Connect with us

U.S. Supreme Court

Legal expert maps out how gender-affirming care bans may be challenged post-Skrmetti

Ruling leaves door open to state constitution claims

Published

5 months ago

on

Activists protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 5, 2024, when the justices heard oral arguments in the Skrmetti case. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

In a devastating loss for transgender youth and their families, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority on June 18 voted to uphold Tennessee’s law banning access to gender-affirming health care for minors in a 6-3 ruling that effectively shields similar restrictions in more than 20 other states.

Chase Strangio, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs in U.S. v. Skrmetti and the first trans lawyer to argue before the nation’s highest court, acknowledged the “setback” during a press call with reporters while stressing the need to “continue onward in the fight” because the avenues open to challenge laws like Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 had not been fully extinguished.

Speaking with the Washington Blade on Monday, Professor Holning Lau of the University of North Carolina School of Law outlined the ramifications of the justices’ majority opinion and mapped out three ways in which cases aimed at striking down healthcare bans or other anti-trans policies and practices could play out in its wake.

An internationally recognized expert on equality rights, particularly in the contexts of sexuality, gender, and family life, Lau previously served as president of the ACLU of North Carolina’s board of directors and as a teaching fellow at UCLA’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Public Policy.

He is also the co-author of a recent paper that examines the exceptions to laws prohibiting medical interventions for gender transitions in minors that permit “so-called gender-normalizing surgeries, which are performed on intersex infants to conform their bodies to socially constructed expectations about the male/female binary.”

These carveouts, Lau and his colleague UNC Law School Associate Professor Barbara Fedders argue, cut against the reasoning cited by the lawmakers behind legislative restrictions targeting healthcare for trans youth like SB 1 and by the lawyers defending them in court.

Specifically, Lau told the Blade courts could interpret such “intersex exceptions” as evidence that gender affirming care bans were written with or are undergirded by sex stereotypes, unwarranted fears, and disgust — possible grounds to argue they should be struck down under the animus doctrine, which holds that government action motivated by hostility or prejudice towards a particular group is unconstitutional.

While there was some discussion of animus in the context of U.S. v. Skrmetti, notably in the concurring opinion by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the plaintiffs’ case focused primarily on “the sex discrimination argument because of Bostock v. Clayton County,” Lau said, referring to the 2020 Supreme Court case that determined sex-based discrimination in the context of employment, as defined by federal civil rights law, includes discriminatory conduct that is motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

‘A huge, huge setback’

Five years after LGBTQ rights advocates were toasting their victory in the landmark case, which saw three of the conservatives on the High Court joining their liberal counterparts in a majority opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, “a lot of folks may have reasonably thought that the logic of Bostock points towards this very straightforward sex discrimination argument,” Lau said, adding that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor “adopts that avenue of reasoning in her dissent” in Skrmetti.

“The way that the majority rejects the sex discrimination arguments in in the majority opinion of Skrmetti is not persuasive in my view,” he said. “I struggle for words to capture the reasoning of the majority opinion.”

Echoing Strangio’s remarks, Lau noted that Skrmetti “doesn’t completely close the door” to legal challenges but is nevertheless “a huge, huge setback.”

On the one hand, he said “lower courts might say that this was very much about the context of medical treatment and minors,” which means “there may still be cases that prevail having to do with transgender discrimination in other contexts, like the military ban or the restrictions on passports.” 

At the same time, however, Lau cautioned that “you could also read this case as signaling more obstacles ahead, especially if a case gets back to the Supreme Court” since “three of the justices have already signaled in Skrmetti that they do not view gender identity discrimination as warranting heightened scrutiny.”  

Litigation aside, young people and their families who will suffer the most direct and harmful consequences, namely the loss of access to medically necessary gender-affirming care, will have to navigate “a patchwork of state laws,” he said, which in many cases will mean relocating or traveling out of state for treatments that have been criminalized in the places where they live.

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the nationwide right to abortion, led to many of these same outcomes, he said. In an email following Monday’s phone interview, Lau further explained that “Dobbs unleashed conflicts between states, and there are signs that similar conflicts will arise with respect to gender-affirming care for trans youth.”

