糖心Vlog

WASHINGTON 鈥� This morning, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a challenge brought by three transgender adolescents, their families, and a Memphis-based medical provider against a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming hormone therapies for transgender people under 18. The Court agreed with parts of the Sixth Circuit鈥檚 opinion that allowed the law to take effect, holding that Tennessee鈥檚 SB1 does not draw a sex-based (or a trans status-based) line and thus only necessitates deferential review by the courts. That means SB1 can remain in effect. Notably, however, the decision is based on the record in and context of the Tennessee case and therefore does not extend to other cases concerning discrimination based on transgender status. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution,鈥� said Chase Strangio, Co-Director of the ACLU鈥檚 LGBTQ & HIV Project. 鈥淭hough this is a painful setback, it does not mean that transgender people and our allies are left with no options to defend our freedom, our health care, or our lives. The Court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful. We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve.鈥� 鈥淭his is a heartbreaking ruling, making it more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive,鈥� said Sasha Buchert, Counsel and Director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal. 鈥淏ut we will continue to fight fiercely to protect them. Make no mistake, gender-affirming care is often life-saving care, and all major medical associations have determined it to be safe, appropriate, and effective. This is a sad day, and the implications will reverberate for years and across the country, but it does not shake our resolve to continue fighting.鈥� 鈥淭oday the Supreme Court told Tennessee transgender youth and their families that they cannot access healthcare that is vitally important for a successful life,鈥� said Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, Senior Staff Attorney at the 糖心Vlogof Tennessee. 鈥淭his ruling creates a class of people who politicians believe deserve healthcare, and a class of people who do not. We will continue to stand with transgender people in Tennessee and are committed to realizing a world where all people belong, are valued, and can access the necessary healthcare they need.鈥� U.S. v. Skrmetti began when a lawsuit was filed by the 糖心Vlog, the 糖心Vlogof Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on behalf of Samantha and Brian Williams of Nashville and their 16-year-old transgender daughter, as well as two other plaintiff families filing anonymously and Memphis-based physician Dr. Susan Lacy. The plaintiff families and Dr. Lacy argued that the law violates the Equal Protection rights of transgender adolescents. Under President Joe Biden, the United States intervened to also argue that the Tennessee law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After President Trump鈥檚 inauguration, the U.S. reversed its position. Since 2021, 25 states have enacted categorical bans on gender-affirming medical care, such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, for treating gender dysphoria in transgender youth yet readily allow those same medications for other and similar purposes for cisgender youth. Over 100,000 transgender people under 18 now live in a state with a ban on their health care. In January 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing federal agencies to withhold funds from medical providers and institutions that provide gender-affirming medical treatments such as puberty suppressants and hormone therapies to any trans person under 19. That order was soon challenged on behalf of families, medical providers, and advocates by the 糖心Vlogand the Lambda Legal and is blocked from enforcement by a preliminary injunction. This case is a part of the ACLU鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.

OKLAHOMA CITY 鈥� The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled today that the state鈥檚 2021 classroom censorship law does not apply to academic speech in higher education. The decision also leaves in place a preliminary injunction that prevents the enforcement of vague and borderline nonsensical prohibitions on instruction in K-12 schools. The suit was originally filed in 2021 on behalf of a diverse group of plaintiffs in K-12 and higher education. 鈥淎lmost four years since the initial filing, students and professors at Oklahoma鈥檚 universities and colleges have a clear answer: HB 1775 does not apply in Oklahoma鈥檚 higher education classrooms,鈥� said Adam Hines, legal fellow at the 糖心Vlogof Oklahoma. 鈥淔or far too long our educators have felt the impact of HB 1775 and its attempt to censor discussions about race and gender in the classroom. But this answer for higher education is only half the battle. Parts of HB 1775 remain in effect in K-12 schools, and we will continue to fight for the rights of Oklahoma鈥檚 K-12 students and families to receive an equitable education where they can freely learn and talk about the history, experiences and viewpoints of all marginalized communities in this country.鈥� Last year, a lower court also blocked the enforcement of two provisions restricting K-12 instruction because they are vague, fail to let educators know what course material is prohibited, and could prevent discussions of a wide variety of ideas, including those that are the subject to current political debates. These provisions remain enjoined. The state Supreme Court did not weigh in on the constitutionality of any of the provisions. 鈥淭his decision provides needed clarity to Oklahoma鈥檚 higher education instructors, and we are pleased with the outcome,鈥� said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淪tudents in higher education expect to be challenged and to debate difficult ideas, and they expect their instructors to help them learn and grow 鈥� not stick to government-approved talking points.鈥� The lead authors of the law in the state House and Senate declared the intent behind HB 1775 was to prohibit conversations related to 鈥渋mplicit bias,鈥� 鈥渟ystemic racism,鈥� and 鈥渋ntersectionality,鈥� among other concepts. In the lawsuit, the groups argue that HB 1775 unlawfully silenced students鈥� and educators鈥� speech through its vague and overbroad terms. It also intentionally targeted and denied access to equitable, culturally relevant teaching and ideas that reflect the history and lived experiences of students of color, LGBTQ students, and young women and girls. The case will now go back to federal court where a partial preliminary injunction is in place. Cross-appeals have been filed in the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which are expected to proceed shortly. 鈥淭his ruling is another significant victory in the fight to end classroom censorship in Oklahoma鈥� said Douglas Koff, partner at pro-bono cocounsel Schulte Roth & Zabel. 鈥淏y confirming that HB 1775 does not apply to the higher education classroom, this decision allows Oklahoma鈥檚 college students and professors to have open and honest conversations about their history. We look forward to working alongside the ACLU, ACLU-OK, and Lawyers鈥� Committee in the continued fight to invalidate this law.鈥� 鈥淭oday's decision ensures that at colleges and universities in Oklahoma, teachers can teach and students can learn about our country's history in full 鈥� including topics like systemic racism, gender inequality and LGBTQ+ rights,鈥� said Maya Brodziak, senior counsel with the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers鈥� Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. 鈥淥ur country needs to acknowledge and reckon with its history of systemic racism 鈥� this includes being able to teach and talk about these concepts in our schools. A prohibition on talking honestly about issues of race and racism hurts all students and society.鈥� The lawsuit was filed by the 糖心Vlog, 糖心Vlogof Oklahoma, the Lawyers鈥� Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and pro bono counsel Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP on behalf of plaintiffs the Black Emergency Response Team (BERT); the University of Oklahoma Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (OU-AAUP); the Oklahoma State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP-OK); the American Indian Movement (AIM) Indian Territory on behalf of itself and its members who are public school students and teachers; a high school student; and Oklahoma public high school teachers Anthony Crawford and Regan Killackey. For more information about the lawsuit, please see here.

