American Civil Liberties Union: Last News

challenge the law in court last month, were likely to suffer “immediate” harm, in the form of reduced access to health care providers willing to treat their gender dysphoria, if the law — which imposes penalties on doctors who prescribe gender-affirming treatments — were to take effect.Holbrook found that, because the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their lawsuit, it was best to issue a temporary restraining order “maintaining the status quo while the Court can more thoroughly review the evidence and argument following a full hearing.”Holbrook also noted that the whole law had to be blocked because lawmakers combined the bill banning gender-affirming care with a separate bill banning transgender athletes from women’s sports to gain the necessary votes to pass the Republican-controlled state legislature.In December, Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed the bill from taking effect, expressing qualms about infringing on parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their own children.

The Montana Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction blocking the state from enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth.The unanimous ruling is historic, marking the first time that a state Supreme Court has found that a ban on gender-affirming care is likely unconstitutional.On December 11, the court ruled that SB 99, a 2023 law categorically banning all transition-related medical interventions on minors, violates the Montana State Constitution’s privacy clause, which prohibits the government from interfering with private medical decisions.With the law blocked, transgender youth will still be able to access medical treatments for gender dysphoria — provided that their personal care physician does not refuse transgender patients due to intimidation or fear of being prosecuted.Several transgender teens, their families, and two medical providers filed suit last year to block the law, arguing that it violated the Montana constitution’s guarantee of medical privacy.

sued to challenge the state’s Policy Order 63, arguing that the surgical requirement violates their constitutional rights by forcing them to undergo a costly, invasive, and — depending on their unique form of gender dysphoria — potentially unnecessary medical procedure just to have their identities recognized as valid by the state. Currently, eight other states have similar requirements in place.Additionally, state officials only accept some forms of gender confirmation surgery as “proof” that a person has transitioned, meaning that even those who undergo some surgeries can still be denied the right to amend their gender marker.

first-ever PrideFest, last year at the Public Square, a parcel of city-owned property at the center of the town. Approximately 200 people attended the event, held without disruption.PrideFest’s organizers, the Patoka Valley AIDS Community Action Group, expected it would be green-lit this year and filed an application in November 2023 to hold it on September 7, 2024.

filed suit in Polk County court, claiming that the Department of Corrections discriminated against him based on his gender identity, in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act.Vroegh’s case was the first jury lawsuit brought under the Iowa Civil Rights Act since it was amended in 2007 to include protections for gender identity. In February 2019, an Iowa jury found that the Department of Corrections had discriminated against Vroegh on the basis of sex and gender identity through its actions, and awarded him $120,000 in damages. The state later appealed the jury’s verdict to the Iowa Supreme Court, which upheld the jury’s verdict on Friday.“This is a historic victory for civil rights in Iowa, because it makes real the promise of nondiscrimination protections in employment that our legislature put in place for transgender Iowans in 2007,” Rita Bettis Austen, legal director for the ACLU of Iowa, said in a statement.