For example, he said “A growing number of states might seek to penalize interstate travel for gender-affirming care — targeting families who travel across state lines and/or medical providers who provide care to such families.”

“There is ongoing litigation concerning the constitutionality of interstate bans and shield laws in the abortion context, and those cases will bear significance on interstate bans and shield laws regarding gender-affirming care,” Lau said. 

Counsel for the plaintiffs in Skrmetti probably turned to Bostock because the case was “the most recent victory, and the most on point when it comes to gender identity,” Lau said.

The animus doctrine was an important element of cases that expanded equal rights and protections for LGBTQ people, he said, pointing to U.S. v. Windsor (2013), which struck down portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, and Romer v. Evans (1996) which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment prohibiting the state from enacting any LGBTQ inclusive nondiscrimination rules.

Lau said those cases are examples of where the Supreme Court has found indirect evidence of impermissible animus in the laws under consideration by the way they were designed or structured, as opposed to more direct evidence like overt expressions of sex stereotypes, fear, and disgust toward a particular group that might arise during the legislative process.

These cases and the animus doctrine, Lau added, are closely associated with the late former Justice Anthony Kennedy, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan who was the “swing vote” responsible for ultimately deciding many of cases considered by the Roberts court where the justices were split 5-4.

Following his retirement in 2018 and the emergence of a 6-3 conservative majority, there is less certainty about how the justices might evaluate animus related arguments in the context of disputes over issues of gay or transgender rights, Lau said, especially relative to how they were expected to look at the reasoning central to the Bostock decision just five years ago. 

“I would have liked to see more” engagement with animus in the Skrmetti opinions, Lau said. Barrett in her concurrence did address the question, writing that there was a rational basis for Tennessee legislators’ SB 1, in contrast with the court’s findings in Romer, where the “sheer breadth” of law was “so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the [law] seem[ed] inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affect[ed]”.) 

“To be sure, an individual law ‘inexplicable by anything but animus’ is unconstitutional,” Barrett said. “But legislatures have many valid reasons to make policy in these areas, and so long as a statute is a rational means of pursuing a legitimate end, the Equal Protection Clause is satisfied.” 

Lau said that notwithstanding her position on Skrmetti, the fact that Barrett “did make reference to the animus jurisprudence suggests that there is potentially a future for animus doctrine, even in the post-Kennedy Supreme Court.” 

Rather than the animus doctrine or Bostock’s reasoning that gender identity discrimination constitutes sex based discrimination, the court relied on Geduldig v. Aiello (1974), Lau said, which found that pregnancy discrimination “is not a type of sex discrimination” and remains a case that “strikes so many people as being incorrectly decided.” 

“Whenever I teach Geduldig v. Aiello, my students are shocked by the court’s reasoning,” he said, “and it’s so formalistic in its reasoning that it’s so divorced from people’s lived experiences.”

The same can be said for the majority opinion and concurrences in Skrmetti, Lau said, where the justices said “that even if transgender kids are the only ones seeking treatment for gender dysphoria, not all transgender kids are seeking this treatment, and kids can still get the treatment if they have a different type of diagnosis” such as any of the conditions delineated in the exceptions that were written into SB 1 and similar laws in other states. 

“One day, I imagine teaching [Skrmetti] and my students will be, likewise, shocked at the Court’s exceedingly formalistic reasoning,” he added. 

Legal challenges to anti-trans healthcare bans in a post-Skrmetti world

After Skrmetti, Lau said he expects to see cases challenging bans and restrictions on healthcare for trans youth that are based on state constitutional claims, noting “a case where there was a recent victory in Montana based on Montana’s constitution,” a win that came despite the fact that it was decided in a place that “might not strike you as particularly hospitable to transgender rights.” 

“The state constitutional law claims are particularly promising,” he said, “but it’ll be very context specific,” with the cases ultimately turning on the language contained in these different constitutions and “what sort of jurisprudence we have in each particular state.” 

