U.S. Supreme Court
164 members of Congress urge Supreme Court to protect trans rights
GRACE files separate brief in gender affirming care case

A group of 164 members of Congress filed an amicus brief on Tuesday urging the U.S. Supreme Court to defend transgender Americans’ access to medically necessary healthcare as the justices prepare to hear oral arguments this fall in U.S. v. Skrmetti.
Lawmakers who issued the 27-page brief include House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (Mass.), House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar (Calif.), U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Congressional Equality Caucus Chair U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), along with the caucus’s 8 co-chairs and 25 vice-chairs. Ranking members of the powerful House Judiciary and House Ways and Means Committees, U.S. Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), were also among the signatories.
The case, among the most closely watched this term, will determine whether Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, along with a similar law passed in Kentucky, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In their brief, the lawmakers urge the Supreme Court to treat with skepticism “legislation banning safe and effective therapies that comport with the standard of care” and to examine the role of “animosity towards transgender people” in states’ gender affirming care bans.
“Decisions about healthcare belong to patients, their doctors, and their families—not politicians,” Pocan said. “The law at issue in this case is motivated by an animus towards the trans community and is part of a cruel, coordinated attack on trans rights by anti-equality extremists. We strongly urge the Supreme Court to uphold the constitution’s promise of equal protection under the law and strike down Tennessee’s harmful ban.”
“For years, far-right Republicans have been leading constant, relentless, and escalating attacks on transgender Americans. Their age-old, discriminatory playbook now threatens access to lifesaving, gender-affirming care for more than 100,000 transgender and nonbinary children living in states with these bans if the Supreme Court uphold laws like Tennessee’s at the heart of Skrmetti fueled by ignorance and hate,” Markey said.
“Transgender people deserve the same access to healthcare as everyone else,” said Nadler. “There is no constitutionally sound justification to strip from families with transgender children, and their doctors, the decision to seek medical care and give it to politicians sitting in the state capitol. I trust parents, not politicians, to decide what is best for their transgender children.”
Pallone warned that if Tennessee’s ban, S.B. 1, is “allowed to stand, it will establish a dangerous precedent that will open the floodgates to further discrimination against transgender Americans.”
“Unending attacks from MAGA extremists across the nation are putting trans youth at risk with hateful laws to ban gender-affirming care,” said Merkley author of the Equality Act. “Let’s get politicians—who have no expertise in making decisions for patients—out of the exam room. The Court must reject these divisive policies, and Congress must pass the Equality Act to fully realize a more equal and just union for all.”
Also filing an amicus brief on Tuesday was the Gender Research Advisory Council + Education (GRACE), a transgender-led nonprofit that wrote, in a press release, “Skrmetti is critically important to the transgender community because approximately 40% of trans youth live in the 25 states that have enacted such bans.”
The group argued laws like Tennessee’s S.B. 1 are cruel, discriminatory, and contradict “the position of every major medical association that such treatments are safe, effective and medically necessary for adolescents suffering from gender dysphoria.”
GRACE’s brief includes 28 families “who hope to share with the Court that they are responsible, committed parents from a variety of backgrounds who have successfully navigated their adolescent’s transition.”
“These parents sought medical expertise for their children with diligence regarding the best care available and input from experienced physicians and mental health professionals and they have seen firsthand the profound benefits of providing medically appropriate care to their transgender children,” said GRACE Board Member and brief co-author Sean Madden.
Left unchecked, this may start with the transgender community, but it certainly won’t end there,” added GRACE President Alaina Kupec. “Next it could be treatments for HIV or cancer.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.
In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.
The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.
He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”
Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”
Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court upholds ACA rule that makes PrEP, other preventative care free
Liberal justices joined three conservatives in majority opinion

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld a portion of the Affordable Care Act requiring private health insurers to cover the cost of preventative care including PrEP, which significantly reduces the risk of transmitting HIV.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion in the case, Kennedy v. Braidwood Management. He was joined by two conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, along with the three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown-Jackson.
The court’s decision rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s reliance on the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force to “unilaterally” determine which types of care and services must be covered by payors without cost-sharing.
An independent all-volunteer panel of nationally recognized experts in prevention and primary care, the 16 task force members are selected by the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to serve four-year terms.
They are responsible for evaluating the efficacy of counseling, screenings for diseases like cancer and diabetes, and preventative medicines — like Truvada for PrEP, drugs to reduce heart disease and strokes, and eye ointment for newborns to prevent infections.
Parties bringing the challenge objected especially to the mandatory coverage of PrEP, with some arguing the drugs would “encourage and facilitate homosexual behavior” against their religious beliefs.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court rules parents must have option to opt children out of LGBTQ-specific lessons
Mahmoud v. Taylor case comes from Montgomery County, Md.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled that public schools must give advance notice to parents and allow them the opportunity to opt their children out of lessons or classroom instruction on matters of gender and sexuality that conflict with their religious beliefs.
Mahmoud v. Taylor was decided 6-3 along party lines, with conservative Justice Samuel Alito authoring the majority opinion and liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown-Jackson in dissent.
Parents from diverse religious backgrounds sued to challenge the policy in Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools when storybooks featuring LGBTQ characters were added to the elementary school English curriculum in 2022.
The school board argued in the brief submitted to the Supreme Court that “the storybooks themselves do not instruct about gender or sexuality. They are not textbooks. They merely introduce students to characters who are LGBTQ or have LGBTQfamily members, and those characters’ experiences and points of view.”
Advocacy groups dedicated to advancing free speech and expression filed amicus briefs in support of the district.
PEN America argued the case should be viewed in the context of broader efforts to censor and restrict what is available and allowable in public schools, for instance by passing book bans and “Don’t Say Gay” laws.
The ACLU said the policy of not allowing opt-outs is religion-neutral, writing that the Supreme Court should apply rational basis review, which requires only that the school district show that its conduct was “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest.
LGBTQ groups also objected to the challenge against the district’s policy, with many submitting amici briefs including: the National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLAD Law, Family Equality, COLAGE, Lambda Legal, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, PFLAG., and the National Women’s Law Center.
The Human Rights Campaign did not submit a brief but did issue a statement by the group’s President Kelley Robinson: “LGBTQ+ stories matter. They matter so students can see themselves and their families in the books they read–so they can know they’re not alone.”
“And they matter for all students who need to learn about the world around them and understand that while we may all be different, we all deserve to be valued and loved,” she said. “All students lose when we limit what they can learn, what they can read, and what their teachers can say. The Supreme Court should reject this attempt to silence our educators and ban our stories.”
-
U.S. Supreme Court3 days ago
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
-
Out & About3 days ago
Celebrate the Fourth of July the gay way!
-
Virginia3 days ago
Va. court allows conversion therapy despite law banning it
-
Opinions4 days ago
Can we still celebrate Fourth of July this year?