Trans People & Families File Lawsuit Against South Carolina’s Gender-Affirming Care Ban
CHARLESTON, S.C. – Transgender South Carolinians and their families are to block enforcement of a ban on gender-affirming healthcare. They are represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of South Carolina, and Selendy Gay.
House Bill 4624, signed into law by Governor Henry McMaster on May 21, prohibits doctors from providing potentially lifesaving care for transgender youth as well as many transgender adults. The law restricts access to “gender transition procedures,” including evidence-based treatments like puberty delaying medications and hormone therapy that are recommended for treatment of gender dysphoria by the leading medical associations.
The lawsuit Misanin v. Wilson, filed today in the U.S. District Court for South Carolina, seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction on three provisions in the law:
- A prohibition on medical professionals providing gender-affirming care to South Carolinians under age 18;
- A prohibition on the use of public funds for gender-affirming care for South Carolinians regardless of age; and
- A prohibition on gender-affirming care coverage under South Carolina’s Medicaid program
The plaintiffs in the case include two parents and their minor children who would be denied gender-affirming care when the law’s total ban takes effect Jan. 31, 2025, along with three adults whose healthcare has been disrupted by the law. Most of the plaintiffs are filing anonymously to protect their privacy. The named plaintiff in the case, Sterling Misanin, is a 32-year-old transgender man whose scheduled surgery was abruptly canceled at the Medical University of South Carolina after the law passed.
“I feel so lucky and fortunate to be supported and affirmed by so many wonderful people who accept me for who I am,” said plaintiff Sterling Misanin of Charleston, South Carolina. “My family continues to be extremely supportive of me living as the man that I am. In Charleston, I have a wonderful community who make me feel safe and seen. But the actions by MUSC have caused me significant harm, and I am devastated that my state has interfered in my access to life-saving health care. I am an adult, and I know myself better than my state does, and I cannot stay silent about the very real harms that this law inflicts on transgender people like me.”
“A law that takes away healthcare from people, that strips away the ability of parents to make medical decisions for their children, that criminalizes doctors who follow the established standards of care isn’t just mean-spirited and harmful – it’s also unconstitutional,” said Jace Woodrum, Executive Director of the ACLU of South Carolina. “Transgender South Carolinians should be able to get the medical care they need without politicians coming into their doctors’ offices with them. That’s why we’re challenging this dangerous law.”
“The lives, health, and wellbeing of transgender South Carolinians are at stake with the passing of this unconstitutional law, and we stand ready to vindicate their right to be free from discrimination because of who they are. This law will inflict harm on South Carolinian families by denying transgender youth medically necessary treatment that has been proven effective and safe, and its public funding restriction further endangers South Carolina’s transgender PEBA and Medicaid beneficiaries, including transgender adults who cannot otherwise afford this life-saving care,” said Sruti Swaminathan, staff attorney with the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project.
“This bill, one of many similar pieces of anti-LQBTQ+ legislation across the country, is part of a concerted effort to deprive people of medical care,” said Julie Singer, an attorney at Selendy Gay. “The law prevents equal treatment under the law, and it takes away parents’ fundamental right to make life-saving decisions for their children. Selendy Gay is proud to stand with the ACLU in this fight against discrimination in South Carolina and the attempt to limit access to healthcare.”
South Carolina’s gender-affirming care ban is already having devastating effects on transgender South Carolinians and their families. While some parents of trans children are making plans to flee the Palmetto State to protect their children’s health and safety, others without the resources to move to a free state are living in fear of what will happen to their loved ones when the state intervenes in their treatment. When left untreated, gender dysphoria can cause severe harm, including anxiety, depression, and suicidality.
The law sets a dangerous double standard for medical care that is clearly discriminatory against transgender individuals. For example, while the state now prohibits puberty-delaying medication for adolescents with gender dysphoria, it allows the prescription of the same medications to treat central precocious puberty. While hormone therapy is now prohibited for many transgender people, the same treatment is allowed for patients with Turner’s Syndrome and polycystic ovarian syndrome.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that H. 4624 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it discriminates against transgender individuals on the basis of sex and transgender status. The plaintiffs also argue that the law violates the due-process rights of parents and the anti-discrimination clauses of the Medicaid Act, Affordable Care Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Rehabilitation Act.
- 4624 passed during a wave of anti-LGBTQ legislation in statehouses across the country. During the same legislative session, South Carolina lawmakers introduced 22 other bills targeting transgender people. But similar laws in other states have already started to fall under legal scrutiny, particularly in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes South Carolina.
In April 2024 in the case Kadel v. Folwell, the Fourth Circuit ended North Carolina’s discriminatory exclusion of coverage for gender-affirming healthcare via the state employees’ insurance plan. The same Fourth Circuit opinion also ended West Virginia’s exclusion of gender-affirming care for low-income transgender people enrolled in Medicaid.
Today’s filing can be found .
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.