Update as of June 28, 2016: Meagan’s complaint has been settled to the satisfaction of the parties.
“911, what’s your emergency?”
There are a lot of situations that may warrant calling 911. But seeing a transgender person is not one of them. But that’s exactly what a hotel manager in West Des Moines, Iowa, did when Meagan Taylor and her friend, both Black transgender women, checked into the hotel.
A few weeks ago, we shared Meagan’s story of being arrested after hotel staff called the police when she and her friend checked into the Drury Inn on their way to a funeral. Meagan wrote about how awful it felt to be targeted and humiliated just because of who you are:
“As a Black trans woman, I am used to unfair and discriminatory treatment, but this was extra upsetting because we were paying customers at a hotel and on our way to a funeral. I felt like I had no rights.”
Her story is haunting.
When we filed a complaint on Meagan’s behalf with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, I wrote:
“Just the fact of their blackness and their transness prompted hotel staff to call the police to report suspected prostitution. This…is all too common for transgender women of color who are regularly suspected of engaging in sex work when just walking down the street or going about their daily routines. It is this type of profiling that leads 47 percent of Black transgender women to be incarcerated at some point in their lives.”
Since the initial filing of the complaint on Meagan’s behalf, the ACLU and the ACLU of Iowa have obtained the audio recording of the 911 call placed by Drury hotel staff after Meagan and her friend checked in.
You can listen here.
There was no emergency. Just two young women stopping for the evening at a hotel. The caller complains that they are “unusual” because they are “two males, but they’re dressed as females with ‘male IDs’ and ‘dressed a little over the top.’” Even the dispatcher is somewhat incredulous that this would prompt anyone to call 911. She questions why the caller is suspicious and the caller explains, that “I just want to make sure they’re not hookers either.”
Meagan and her friend were not men dressed as women. They are women who triggered a set of racialized and gendered assumptions about who is appropriate and welcome in public space — still not transgender people of color in far too many places.
“When this all happened,” Meagan wrote. “I knew exactly what it was: the racial profiling, the transgender profiling, the harassment…I knew why it was happening, and I knew it wasn’t right. I knew something had to change. To experience so many levels of discrimination makes you feel like less of a person. I want to stand up for myself and other Black and transgender people. And so I did.”
Meagan’s story should be a galvanizing reminder of the tremendous amount of work to be done to end discrimination against and violence toward transgender people. We need explicit laws protecting trans people from discrimination in public accommodations, employment, credit, and housing like the law in Iowa that is enabling Meagan to take legal action against the Drury Inn. We need to end barriers to obtaining accurate identification so people like Meagan are not outed to discriminatory strangers when they present their IDs. We need to end the profiling of transgender women of color as sex workers by law enforcement and civilians and disrupt the cycles of poverty, incarceration, and violence that are killing too many in the trans community.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
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.