糖心Vlog

TOPEKA, KAN. 鈥� In a victory for transgender Kansans, a Kansas state appeals court has reversed a district court decision barring the Kansas government from making changes to gender markers on driver鈥檚 licenses. In July 2023, Attorney General Kobach filed a lawsuit in state court against the Kansas government agency that issues driver鈥檚 licenses, asking the court to hold that a state law, S.B. 180, prohibits transgender people from changing their gender markers on their driver鈥檚 licenses. A trial judge granted a temporary injunction, which has blocked the Kelly administration from allowing gender marking changes while the case goes forward. The 糖心Vlogof Kansas, the ACLU, and Stinson LLP intervened in the case on behalf of five transgender Kansans who have been harmed by an unconstitutional effort by Kobach to ban and reverse changes to the gender markers on their driver鈥檚 licenses. Today, in a unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel, the Kansas Court of Appeals lifted the trial court鈥檚 injunction, which has prevented transgender people from changing the gender markers on their driver鈥檚 licenses to reflect their gender identity. The Court of Appeals observed that there was no evidence 鈥渂eyond mere speculation鈥� to support the trial court鈥檚 finding that allowing transgender people to change their gender markers would somehow impair the identification of criminal suspects. The Court of Appeals also held AG Kobach had not shown a substantial likelihood of prevailing on his view that S.B. 180 requires all new and renewed driver鈥檚 licenses to list the driver鈥檚 sex assigned at birth. Under today鈥檚 decision, the temporary ban is reversed, and the Kansas Department of Revenue may resume allowing Kansans to change their gender markers on their driver鈥檚 licenses. The Attorney General has thirty days to appeal. 鈥淭his decision recognizes that the Attorney General failed to show any harm at all in allowing transgender Kansans the same personal autonomy, privacy, and dignity that all Kansans have,鈥� said D.C. Hiegert, Civil Liberties Legal Fellow for the 糖心Vlogof Kansas. 鈥淏eing required to use a license with the wrong gender marker has already meant that transgender Kansans have been outed against their consent in their daily lives. We commend the incredible courage and sense of community our clients have had in standing up to this attack on all of our fundamental rights.鈥� 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision is a welcome victory for our clients and the rights of all people to safe, usable identity documents,鈥� said Julie Murray, Co-Director of the ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative. 鈥淭he Attorney General鈥檚 move to target transgender people in this way has always been baseless and discriminatory. As this case returns to the lower courts, we will continue to defend the ability of all Kansans to access driver鈥檚 licenses that reflect who they know themselves to be.鈥�

Anti-trans laws aren鈥檛 just about bathrooms or sports, they鈥檙e about systematically pushing trans individuals out of public life.

