court, whose building that we stand before this morning, did something quite remarkable six years ago.” Takano said. “It did the humanely decent thing, and legally correct thing. In the Bostock decision, the Supreme Court said that trans employees exist. It said that trans employees matter. It said that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on sex, and that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. It recognizes that trans people have workplace rights and that their livelihoods cannot be denied to them, because of who they are as trans people.”
“Today, we ask this court to be consistent,” Takano continued. “If trans employees exist, surely trans teenagers exist. If trans teenagers exist, surely trans children exist. If trans employees have a right not to be discriminated against in the workplace, trans kids have a right to a free and equal education in school.”
Takano then turned and pointed his finger toward McMahon.
“Did you hear that, Secretary McMahon?” Takano addressed McMahon. “Trans kids have a right to a free and equal education! Restore the Office of Civil Rights! Did you hear me Secretary McMahon? You will not speak louder or speak over me or over these people.”
Both politicians continued their remarks from opposing podiums.
“I end with a message to trans youth who need to know that there are adults who reject the political weaponization of hate and bigotry,” Takano said. “To you, I say: you matter. You are not alone. Discrimination has no place in our schools. It has no place in our laws, and it has no place in America.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans
Justices considered whether laws unconstitutional under Title IX.
The Supreme Court heard two cases today that could change how the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX are enforced.
The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., ask the court to determine whether state laws blocking transgender girls from participating on girls’ teams at publicly funded schools violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Once decided, the rulings could reshape how laws addressing sex discrimination are interpreted nationwide.
Chief Justice John Roberts raised questions about whether Bostock v. Clayton County — the landmark case holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity — applies in the context of athletics. He questioned whether transgender girls should be considered girls under the law, noting that they were assigned male at birth.
“I think the basic focus of the discussion up until now, which is, as I see it anyway, whether or not we should view your position as a challenge to the distinction between boys and girls on the basis of sex or whether or not you are perfectly comfortable with the distinction between boys and girls, you just want an exception to the biological definition of girls.”
“How we approach the situation of looking at it not as boys versus girls but whether or not there should be an exception with respect to the definition of girls,” Roberts added, suggesting the implications could extend beyond athletics. “That would — if we adopted that, that would have to apply across the board and not simply to the area of athletics.”
Justice Clarence Thomas echoed Roberts’ concerns, questioning how sex-based classifications function under Title IX and what would happen if Idaho’s ban were struck down.
“Does a — the justification for a classification as you have in Title IX, male/female sports, let’s take, for example, an individual male who is not a good athlete, say, a lousy tennis player, and does not make the women’s — and wants to try out for the women’s tennis team, and he said there is no way I’m better than the women’s tennis players. How is that different from what you’re being required to do here?”
Justice Samuel Alito addressed what many in the courtroom seemed reluctant to state directly: the legal definition of sex.
“Under Title IX, what does the term ‘sex’ mean?” Alito asked Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, who was arguing in support of Idaho’s law. Mooppan maintained that sex should be defined at birth.
“We think it’s properly interpreted pursuant to its ordinary traditional definition of biological sex and think probably given the time it was enacted, reproductive biology is probably the best way of understanding that,” Mooppan said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back, questioning how that definition did not amount to sex discrimination against Lindsay Hecox under Idaho law. If Hecox’s sex is legally defined as male, Sotomayor argued, the exclusion still creates discrimination.
“It’s still an exception,” Sotomayor said. “It’s a subclass of people who are covered by the law and others are not.”
Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the broader implications of the cases, asking whether a ruling for the states would impose a single definition of sex on the 23 states that currently have different laws and standards. The parties acknowledged that scientific research does not yet offer a clear consensus on sex.
“I think the one thing we definitely want to have is complete findings. So that’s why we really were urging to have a full record developed before there were a final judgment of scientific uncertainty,” said Kathleen Harnett, Hecox’s legal representative. “Maybe on a later record, that would come out differently — but I don’t think that—”

“Just play it out a little bit, if there were scientific uncertainty,” Kagan responded.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on the impact such policies could have on cisgender girls, arguing that allowing transgender girls to compete could undermine Title IX’s original purpose.
“For the individual girl who does not make the team or doesn’t get on the stand for the medal or doesn’t make all league, there’s a — there’s a harm there,” Kavanaugh said. “I think we can’t sweep that aside.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether Idaho’s law discriminated based on transgender status or sex.
“Since trans boys can play on boys’ teams, how would we say this discriminates on the basis of transgender status when its effect really only runs towards trans girls and not trans boys?”
Harnett responded, “I think that might be relevant to a, for example, animus point, right, that we’re not a complete exclusion of transgender people. There was an exclusion of transgender women.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged the notion that explicitly excluding transgender people was not discrimination.
“I guess I’m struggling to understand how you can say that this law doesn’t discriminate on the basis of transgender status. The law expressly aims to ensure that transgender women can’t play on women’s sports teams… it treats transgender women different than — than cis-women, doesn’t it?”
Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst urged the court to uphold his state’s ban, arguing that allowing participation based on gender identity — regardless of medical intervention — would deny opportunities to girls protected under federal law.
Hurst emphasized that biological “sex is what matters in sports,” not gender identity, citing scientific evidence that people assigned male at birth are predisposed to athletic advantages.
Joshua Block, representing B.P.J., was asked whether a ruling in their favor would redefine sex under federal law.
“I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex,” Block said. “I think the purpose is to make sure sex isn’t being used to deny opportunities.”
Becky Pepper-Jackson, identified as plaintiff B.P.J., the 15-year-old also spoke out.
“I play for my school for the same reason other kids on my track team do — to make friends, have fun, and challenge myself through practice and teamwork,” said Pepper-Jackson. “And all I’ve ever wanted was the same opportunities as my peers. But in 2021, politicians in my state passed a law banning me — the only transgender student athlete in the entire state — from playing as who I really am. This is unfair to me and every transgender kid who just wants the freedom to be themselves.”

Outside the court, advocates echoed those concerns as the justices deliberated.
“Becky simply wants to be with her teammates on the track and field team, to experience the camaraderie and many documented benefits of participating in team sports,” said Sasha Buchert, counsel and Nonbinary & Transgender Rights Project director at Lambda Legal. “It has been amply proven that participating in team sports equips youth with a myriad of skills — in leadership, teamwork, confidence, and health. On the other hand, denying a student the ability to participate is not only discriminatory but harmful to a student’s self-esteem, sending a message that they are not good enough and deserve to be excluded. That is the argument we made today and that we hope resonated with the justices of the Supreme Court.”
“This case is about the ability of transgender youth like Becky to participate in our schools and communities,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “School athletics are fundamentally educational programs, but West Virginia’s law completely excluded Becky from her school’s entire athletic program even when there is no connection to alleged concerns about fairness or safety. As the lower court recognized, forcing Becky to either give up sports or play on the boys’ team — in contradiction of who she is at school, at home, and across her life — is really no choice at all. We are glad to stand with her and her family to defend her rights, and the rights of every young person, to be included as a member of their school community, at the Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings in both cases by the end of June.