Per Lambda Legal, “On Dec. 11, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a preliminary injunction that (Senate Bill) 99 was likely unconstitutional under the Montana state constitution’s privacy clause, which prohibits government intrusion on private medical decisions. The ruling rested entirely on state constitutional grounds, insulating transgender adolescents, their families and health care providers from any potential negative outcome at the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Lau said the remaining two primary avenues for challenging anti-trans healthcare restrictions are likely to be animus based claims and cases grounded in arguments about parental rights, a phrase that often crops up in the context of efforts to undermine rather than strengthen freedoms and protections for LGBTQ people. 

The reasoning was cited in a 2023 decision by a federal judge in Idaho who temporarily struck down the state’s ban on gender affirming care for kids, writing: “Transgender children should receive equal treatment under the law … Parents should have the right to make the most fundamental decisions about how to care for their children.”

Asked whether he believes jurists will consider parental rights or animus the more persuasive argument, Lau demurred, telling the Blade “I would be hesitant to say which one is more promising,” noting that animus claims often turn on very specific evidence that might show for example that the lawmakers behind a ban or restriction on transgender medicine were driven by sex stereotypes, irrational fear, or disgust toward a particular group.  

Animus and the intersex exceptions 

Asked whether anti-trans legislators are being counseled to avoid overt expressions of anti-trans sentiment or prejudice for fear that they might provide grounds for a successful legal challenge against their gender affirming care bans, he said “I think that’s very possible,” adding that “legislators are savvier now in terms of concealing their motives and their biases.”

“Philosopher Martha Nussbaum was monumental and unpacking disgust as an element of animus,” Lau said. “And so in my article, I try to unpack it to help readers connect the dots that there is this visceral disgust towards both intersex children and transgender minors, and that that can be connected to the doctrine of animus.”

In their paper, Lau and Fedders focused on the potential for courts to find inferred animus in laws like Tennessee’s SB 1 based on how they are structured, with sweeping restrictions on the one hand coupled with exceptions on the other that would allow families to pursue medical interventions for their children only when they have certain conditions or diagnoses. 

“If we couple that with evidence from the legislative record” pointing to animus “there may be a case to be made,” Lau said. 

Both the opinions in Skrmetti and the language of the SB 1 statute address how the law allows otherwise prohibited treatments or interventions to be administered to minors when they are indicated for diagnoses other than gender dysphoria or used for purposes other than gender transitions. 

“They don’t call them intersex exceptions,” Lau said, but rather “exceptions for congenital defects,” defined as “including DSDs, disorders in sexual development — or what many intersex advocates would now refer to as ‘differences’ in sexual development.”

Interact, an intersex rights organization, “filed an amicus brief in Skrmetti that dovetailed with my article in that they argued the intersex exceptions support the idea that there are sex stereotypes that undergird the gender affirming care bans,” he said. 

“I would like to see more discussion of the interplay between transgender rights and intersex rights,” Lau added, noting how questions about intersex vis-a-vis trans identities are relevant beyond the context of healthcare restrictions. For instance, he pointed to the Trump-Vance administration’s directive for the State Department to not allow passport holders to have the gender markers on their documents changed to align with their gender identity, also removing the option to select ‘X’ rather than the male/female binary category.

“The restrictions on passports not only affect transgender folks, but also non-binary and intersex folks as well,” Lau said. “And with respect to the bans on gender affirming care, not only do they restrict transgender youth’s access to gender affirming care, but they reflect and reinforce this understanding of intersex conditions that is very harmful and damaging to intersex youth.”

Related Topics:
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling

Justices declined to revisit the Obergefell decision

Published

2 days ago

on

November 10, 2025

By

Kim Davis at 2015 Values Voters Summit. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Rowan County, Ky., clerk best known for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Following the Obergefell ruling, Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether and has since filed multiple appeals seeking to challenge same-sex marriage protections. The court once again rejected her efforts on Monday.

In this latest appeal, Davis sought to overturn a $100,000 monetary award she was ordered to pay to David Moore and David Ermold, a same-sex couple to whom she denied a marriage license. Her petition also urged the court to use the case as a vehicle to revisit the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

The petition, along with the couple’s brief in opposition, was submitted to the Supreme Court on Oct. 22 and considered during the justices’ private conference on Nov. 7. Davis needed at least four votes for the court to take up her case, but Monday’s order shows she fell short.

