Lambda Legal: Last News

report from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.Additionally, no openly transgender or nonbinary judge has ever been nominated, let alone confirmed, to the federal bench. An openly LGBTQ person has never served on nine of the 13 federal circuit courts, or on 77 of the country’s 94 federal district courts.An openly LGBTQ person has also never served as a lifetime district court judge in 39 states — or within the borders of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction extends to the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.“Having more judges, including openly LGBTQ judges, who come from all of our communities helps to build more trust in the judiciary and brings vitally important perspectives into our justice system,” Lena Zwarensteyn, senior director of the fair courts program at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a statement.“As LGBTQ rights are being subject to litigation across the country, it is increasingly clear that we need judges at all levels of the judiciary who understand what’s at stake.

a pair of executive orders from President Donald Trump seeking to criminalize the provision of gender-affirming health care to transgender youth.U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson, of the District of Maryland, granted a preliminary injunction to the families of several transgender young adults and adolescents whose access to gender-affirming care was disrupted by Trump’s orders.

The Washington Free Beacon, the U.S. State Department has adopted a “One Flag Policy” order, which permits only the American flag to be flown at U.S. facilities.“Starting immediately, only the United States of America flag is authorized to be flown or displayed at U.S.

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.

2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the high court found that the Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ people from workplace discrimination.“Applied here, Bostock’s reasoning leads to the conclusion that the Policy intentionally discriminates against Plaintiffs based in part on sex,” McHugh wrote on behalf of herself and Judge Richard Federico. “Take [plaintiff] Ms.

filed a lawsuit against West Virginia officials on behalf of a Medicaid participant, Christopher Fain, who was denied coverage for gender confirmation surgery. That same lawsuit also previously challenged a similar exclusion contained in West Virginia’s state employee health insurance plan on behalf of two state employees who could not obtain coverage for gender-affirming treatments, either for themselves or their dependents.Lambda Legal subsequently added additional transgender plaintiffs to the case, including Shauntae Anderson.The state employee plaintiffs’ claims were eventually resolved by a 2022 settlement with The Health Plan of West Virginia, Inc., which removed its exclusion on gender-affirming care.The lawsuit subsequently resumed, challenging only the Medicaid exclusion.In August 2022, a federal judge ruled that West Virginia’s Medicaid program could no longer discriminate against transgender recipients by failing to cover the cost of surgical care deemed medically necessary for treating a person’s gender dysphoria.

Supreme Court decision finding that the Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ workers from workplace discrimination, and that instances of anti-LGBTQ discrimination are inherently a form of sex-based discrimination.The revised Title IX rules also restore some protections for students who make sexual assault allegations against other students, offering them alternatives to Trump-era policies that required live hearings in which students could cross-examine each other when an accusation was contested.Democrats, including some LGBTQ advocates, had long criticized the Trump-era policies, arguing they were overly deferential to students accused of sexual violence.The new rules also expand the types of harassment complaints that schools are required to investigate, asserting that schools must address any unwelcome sex-based conduct that is so “severe or pervasive” that it limits a student’s equal access to an education, but do not completely roll back provisions instituted under former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos intended to bolster accused students’ due process rights.“These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights,” Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said in a call with reporters on Thursday.Regarding the explicit LGBTQ protections, Caronda added, “No one should face bullying or discrimination just because of who they are, who they love.

separate court case.However, since 2022, the Pentagon has stopped discharging active-duty service members due to their HIV status.That year, a Virginia federal judge ruled that the military could not discharge, refuse to commission, or categorically bar people with HIV from deploying, especially if they are asymptomatic and virally suppressed — making it highly unlikely that they can pass the virus to others.Additionally, in 2022, Davidson County voters approved an amendment to Metro Nashville’s charter removing the requirement that police recruits abide by military fitness standards, instead allowing the Civil Service Commission to set its own requirements. Subsequently, in 2023, Doe, enlisting the help of Lambda Legal, sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, arguing that the Metro Nashville Police Department’s policies were not only discriminatory but violated federal law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act.As part of the settlement, the Metro Nashville government not only must provide Doe with monetary relief, but agrees to update and rewrite the city’s Civil Service Medical Examiner’s policies to make clear that people living with HIV are no longer categorically banned from serving as first responders or police officers.“I feel vindicated,” Doe said following the settlement.

initially flagged 374 books for removal from shelves for possible violations, eventually reducing that number to 64.Similarly, the Norwalk Community School District also issued a list of 64 books for removal. Mason City banned 20 books from its schools, using artificial intelligence to help determine which ones should be banned — resulting in some classic novels, like The Handmaid’s Tale and Beloved, being banned.Republican Gov.

A coalition of key LGBTQ+ and immigrants’ rights groups has come forward with a strong condemnation of potential revisions to the United States asylum system. In a letter addressed to President Joe Biden, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, and members of Congress, organizations including Immigration Equality, the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, and Lambda Legal have outlined severe concerns regarding the implications of these changes for LGBTQ+ asylum seekers. Photo: Provided by The White House

The News & Observer.The law bans minors from accessing gender-affirming treatments and threatens medical providers who assist transgender minors in accessing them with the loss of their license. It also prohibits state funds, including Medicaid dollars, from being used to cover the cost of gender-affirming care.

Idaho’s law is similar to laws in at least eight other states that have passed laws in recent years barring transgender students from using school facilities matching their gender identity — although it does not go as far as laws in North Dakota and Florida that go beyond schools to prohibit transgender people from accessing gender-affirming restrooms in some or all government buildingsHowever, Idaho’s law does contain what critics have called a “bounty” — in which cisgender students and their parents may sue schools for up to $5,000 if they find a transgender student using facilities that do not match that student’s assigned sex at birth. As a result, the plaintiffs have claimed, the law encourages people to seek out and harass transgender students in the hope of finding them violating the law in exchange for a monetary award.Under the now-blocked law, schools would have been required to provide a “reasonable accommodation” for transgender students unwilling or unable to use restrooms matching their assigned sex at birth.

