Transgender Public School Students Sue to Block Discriminatory Oklahoma School Facilities Law
Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the ACLU of Oklahoma have brought a legal challenge on behalf of three transgender students to S.B. 615, which bans all transgender students in Oklahoma from using school restrooms consistent with their gender identity.
CONTACT:
Gillian Branstetter, gbranstetter@aclu.org
OKLAHOMA CITY — Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Oklahoma (ACLU-OK), and pro-bono co-counsel Covington & Burling LLP today filed a federal lawsuit against the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE), three Oklahoma public school districts, one public charter school, and numerous government officials for implementing and enforcing a new school facilities access law that singles out transgender students for discriminatory treatment.
"Oklahoma has launched another cruel and unconstitutional attack on a most-vulnerable population – transgender school children,” said Nicholas Guillory, staff attorney and Tyron Garner Memorial Law Fellow, Lambda Legal. “This is not the first such attack on transgender schoolchildren, and sadly it will likely not be the last. It is sad that anti-transgender state legislators nationwide keep singling out transgender students for harmful, discriminatory treatment, notwithstanding that we and our allies have successfully quashed these efforts wherever they have popped up.”
Oklahoma Senate Bill 615 passed the Oklahoma legislature and was quickly signed into law by Gov. Kevin Stitt in May. The law requires all pre-K through 12th-grade public schools and public charter schools to restrict the use of multiple occupancy restrooms and other facilities at school based on the sex listed on an individual’s original birth certificate. It further requires each school board and charter school governing board to create a policy for discipline of those who violate the restriction and requires OSDE to penalize schools that do not comply with this requirement with a 5 percent reduction in state funding. The complaint charges that S.B. 615 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, by discriminating on the basis of sex, gender identity, and transgender status.
“There is no valid reason to prohibit transgender students from using the same facilities as their peers. Doing so is stigmatizing and damaging. It interferes with their ability to learn at school and can lead to physical harms as well. No problems have arisen in schools that allow transgender students to use restrooms and other facilities consistent with their gender. It is time for politicians to stop using young people who are transgender as a wedge issue for political gain,” said Jon Davidson, senior staff attorney at the ACLU.
“Transgender students live and go to school in our state. They use public facilities just like everyone else, and their presence harms no one,” said Hanna Roberts, ACLU of Oklahoma staff attorney. “But this election year has been overrun with attacks on our youth and their ability to feel safe while receiving an inclusive education. Transgender people are part of our families, our workplaces, and our neighborhoods, and they, like everyone else, need to be able to safely access restrooms. Not only does promoting these baseless fears for political gain put our most vulnerable students at risk, but it also sends the message that they are not worthy of a full life. With this case, we hope to make clear that trans students belong.”
The lawsuit, Bridge v. Oklahoma State Department of Education, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on behalf of three students, two of whom are high school students in Oklahoma City-area school districts and one student who is attending a public charter school in Oklahoma City. In addition to the OSDE, the lawsuit also names: Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Joy Hofmeister; six other members of the Oklahoma State Board of Education: State Attorney General John M. O’Connor, Noble Public Schools, Moore Public Schools, Oklahoma City Public Schools, and Harding Independence Charter District, Inc. The plaintiffs include Andy Bridge, 16, a senior at Noble High School just outside of Norman, OK, and his parents Aysha Prather and Eli Bridge. The two other plaintiffs – a high school student and a middle school student – and their families are filing anonymously.
Plaintiff Andy Bridge said, “I am a boy, and while living authentically hasn’t always been easy, it’s given me a sense of relief and happiness. Being able to use the boys’ restroom might seem like a small thing to others, but it is a vital step in my transition. Being barred from using it leaves me singled out and excluded from the rest of my friends and classmates, but also feeling like I’m being told that I’m not worthy of the same respect and dignity as everyone else.”
While much of the country has moved on from these gratuitous attacks on trans youth in restrooms, it seems some state legislators are determined to dredge them up again. North Carolina’s passage of a law restricting restroom access in public buildings in 2016 cost the state billions of dollars in lost jobs and revenue and was ultimately blocked in court.
Read the complaint here: /bridge-v-oklahoma-state-department-education-complaint
The attorneys working on the case include: Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Paul D. Castillo and Staff Attorney Nicholas Guillory; ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Jon W. Davidson and Staff Attorney Taylor Brown; ACLU of Oklahoma Legal Director Megan Lambert and Staff Attorney Hanna Roberts; and a team of attorneys at Covington & Burling LLP led by partner Mitchell A. Kamin and associate Isaac D. Chaput.
Stories amplifying attacks on 2SLGBTQ+ people have a measurable negative impact on mental health. We ask that stories covering this topic include information to access 2SLGBTQ+ affirming mental health support, such as Trans Lifeline (877-565-8860), the Trevor Project (call 1-866-488-7386 or text START to 678-678), and the LGBT Hotline (888-843-4564).
LGBTQ Rights
Bridge v. Oklahoma State Department of Education
LGBTQ Rights
Bridge v. Oklahoma State Department of Education
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.