Families Urge Supreme Court to Allow Block to Remain on Idaho Ban on Medical Care for Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON – Two transgender youth and their parents have to reject an application from the state of Idaho for a partial stay against an injunction currently blocking enforcement of a ban on gender-affirming medical care. The State is asking the Court to allow it to enforce the law with an exception for the Plaintiffs. Given the penalty of up to ten year’s imprisonment for doctors who violate the law, and the fact that the plaintiffs are anonymous in the case, such a ruling would jeopardize their ability to get care.
“Being able to medically transition and see myself, and be seen by others, as the girl I am absolutely saved my life,” said Jane Doe, a transgender 17-year-old girl from Idaho and plaintiff in this case alongside her parents. “Before I told my parents I was transgender, I was isolating myself, depressed, and anxious, and I felt trapped and scared almost daily. I could not see a future for myself — much less the one I have now with the support of my parents, my friends, my school, and my community. I am so grateful that when I told my parents about what I was experiencing, they listened to me, trusted me, and took me to providers who could give me the gender-affirming health care that I needed. I shouldn’t be forced to go without the care my family, my doctors, and I know is right for me.”
In a lawsuit filed in May 2023, two Idaho families assert that HB 71, signed into law by Gov. Brad Little, violates the rights of transgender youth and their parents under the U.S. Constitution. In December 2023, a federal district court judge found the families likely to succeed in their challenge and blocked enforcement of HB 71 while the case goes forward, issuing a preliminary injunction.
After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Idaho’s request for a stay of the injunction to allow the ban to take effect while the appeal proceeds, Idaho asked the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a stay and allow the state to generally enforce HB 71 while the appeal is pending. Today’s filing urges the Supreme Court to deny this extraordinary request and maintain the injunction from the lower court blocking the law. A stay of an injunction at this stage of the legal proceedings by the Supreme Court is rare.
Poe v. Labrador was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Idaho, W/rest Collective, and Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP,
“As this lawsuit makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the State’s intention of trying to erase and undermine the existence of transgender Idahoans has rung clear to our community,” said Paul Carlos Southwick, ACLU of Idaho legal director. “Idaho’s ban is a baseless and dangerous assault on the rights of families to determine what’s best for their transgender youth. Like every other political attack against this medical care, HB 71 is openly discriminatory and a danger to the very youth it claims to protect, injecting politics between their families and their doctors while denying them best-practice, evidence-based medical care.”
“In the interest of our plaintiffs and their rights under the U.S. Constitution, we strongly urge the court to reject this request for a stay,” said Li Nowlin-Sohl, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “The state is asking for an impossibility–to be able to generally enforce the law except as it affects the two plaintiffs. However, the health care they receive depends on a network of providers and pharmacists who would nonetheless be impacted if the state’s request is granted. Thus we ask the Court to maintain the injunction currently in place.”
HB 71 bans puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and certain surgeries if they are used to affirm the gender of transgender people under 18, and threatens medical providers who provide this widely accepted care with a felony conviction and up to 10 years in prison.
The brief filed to the Supreme Court today can be found here.
Poe v. Labrador is a part of the ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.
LGBTQ Rights
Poe v. Labrador
LGBTQ Rights
Poe v. Labrador
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.