Tennessee Families and Medical Provider Urge Supreme Court to Block Ban on Hormone Therapies for Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON – In a landmark upcoming Supreme Court case, transgender adolescents, their families, and a medical provider from Tennessee have of the United States to block a state law banning hormone therapies for trans youth as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
“It was incredibly painful watching my child struggle before we were able to get her the life-saving healthcare she needed,” said plaintiff Samantha Williams, mother of 16-year-old L.W. “We have a confident, happy daughter now, who is free to be herself and she is thriving. Tennessee’s ban has forced us at great expense to seek routine health care visits out of state and may at some point force us to leave Tennessee–the only home our children have ever known. No family should have to make this kind of choice.”
“I don’t even want to think about having to go back to the dark place I was in before I was able to come out and access the care that my doctors have prescribed for me,” said L.W., Samantha and Brian Williams’s 16-year-old daughter. “I want this law to be struck down so that I can continue to receive the care I need, with the support of my parents and my doctors, and have the freedom to live my life and do the things I enjoy.”
The brief filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on behalf of Samantha and Brian Williams of Nashville and their 16-year-old transgender daughter, two other plaintiff families filing anonymously, and Memphis-based medical doctor Dr. Susan Lacy. Today’s brief follows the Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision to hear the challenge brought by the United States and these plaintiffs, and lays out the fundamental flaws of a lower court ruling that allowed Tennessee’s ban to take effect, including the ruling’s brazen disregard of longstanding sex discrimination precedent and of the court’s recent decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, as well as the significant harms the ban has already had on transgender youth across the state.
“The well-being of countless transgender youth in this and future generations rests on this court adhering to the facts, the Constitution, and its own precedent both recent and long-standing,” said Chase Strangio, Co-Director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their Constitutional right to equal protection under the law. They are the result of an openly political effort to wage war on a marginalized group and our most fundamental freedoms. We want transgender people and their families across the country to know we will spare nothing in our defense of you, your loved ones, and your right to decide whether to get this medical care.”
“Access to scientifically proven medical care is essential for transgender youth to thrive,” said Sasha Buchert, counsel and Nonbinary & Transgender Rights Project director, Lambda Legal. “Tennessee has ripped medically necessary health care away from transgender young people that can literally be lifesaving, and that is essential to their ability to live with confidence and joy. And let’s be clear, Tennessee is not prohibiting this medical care for all Tennessee youth—only for trans youth, targeting that most vulnerable population. The Supreme Court must strike down this cruel and discriminatory law and return health care decisions to families and their doctors.”
“Tennessee, along with many other states in the South, has become a testing ground for targeted assaults on the constitutional rights of trans Tennesseans. Every day this law remains in place, it inflicts further pain, injustice, and discrimination on trans youth and their families,” said Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee. “Make no mistake – if the Supreme Court fails to protect trans Tennesseans’ access to the medical care they need to survive and thrive, local politicians will go even further. They will continue to rewrite the history that our schools teach, discriminate based on what we look like, where we’re from, and who we love, and control if, when, and how Tennesseans choose to start their families. By protecting Tennessee trans youth’s right to access the medicine they need to thrive and survive, the Supreme Court can stop politicians from further eroding our freedoms and invading our lives for their own political gain.”
“At this point, only the Supreme Court can stop states like Tennessee from depriving transgender adolescents of the medical care that they, their parents, and their doctors all recognize as vital to their health and well-being,” said Pratik Shah, head of Supreme Court & appellate practice at Akin Gump. “Our Constitution doesn’t countenance such targeting for failing to adhere to the state’s preferred gender norms.”
In April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued the state of Tennessee to block S.B 1 which prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that is exempts for minors who are not transgender. Following a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, S.B. 1 took effect in July 2023. Since 2021, have banned hormone therapies for transgender youth.
Oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti are expected during this Supreme Court term, with a ruling expected in 2025.
Today’s filing can be found .
LGBTQ Rights
L.W. v. Skrmetti/U.S. v. Skrmetti
LGBTQ Rights
L.W. v. Skrmetti/U.S. v. Skrmetti
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.