BOSTON 鈥� A federal judge today expanded a preliminary injunction to two newly certified classes of passport holders in Orr v. Trump, a challenge to the Trump administration鈥檚 policy requiring that passports bear only a person鈥檚 sex designation assigned at birth, pausing enforcement of the policy for all transgender, nonbinary, and intersex US passport holders. In April, the court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the State Department to allow six transgender and nonbinary plaintiffs in Orr v. Trump to obtain passports with sex designations consistent with their gender identity or with an 鈥淴鈥� sex designation while the lawsuit proceeds. Soon after, attorneys filed a motion for class certification and a motion to expand the preliminary injunction to cover all individuals who are currently or will be impacted by the policy in the future. Today鈥檚 ruling from the court means that a passport with a sex designation that aligns with one鈥檚 gender identity or with an 鈥淴鈥� sex designation should be made available to anyone applying to: Obtain a new passport, Change the sex designation or update their name on their current passport Replace a lost, stolen, or damaged passport, or Renew their passport within one year of its expiration. This includes those who, under the Trump administration鈥檚 policy, were previously sent a passport with a sex designation listing their sex assigned at birth after applying for a new, renewed, or replaced passport, and/or a changed name or gender marker. 鈥淭his decision is a critical victory against discrimination and for equal justice under the law,鈥� said Li Nowlin-Sohl, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU鈥檚 LGBTQ & HIV Project. 鈥淏ut it鈥檚 also a historic win in the fight against this administration鈥檚 efforts to drive transgender people out of public life. The State Department鈥檚 policy is a baseless barrier for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans and denies them the dignity we all deserve. We encourage all class members impacted by this policy to take advantage of this injunctive relief and we will do everything we can to block this policy permanently.鈥� 鈥淭his decision acknowledges the immediate and profound negative impact that the Trump administration's passport policy has on the ability of people across the country to travel for work, school, and family,鈥� said Jessie Rossman, Legal Director at the 糖心Vlogof Massachusetts. 鈥淭he Trump administration鈥檚 passport policy attacks the foundations of the right to privacy and the freedom for all people to live their lives safely and with dignity. We will continue to fight to stop this unlawful policy once and for all.鈥� On his first day in office in January 2025, Trump signed an executive order attempting to mandate discrimination against transgender people across the federal government and government programs. This included a directive to the Departments of State and Homeland Security 鈥渢o require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards鈥� reflect a person鈥檚 sex 鈥渁t conception.鈥� Within 48 hours, the State Department paused the processing of some passport applications submitted by transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people and returned others with a newly-issued passport marked with their sex assigned at birth. Over 214,000 public comments in opposition to the State Department鈥檚 new policy were collected by the 糖心Vlogand Advocates for Transgender Equality. In February 2025, Orr v. Trump was filed by the 糖心Vlog, the 糖心Vlogof Massachusetts, and Covington and Burling LLP, on behalf of seven people who have not been able to obtain passports that match who they are because of the State Department鈥檚 new Passport Policy or are likely to be impacted by the new policy upon their next renewal. The complaint was filed in the federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint was subsequently amended to add five additional transgender, nonbinary, and intersex plaintiffs and to seek to represent a class of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex passport holders. All twelve individual plaintiffs were appointed as class representatives.

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