The law, SB 49, which is scheduled to take effect on August 28, prohibits health care providers in Missouri from prescribing puberty blockers, hormones, or gender confirmation surgery — the latter of which rarely is prescribed for those under 18 — to minors suffering from gender dysphoria.The law contains an exception for those who have already begun gender-affirming care that will allow them to continue receiving it if their doctors believe that stopping treatment would do more harm.The law also prohibits Medicaid from covering the cost of any transition-related treatments or procedures, regardless of the age of the patient — meaning low-income transgender adults are effectively barred from accessing gender-affirming care, and prohibits incarcerated individuals from obtaining gender confirmation surgery.The lawsuit argues that the ban is unconstitutional, violating the rights of transgender youth by discriminating against them on the basis of both sex and gender identity, and violating parents’ fundamental right to make decisions they believe to be in the best interest of their children.The lawsuit also claims that, unless the court issues an injunction to block Missouri from enforcing the law, all the plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed. By banning the transgender youth from accessing gender-affirming care, the state is likely to exacerbate the youths’ feelings of anxiety and gender dysphoria, as well as lead to potential mental health issues.

school facilities law, which was signed into law by Republican Gov. Brad Little in March and took effect beginning on July 1, requires all public and charter schools serving students in grades K-12 prohibit transgender students from accessing multi-user restrooms and other facilities that do not match their assigned sex at birth. Beginning in 2016, various schools throughout the state adopted policies allowing transgender students to use facilities matching their gender identity, meaning that some students who previously used restrooms or locker rooms matching their gender identity, without incident, will now be barred from the very same facilities they used the previous school year.The family of the seventh-grader and the student association argue in their lawsuit that the school facilities law discriminates against transgender students on the basis of gender identity and violates their right to privacy.

rule prohibiting Medicaid from covering the cost of gender-affirming medical treatments that assist a transgender-identifying person in transitioning.The rule, approved last August by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, applies to treatments sought out by both minors and adults, declaring that transition-related treatments do not “meet the definition of medical necessity” to qualify for coverage under Medicaid.The rule was passed as Florida officials have sought to crack down on all forms of LGBTQ visibility, including passing a law blocking transgender youth from accessing gender-affirming treatments.Under the administration of Republican Gov.

signed into law in 2021.However, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, saying they would have granted Morrisey’s request.A federal judge previously blocked the law from taking effect while a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ban proceeds.The plaintiff in the case, 12-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson, is a transgender girl who tried to join her middle school girls’ cross-country team, but was informed that she would be barred from the team due to the law prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in female-designated sports.Pepper-Jackson sued state officials, her local school board, the West Virginia Board of Education, and the West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission, arguing that the law is unconstitutional and discriminatory.In July 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Goodwin, of the Southern District of West Virginia, issued an injunction blocking the law from taking effect on the grounds that Pepper-Jackson was likely to prevail in her claim that the law is discriminatory.Six months later, Goodwin rejected Pepper-Jackson’s claim that the law violates Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination, finding the ban constitutional and asserting that the state had a legitimate interest in ensuring cisgender female athletes are not disadvantaged by having to compete against athletes assigned male at birth.

According to a Texas federal judge Reed O’Connor, insuring against HIV transmission violates the religious freedom of businesses that object to LGBTQ+ people, meaning insurance companies cannot be forced to cover the medicines. As a result of his ruling, a host of preventative services required to be covered by insurance providers under the Affordable Care Act are in doubt. Photo: Screen grab from Administrative Office of the United States Courts’ video.

Nick Harrison of the D.C. Army National Guard, sued after he had his request for a medical waiver rejected after he tried to commission as a Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAG) officer.Two airmen, using the pseudonyms Richard Roe and Victor Voe to protect their identities and private medical information, sued after the Air Force tried to forcibly discharge them on the grounds that their HIV status made them “unfit for military service” — despite testimonials to the contrary from their commanding officers and personal care providers.Both the Harrison and Roe cases were combined for purposes of discovery and argument, with the plaintiffs challenging the military’s longstanding ban on active-duty service members with HIV.

voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit last week, while reserving the right to sue in the future if similar restrictions are reintroduced at a later point in time.  She is currently in the process of becoming a licensed foster parent.“Providing a loving, nurturing home for a refugee child is my desire,” Easter said in a statement.

brief, which casts Smith’s refusal to serve same-sex couples as a matter of religious freedom and artistic expression protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Smith, the owner of the firm 303 Creative LLC, claims that she should be allowed to refuse to create websites for same-sex couples on the basis of her personal religious beliefs opposing homosexuality, and her refusal to communicate a message that implicitly supports same-sex marriage.Enlisting the help of the anti-LGBTQ legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, Smith sued the state of Colorado in 2016, demanding an exemption from the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses that open themselves up as places of public accommodation from discriminating against people based on sexual orientation.Smith claims she will do some work for LGBTQ clients, but creating wedding websites for those individuals would not only violate her religious beliefs but would violate her freedom of artistic expression, as each website she creates is a specially-tailored, one-of-a-kind product reflecting her own creativity.A federal district judge ruled against Smith in September 2019, finding that her proposal to post a statement outlining her objection to promoting same-sex weddings “proposes an unlawful act” because it would deny services to same-sex couples on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Harper Jean Tobin, center, speaks at a rally for transgender health in front of the White House on May 29, 2019. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)