US District Court Trial Challenging Arkansas’ Ban on Gender-Affirming Care Begins
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
October 14, 2022
CONTACT:
Gillian Branstetter, ACLU, gbranstetter@aclu.org
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Attorneys from the ACLU and the ACLU of Arkansas will be fighting a statewide ban in Arkansas on best practice medical care for transgender youth in a two-week trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas beginning October 17.
“Arkansas is our home,” said Lacey Jennen, mother of 17-year-old Sabrina. “We have lived here our entire lives, and our parents, siblings, grandparents, church, and entire support system are all here in Arkansas. We do not want to have to leave our home simply to be able to provide necessary medical care for our daughter. Sabrina is an amazing, smart, beautiful person and an incredible daughter. I wish that those politicians who passed this law would take the time to listen to the experiences of trans youth and to get to know people like our daughter.”
“Gender-affirming health care has helped Parker become the happy, healthy, confident guy he is today,” said Donnie Saxton, father of 17-year-old Parker. “Now he’s funny, outgoing, and always ready to face the day. He loves being active in choir, with his friends, and volunteering in our community. His transformation has been amazing to watch. That’s what is so hard about other people trying to take away the medical care that has enabled him to be his best self. I am worried all the progress Parker has made could be undone.”
“Families across Arkansas depend on this life-saving health care, and the effort to ban it is baseless and deadly,” said Holly Dickson, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “The risks of denying this care to young people who need it are grave and well-founded, while the law attempting to ban care has made Arkansas less safe and less welcoming for transgender youth, their families, and all who love them. We’re hopeful the district court will recognize the awful impact this ban has had on young people and their families and will ensure the ban never goes into effect.”
“This case is about the right of all Arkansans to access medical care free from discrimination on the basis of transgender status and sex,” said Chase Strangio, deputy director for Transgender Justice at the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “By singling out care for gender transition for categorical prohibition, Arkansas’ law violates the guarantees of equal protection and due process. As the court will hear, this sweeping intrusion into the rights of parents to access medically recommended treatment for their adolescent children is fundamentally indefensible under any standard of review. We’re so honored for this opportunity to defend the fundamental rights of these families, medical providers, and all transgender Arkansans.”
Four families of transgender youth and two doctors have challenged an Arkansas law that would prohibit healthcare professionals from providing or referring transgender youth under the age of 18 for medically necessary health care. The law would also bar any state funds or insurance coverage for gender-affirming health care for transgender people under 18, and it would allow private insurers to refuse to cover gender-affirming care for people of any age. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleges that House Bill 1570 is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. A preliminary injunction from the district court has blocked enforcement of the law since July 2021 and, in August 2022, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this injunction.
HB 1570 was the first measure in the country outlawing gender-affirming medical care for transgender adolescents. A similar Alabama law is blocked by a May 2022 injunction from a federal district court, and an effort in Texas to treat gender-affirming care as child abuse under existing statutes is partially blocked by two injunctions issued from a Texas state court in March and July of 2022.
The lawsuit in Arkansas was filed by the ACLU’s Jon L. Stryker and Slobodan Randjelović LGBTQ & HIV Project, the ACLU of Arkansas, and the law firms of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Gill Ragon Owen, and the Walas Law Firm.
For more on Brandt et al v. Rutledge et al, click here: https://www.aclu.org/cases/brandt-et-al-v-rutledge-et-al
LGBTQ Rights
Brandt et al v. Rutledge et al
LGBTQ Rights
Brandt et al v. Rutledge et al
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.