Cathy Renna, the director of communications for the National LGBTQ Task Force, a non-profit organization that works towards supporting the LGBQ community through grassroots organizing told the Washington Blade:
“Today’s decision is not surprising given the longshot status of Davis’s claim, but it’s a relief that the Supreme Court will not hear it, given the current make up of the court itself. We hope that this settles the matter and marriage equality remains the law of the land for same-sex couples.”

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released the following statement:

“Today, love won again. When public officials take an oath to serve their communities, that promise extends to everyone — including LGBTQ+ people. The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences.

Thanks to the hard work of HRC and so many, marriage equality remains the law of the land through Obergefell v. Hodges and the Respect for Marriage Act. Even so, we must remain vigilant.

It’s no secret that there are many in power right now working to undermine our freedoms — including marriage equality — and attack the dignity of our community any chance they get. Last week, voters rejected the politics of fear, division, and hate, and chose leaders who believe in fairness, freedom, and the future. In race after race, the American people rejected anti-transgender attacks and made history electing pro-equality candidates up and down the ballot.

And from California to Virginia to New Jersey to New York City, LGBTQ+ voters and Equality Voters made the winning difference. We will never relent and will not stop fighting until all of us are free.”

The Log Cabin Republicans, a organization dedicated to conservative LGBTQ people, praising the Court’s decision.

“After months of hand-wringing and fear-mongering by Gay Inc., Democrats, and the media, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court sided with the American people and common sense and declined to revisit marriage equality,” Interim Executive Director Ed Williams said in a statement. “Just like Justice Amy Coney Barrett hinted at earlier this year, Obergefell is settled. Marriage equality has been, and will continue to be, the law of the land.”

This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

LGBTQ legal leaders to Supreme Court: ‘honor your precedent, protect our families’

Experts insist Kim Davis case lacks merit

Published

5 days ago

on

November 7, 2025

By

Protesters outside of the Supreme Court fly an inclusive Pride flag in December 2024. (Washington Blade Photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court considered hearing a case from Kim Davis on Friday that could change the legality of same-sex marriage in the United States.

Davis, best known as the former county clerk for Rowan County, Ky., who defied federal court orders by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — and later, to any couples at all — is back in the headlines this week as she once again attempts to get Obergefell v. Hodges overturned on a federal level.

She has tried to get the Supreme Court to overturn this case before — the first time was just weeks after the initial 2015 ruling — arguing that, in her official capacity as a county clerk, she should have the right to refuse same-sex marriage licenses based on her First Amendment rights. The court has emphatically said Davis, at least in her official capacity as a county clerk, does not have the right to act on behalf of the state while simultaneously following her personal religious beliefs.

The Washington Blade spoke with Karen Loewy, interim deputy legal director for litigation at Lambda Legal, the oldest and largest national legal organization advancing civil rights for the LGBTQ community and people living with HIV through litigation, education, and public policy, to discuss the realistic possibilities of the court taking this case, its potential implications, and what LGBTQ couples concerned about this can do now to protect themselves.

Loewy began by explaining how the court got to where it is today.

“So Kim Davis has petitioned the Supreme Court for review of essentially what was [a] damages award that the lower court had given to a couple that she refused a marriage license to in her capacity as a clerk on behalf of the state,” Loewy said, explaining Davis has tried (and failed) to get this same appeal going in the past. “This is not the first time that she has asked the court to weigh in on this case. This is her second bite at the apple at the U.S. Supreme Court, and in 2020, the last time that she did this, the court denied review.”

Davis’s entire argument rests on her belief that she has the ability to act both as a representative of the state and according to her personal religious convictions — something, Loewy said, no court has ever recognized as a legal right.

“She’s really claiming a religious, personal, religious exemption from her duties on behalf of the state, and that’s not a thing.”

That, Loewy explained, is ultimately a good thing for the sanctity of same-sex marriage.

“I think there’s a good reason to think that they will, yet again, say this is not an appropriate vehicle for the question and deny review.”