WASHINGTON 鈥� A federal district court judge has granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a Trump Administration executive order prohibiting federal Bureau of Prisons (鈥淏OP鈥�) officials from providing gender-affirming hormone therapy and accommodations to transgender people. The injunction does not require BOP to provide gender-affirming surgical care. The court also granted the plaintiff鈥檚 motion for a class certification and extended injunctive relief to the full class, which encompasses all persons who are or will be incarcerated in BOP facilities and have a current medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria or who receive that diagnosis in the future. 鈥淭his is a critical ruling for our clients and all transgender people in Bureau of Prisons custody,鈥� said Corene Kendrick, Deputy Director of the ACLU鈥檚 National Prison Project. 鈥淭his administration鈥檚 cruelty towards transgender people disregards their rights under the Constitution. The denial of medically necessary health care, including gender-affirming health care, to people in prison is a violation of their fundamental constitutional rights. We will continue to advocate for the rights of all incarcerated people.鈥� 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling is made possible by the courageous plaintiffs who fought to protect their rights and the rights of transgender people everywhere,鈥� said Shawn Thomas Meerkamper, Managing Attorney at Transgender Law Center. 鈥淭his administration鈥檚 continued targeting of transgender people is cruel and threatens the lives of all people. No person鈥攊ncarcerated or not, transgender or not鈥攕hould have their rights to medically-necessary care denied. We are grateful the court understood that our clients deserve basic dignity and healthcare, and we will continue to fight alongside them.鈥� "Today's ruling is an important lifeline for trans people in federal custody," said Michael Perloff, Senior Staff Attorney at ACLU-D.C. 鈥淭he ruling is also a critical reminder to the Trump administration that trans people, like all people, have constitutional rights that don't simply disappear because the president has decided to wage an ideological battle." Following a January 20 executive order from President Trump that prohibited gender-affirming care for transgender people in federal prisons, the BOP issued a policy stating that "no Bureau of Prisons funds are to be expended for any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate鈥檚 appearance to that of the opposite sex.鈥� It also prohibits clothing and commissary items it deems inconsistent with a person鈥檚 assigned sex, and requires all BOP staff to misgender transgender people. In March, two transgender men and one transgender woman serving sentences in facilities in New Jersey, Minnesota, and Florida filed a class action lawsuit against the Trump Administration and BOP, challenging the Executive Order and new BOP policies prohibiting their access to gender-affirming care. The class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of approximately 2,000 transgender people incarcerated in federal prisons across the United States. All three plaintiffs were diagnosed with gender dysphoria by BOP medical providers and prescribed hormone therapy by health care staff, but either had their treatments suspended or were told they would be suspended soon. The filing argues this policy violates the Eighth Amendment鈥檚 prohibition on 鈥渃ruel and unusual punishment,鈥� which federal courts have long held includes the denial of medically necessary health care, including access to gender-affirming care. It also argues that the policy violates the equal protection requirement of the 5th Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The case was filed on behalf of the three plaintiffs and all other transgender people in federal prisons by the ACLU, the 糖心Vlogof DC, and the Transgender Law Center. BOP also instructed officials to remove any transgender women held in women鈥檚 facilities and place them in men鈥檚 facilities, an issue under challenge in multiple separate lawsuits. Today鈥檚 order from the court can be found here.

LAWRENCE 鈥� Two transgender adolescents and their parents have filed a challenge in Kansas state court against SB 63, a law passed earlier this year prohibiting access to gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender people under 18. Filed by the 糖心Vlogand the 糖心Vlogof Kansas in District Court of Douglas County, Loe v. Kansas charges SB 63 with violating the Kansas Constitution鈥檚 guarantees of equal protection and fundamental rights. The case was filed pseudonymously on behalf of 16-year-old Ryan Roe and his mother Rebecca Roe as well as 13-year-old Lily Loe and her mother Lisa Loe. "Our clients and every Kansan should have the freedom to make their own private medical decisions and consult with their doctors without the intrusion of Kansas politicians," said D.C. Hiegert, Civil Liberties Legal Fellow for the 糖心Vlogof Kansas. "SB 63 is a particularly harmful example of politicians' overreach and their efforts to target, politicize, and control the healthcare of already vulnerable Kansas families. We are honored to represent our clients in standing up for their constitutional rights and in fighting back against this threat to our communities." 鈥淏ans like SB 63 have already had catastrophic effects on the families of transgender youth across the country,鈥� said Harper Seldin, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU鈥檚 LGBTQ & HIV Project. 鈥淭hese bans have uprooted many families from the only homes they鈥檝e ever known while forcing many more to watch their young people suffer knowing a politician stands between them and their family doctor鈥檚 best medical judgment. We are determined for every state to be a safe place to raise every family, and that means fighting SB 63 until all transgender Kansans have the freedom to be themselves.鈥� SB 63 prohibits medical providers in the state of Kansas from providing gender-affirming medical treatments, such as hormone therapies and pubertal suppressants, to transgender youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The law allows these same treatments to be provided to cisgender youth for any other reason. SB 63 was passed by the Kansas state legislature in January then vetoed by Governor Laura Kelly, who said in her veto statement 鈥渋t is not the job of politicians to stand between a parent and a child who needs medical care of any kind.鈥� The legislature overrode her veto and SB 63 took effect on February 20. The complaint filed today can be found here.