PFLAG National Asks Court to Block the Texas Attorney General’s Latest Targeting of Texan Families with Transgender Youth
National nonprofit and its lawyers argue the Office is abusing its power with broad and intrusive demand for organizational records
AUSTIN, Texas – PFLAG National Wednesday night to stop an outrageous and unconstitutional demand from the Texas Attorney General’s Office that PFLAG National turn over information and documents about its support of families in Texas seeking gender-affirming medical care for their transgender youth.
“This mean-spirited demand from the Attorney General’s Office is petty and invasive, which is why we want the court to put an end to it,” said Brian K. Bond (he/him), CEO of PFLAG National. “Across races, places, and genders, our families and communities are stronger when we are free to come together. PFLAG National, our chapters, and our entire community will continue leading with love as we have for the last five decades, providing support, education and advocacy to ensure every LGBTQ+ person in Texas and beyond is safe, celebrated, empowered, and loved.”
On February 9, PFLAG National—which has eighteen chapters in Texas—received civil demands from the Attorney General’s Office to turn over documents, communications, and information related to PFLAG National and the organization’s work helping families with transgender adolescents. PFLAG National is a plaintiff in two lawsuits filed against restrictions on gender-affirming medical care for adolescents in Texas: one lawsuit Loe v. Texas, challenging SB 14, the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors, and PFLAG v. Abbott, challenging the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services’ rule mandating investigations of parents who work with medical professionals to provide their adolescent transgender children with medically necessary healthcare.
Today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and Transgender Law Center filed a separate lawsuit on behalf of PFLAG National in Travis County District Court requesting a temporary restraining order against the Attorney General’s investigative demands on the grounds the Attorney General’s Office is acting outside its authority, attempting to subvert the discovery process in the separate lawsuits challenging SB 14 and the DFPS Rule, and seeking to violate PFLAG’s and its members’ constitutional free speech and association rights, as well as the right to be free from unconstitutional searches and seizures.
“PFLAG National is a beacon of hope for trans youth and their families in Texas,” said Brian Klosterboer (he/him), attorney at the ACLU of Texas. “The organization has repeatedly gone to court to protect the rights of parents and young people to make medical decisions based on evidence and science, rather than fear or politics. Transgender youth know who they are and will not be silenced, even when elected officials relentlessly target them for political gain. The Attorney General Office’s latest attempt to punish organizations for opposing government overreach sets a dangerous precedent for all Texans who advocate on any issue and must be stopped.”
“Targeting PFLAG National as an organization and its members invokes the historical targeting of civil rights organizations that assert the dignity and equality of their members in the face of government oppression,” said Harper Seldin (he/him), attorney at the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “The Attorney General’s Office is attempting to use its powers to intimidate both PFLAG National as an organization and its members in direct opposition to their constitutional speech and association rights. We will never stop fighting for the safety, dignity, and equality of transgender youth and their families in Texas and across the country.”
“Transgender Law Center will continue to fight on behalf of PFLAG National and its members against the continued unconstitutional actions of the office of the Attorney General. This is just another cruel attempt to circumvent the legal system and target families and friends who support transgender people,” said Lynly Egyes (she/her), Legal Director at Transgender Law Center. “Our communities will not be intimidated by the cruel machinations of out-of-touch politicians. We stand with the Texans of all races, genders, and backgrounds who are fighting for the affirming care we all deserve.”
“The Attorney General’s demand of PFLAG National is just another attempt to scare Texas families with transgender adolescents into abandoning their rights and smacks of retaliation against PFLAG National for standing up for those families against the State's persecution.” said Karen Loewy (she/her), Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice, Lambda Legal. “But PFLAG members’ rights to join together for mutual support, community, and encouragement are strong and we will fight to protect them. ”
For background on these cases and more information, visit the FAQ at .
LGBTQ Rights
PFLAG v. Office of the Attorney General of Texas
LGBTQ Rights
PFLAG v. Office of the Attorney General of Texas
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.