She also noted that public opinion on same-sex marriage remains overwhelmingly positive.

“The Respect for Marriage Act is a really important thing that has happened since Obergefell. This is a federal statute that mandates that marriages that were lawfully entered, wherever they were lawfully entered, get respect at the federal level and across state lines.”

“Public opinion around marriage has changed so dramatically … even at the state level, you’re not going to see the same immediate efforts to undermine marriages of same-sex couples that we might have a decade ago before Obergefell came down.”

A clear majority of U.S. adults — 65.8 percent — continue to support keeping the Obergefell v. Hodges decision in place, protecting the right to same-sex marriage. That support breaks down to 83 percent of liberals, 68 percent of moderates, and about half of conservatives saying they support marriage equality. These results align with other recent polling, including Gallup’s May 2025 estimate showing 68 percent support for same-sex marriage.

“Where we are now is quite different from where we were in terms of public opinion … opponents of marriage equality are loud, but they’re not numerous.”

Loewy also emphasized that even if, by some chance, something did happen to the right to marry, once a marriage is issued, it cannot be taken back.

“First, the Respect for Marriage Act is an important reason why people don’t need to panic,” she said. “Once you are married, you are married, there isn’t a way to sort of undo marriages that were lawfully licensed at the time.”

She continued, explaining that LGBTQ people might feel vulnerable right now as the current political climate becomes less welcoming, but there is hope — and the best way to respond is to move thoughtfully.

“I don’t have a crystal ball. I also can’t give any sort of specific advice. But what I would say is, you know, I understand people’s fear. Everything feels really vulnerable right now, and this administration’s attacks on the LGBTQ community make everybody feel vulnerable for really fair and real reasons. I think the practical likelihood of Obergefell being reversed at this moment in time is very low. You know, that doesn’t mean there aren’t other, you know, case vehicles out there to challenge the validity of Obergefell, but they’re not on the Supreme Court’s doorstep, and we will see how it all plays out for folks who feel particularly concerned and vulnerable.”

Loewy went on to say there are steps LGBTQ couples and families can take to safeguard their relationships, regardless of what the court decides. She recommended getting married (if that feels right for them) and utilizing available legal tools such as estate planning and relationship documentation.

“There are things, steps that they can take to protect their families — putting documentation in place and securing relationships between parents and children, doing estate planning, making sure that their relationship is recognized fully throughout their lives and their communities. Much of that is not different from the tools that folks have had at their disposal prior to the availability of marriage equality … But I think it behooves everyone to make sure they have an estate plan and they’ve taken those steps to secure their family relationships.”

“I think, to the extent that the panic is rising for folks, those are tools that they have at their disposal to try and make sure that their family and their relationships are as secure as possible,” she added.

When asked what people can do at the state and local level to protect these rights from being eroded, Loewy urged voters to support candidates and initiatives that codify same-sex marriage at smaller levels — which would make it more difficult, if not impossible, for a federal reversal of Obergefell to take effect.

“With regard to marriage equality … states can be doing … amend state constitutions, to remove any of the previous language that had been used to bar same-sex couples from marrying.”

Lambda Legal CEO Kevin Jennings echoed Loewy’s points in a statement regarding the possibility of Obergefell being overturned:

“In the United States, we can proudly say that marriage equality is the law,” he said via email. “As the Supreme Court discusses whether to take up for review a challenge to marriage equality, Lambda Legal urges the court to honor what millions of Americans already know as a fundamental truth and right: LGBTQ+ families are part of the nation’s fabric.

“LGBTQ+ families, including same-sex couples, are living in and contributing to every community in this country: building loving homes and small businesses, raising children, caring for pets and neighbors, and volunteering in their communities. The court took note of this reality in Obergefell v. Hodges, citing the ‘hundreds of thousands of children’ already being raised in ‘loving and nurturing homes’ led by same-sex couples. The vows that LGBTQ+ couples have taken in their weddings might have been a personal promise to each other. Still, the decision of the Supreme Court is an unbreakable promise affirming the simple truth that our Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law to all, not just some.”

