Texas Supreme Court Refuses to Block Law Banning Health Care for Texas Trans Youth
AUSTIN, Texas – The Texas Supreme Court today blocking enforcement of Senate Bill 14, permitting the anti-transgender law to remain in effect.
The law allows the state of Texas into decisions that properly lie with parents and their minor children, threatens the health and lives of Texas transgender youth, and penalizes physicians who provide the best standard of care for their transgender patients to remain in effect.
The court ruled against five Texas families with transgender youth, three medical providers, and two national organizational plaintiffs who filed the original challenge to S.B. 14 in July, concluding that the law is constitutional and that the plaintiffs are powerless to challenge it.
“It is impossible to overstate the devastating impact of this cruel and arbitrary ruling on Texas transgender youth and the families that love and support them,” said Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice, Lambda Legal. “Instead of leaving medical decisions concerning minor children where they belong, with their parents and their doctors, the Court here has elected to let politicians – in blatant disregard for the overwhelming medical consensus – determine the allowed course of treatment, threatening the health and the very lives of Texas transgender youth. We will continue to fight measures like SB14. These youth and their families deserve no less.”
“This decision by the Texas Supreme Court allows the suffering caused by S.B. 14 to continue across the state,” said Ash Hall (they/them), policy and advocacy strategist for LGBTQIA+ rights at ACLU of Texas. “Our government shouldn't deprive trans youth of the health care that they need to survive and thrive — while offering that exact same health care to everyone else. Texas politicians’ obsession with attacking trans kids and their families is needlessly cruel. We will not back down until our trans youth have the health care they deserve and our state is a welcoming place to all.”
“The court’s decision to reject safe and affirming care will have lasting impacts on all people in Texas,” said Lynly Egyes (she/her), legal director at Transgender Law Center. “S.B. 14 goes against trusted medical advice and is a strain on transgender youth, their families who love them, and the providers who support them. All Texans, no matter what they look like or the neighborhood they live in, should know that we will continue to work alongside our partners to fight for the rights of trans Texans and their families.”
“The Texas Supreme Court got it wrong today by ruling against families, against doctors, and against Texas’s future: our kids. Every Texan, transgender or not, deserves the freedom to access the healthcare they need when they need it,” said Brian K. Bond (he/him), CEO of PFLAG National. “To transgender Texans of all ages, PFLAG has your back. We’re going to continue to fight to ensure you are safe, celebrated, affirmed and loved.”
“We are profoundly disappointed by the Texas Supreme Court's decision to uphold a ban rooted in prejudice and discrimination against trans youth,” said Alex Sheldon (they/them), GLMA executive director. “This ruling not only endangers the lives of these vulnerable individuals but also dismisses significant medical evidence supporting their care. Today, the trans community was abandoned by the very institutions designed to protect them, and health professionals were denied their ability to perform their duties based on the best scientific evidence available, free from political interference. This fight is far from over. We will continue to challenge unjust measures like S.B. 14 and to defend the rights of all trans youth to access the essential care they need and deserve.”
Senate Bill 14 bans necessary and life-saving medical care in Texas for the treatment of gender dysphoria for transgender youth and requires the Texas Medical Board to revoke the medical licenses of physicians who provide the best standard of care to their transgender patients.
In July 2023, Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, ACLU National, Transgender Law Center, and the pro bono law firms of Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP, sued to block enforcement of the ban on behalf of five families with transgender children, and two national organizational plaintiffs, PFLAG and GLMA. In August, Travis County District Court granted a temporary injunction to pause enforcement of the ban, however, the state defendants appealed directly to the state Supreme Court, and the law went into effect on Sept. 1.
The five Texas families with transgender children and teenagers come from diverse backgrounds and live across the state. The bill’s passage had resulted in families splitting up or planning to travel out of Texas to continue medically necessary treatments for their children. The families are suing pseudonymously to protect themselves and their children, who are transgender Texans between the ages of 10 and 17.
The medical provider plaintiffs work for a large Texas children’s hospital and had been forced to stop providing treatments they know are medically necessary for their transgender patients or risk losing their medical licenses.
Plaintiff PFLAG National is the nation’s first and largest organization dedicated to supporting, educating, and advocating for LGBTQ people and those who love them. Plaintiff GLMA is the oldest and largest association of LGBTQ and allied health professionals, including those who treat LGBTQ patients.
Today’s ruling from the Supreme Court of Texas can be found .
LGBTQ Rights
Loe v. Texas
LGBTQ Rights
Loe v. 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.