Federal Appeals Court Urged to Uphold Discrimination Ban in Tax-Funded Public Child Welfare Programs
PHILADELPHIA — Several organizations weighed in yesterday in the first major case related to religiously motivated discrimination since the Supreme Court refused to grant a broad license to discriminate in Masterpiece Cakeshop.
The current case is about whether the city of Philadelphia can require foster care agencies with city contracts to abide by its nondiscrimination policies. The ACLU represents the Support Center for Child Advocates, a nonprofit organization that provides legal representation and services to children in the foster care system, and Philadelphia Family Pride (PFP), a membership organization of LGBTQ parents and prospective parents. In July, a federal court in Michigan rejected the argument that government-contracted child placing agencies have a constitutional right to exclude same-sex couples or other prospective families who don’t meet an agency’s religious test.
Organizations filing friend-of-the-court briefs include:
- Faith organizations including the United Church of Christ, the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis, and more than 30 individual clergy members from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware representing the spectrum of religious communities refuting the suggestions that people of faith as a whole reject LGBT equality and that LGBT equality is at odds with religious liberty
- The Anti-Defamation League, Muslim Advocates, Sikh Coalition, and several other organizations concerned about the impact on minority faiths if tax-funded organizations providing government services are allowed to discriminate based on their religious views
- Seventeen states, including Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Iowa, Illinois, and Oregon, as well as the District of Columbia, explaining why it’s important to the operation of their child welfare systems for agencies to accept all qualified families, and refuting the assertion that their child welfare systems were unable to meet the needs of children when some agencies that were unwilling to comply with nondiscrimination provisions chose to cease providing tax-funded child welfare services
- Child welfare advocates arguing that the best interest of children is met by having the widest range of families available and through long-standing professional standards against discrimination in child placement.
currently have laws or practices that allow LGBTQ people or same-sex couples — or anyone else who doesn’t satisfy an agency’s religious litmus test — to be turned away from state-licensed agencies, most of which are tax-funded. Recently, an amendment was proposed to the federal Health and Human Services budget that would have allowed taxpayer-funded child welfare agencies nationwide to turn away potential adoptive or foster parents based on a provider’s religious beliefs. This amendment was defeated last week. A federal court in Detroit ruled in September that a challenge by two same-sex couples who were turned away from tax-funded child welfare agencies could move forward.
Leslie Cooper, deputy director of the ACLU’s LGBT and HIV Project, issued the following statement:
“In America right now, there are over 400,000 children in foster care, many of whom are placed far from their school and community, separated from siblings, or living in group homes because of the shortage of foster families to care for them. Allowing good families to be turned away because they don’t meet a religious litmus test denies children families they desperately need. Prospective foster parents who want to open their hearts and homes to a child in need, should be judged on one thing: their capacity to provide love and support to a child.”
Oral argument at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has been scheduled for the week of November 5.
For links to the briefs and more information about the case, visit: /cases/fulton-v-city-philadelphia
This release is available online here: /news/federal-appeals-court-urged-uphold-discrimination-ban-tax-funded-public-child-welfare-programs
LGBTQ Rights
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
LGBTQ Rights
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
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.