He noted the same things Loewy pointed out — namely that, at minimum, the particular avenue Davis is attempting to use to challenge same-sex marriage has no legal footing.

“Let’s be clear: There is no case here. Granting review in this case would unnecessarily open the door to harming families and undermine our rights. Lower courts have found that a government employee violates the law when she refuses to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples as her job requires. There is no justifiable reason for the court to revisit settled law or destabilize families.”

He also addressed members of the LGBTQ community who might be feeling fearful at this moment:

“To our community, we say: this fight is not new. Our community has been fighting for decades for our right to love whom we love, to marry and to build our families. It was not quick, not easy, not linear. We have lived through scary and dark times before, endured many defeats, but we have persevered. When we persist, we prevail.”

And he issued a direct message to the court, urging justices to honor the Constitution over one person’s religious beliefs.

“To the court, we ask it to honor its own precedent, to honor the Constitution’s commands of individual liberty and equal protection under the law, and above all, to honor the reality of LGBTQ families — deeply rooted in every town and city in America. There is no reason to grant review in this case.”

Kenneth Gordon, a partner at Brinkley Morgan, a family law firm that works with individuals and couples, including same-sex partners, to meet their legal and financial goals, also emphasized the importance of not panicking and of using available documentation processes such as estate planning.

“From a purely legal standpoint, overturning Obergefell v. Hodges would present significant complications. While it is unlikely that existing same-sex marriages would be invalidated, particularly given the protections of the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act, states could regain the authority to limit or prohibit future marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That would create a patchwork of laws across the country, where a couple could be legally married in one state but not recognized as married if they moved to or even visited another state.

“The legal ripple effects could be substantial. Family law issues such as adoption, parental rights, inheritance, health care decision-making, and property division all rely on the legal status of marriage. Without uniform recognition, couples could face uncertainty in areas like custody determinations, enforcement of spousal rights in medical emergencies, or the ability to inherit from a spouse without additional legal steps.

“Courts generally strive for consistency, and creating divergent state rules on marriage recognition would reintroduce conflicts that Obergefell was intended to resolve. From a legal systems perspective, that inconsistency would invite years of litigation and impose significant personal and financial burdens on affected families.”

Finally, Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson issued a statement about the possibility of the Supreme Court deciding to hear Davis’s appeal:

“Marriage equality isn’t just the law of the land — it’s woven into the fabric of American life,” said Robinson. “For more than a decade, millions of LGBTQ+ couples have gotten married, built families, and contributed to their communities. The American people overwhelmingly support that freedom. But Kim Davis and the anti-LGBTQ+ extremists backing her see a cynical opportunity to attack our families and re-litigate what’s already settled. The court should reject this paper-thin attempt to undermine marriage equality and the dignity of LGBTQ+ people.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court rules White House can implement anti-trans passport policy

ACLU, Lambda Legal filed lawsuits against directive.

Published

6 days ago

on

November 6, 2025

By

(Bigstock photo)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday said the Trump-Vance administration can implement a policy that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers.

President Donald Trump once he took office signed an executive order that outlined the policy. A memo the Washington Blade obtained directed State Department personnel to “suspend any application where the applicant is seeking to change their sex marker from that defined in the executive order pending further guidance.”

The White House only recognizes two genders: male and female.

The American Civil Liberties Union in February filed a lawsuit against the passport directive on behalf of seven trans and nonbinary people.

A federal judge in Boston in April issued a preliminary junction against it. A three-judge panel on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in September ruled against the Trump-Vance administration’s motion to delay the move.

A federal judge in Maryland also ruled against the passport policy. (Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven trans people.)

 “This is a heartbreaking setback for the freedom of all people to be themselves, and fuel on the fire the Trump administration is stoking against transgender people and their constitutional rights,” said Jon Davidson, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, in a statement. “Forcing transgender people to carry passports that out them against their will increases the risk that they will face harassment and violence and adds to the considerable barriers they already face in securing freedom, safety, and acceptance. We will continue to fight this policy and work for a future where no one is denied self-determination over their identity.”

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

The Supreme Court ruling is here.

Continue Reading

Popular