Transgender Youth Medical Care Ban Subject of Oral Argument in the Supreme Court of Texas
AUSTIN, Texas — Legal advocates representing transgender adolescents, their parents, and medical providers argued before the Texas Supreme Court today, asking the court to affirm a lower court’s temporary injunction blocking enforcement of Senate Bill 14, an unconstitutional medical care ban targeting transgender youth. Senate Bill 14, which went into effect Sept. 1, 2023, 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 standard of care to their trans patients.
Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, ACLU, Transgender Law Center, Lambda Legal, and pro bono law firms Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP argued that Senate Bill 14 violates the Texas Constitution by depriving parents of their fundamental right to make medical decisions for their children, discriminating against transgender youth on the basis of sex and transgender status, and violating medical professionals’ right to practice their professions.
In July 2023, families and health professionals sued the state of Texas and other state defendants to block Senate Bill 14 from going into effect. In August, Judge Maria Cantú Hexsel of Travis County granted a temporary injunction to pause implementation and enforcement of the ban; however, the state defendants appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Texas, and the law went into effect on Sept. 1.
The five Texas families with transgender children and teenagers challenging this law come from diverse backgrounds and live across the state. The bill’s passage has resulted in families splitting up or planning to leave Texas to continue treatment for their children. The families are suing pseudonymously to protect themselves and their children, who are transgender Texans between the ages of 9 and 16.
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.
Quotes from plaintiffs and litigation team:
“This case is about upholding the constitutional rights of transgender Texans and those who care for them, including the plaintiffs in this case, and stopping the immense harm that S.B. 14 is inflicting on our state,” said Ash Hall (they/them), policy and advocacy strategist for LGBTQIA+ rights, ACLU of Texas. “Transgender youth, their families, and their doctors — not politicians and the government — should be trusted to make life-saving medical decisions together. We are deeply proud of the plaintiffs, the trans community, and the thousands of Texans who continue to push for a world where all Texans can thrive. Trans youth are loved and belong in Texas.”
“SB 14 is an openly discriminatory effort to put politicians between families, their children, and their doctors. As the lower court made clear, the ban is an affront to the rights of parents, lacks any basis in the reality of this medical care, and is a danger to the very youth it claims to protect,” said Harper Seldin (he/him), staff attorney, American Civil Liberties Union. “We’re confident the court will uphold this injunction and we won’t stop fighting this law until Texas is a safe place to raise every family.”
“Bans on medical care for trans youth like Texas’ Senate Bill 14 have real and negative consequences for transgender youth and their families. They endanger the health and wellbeing of trans youth, violate the rights of trans youth and their families, and force medical providers to disregard their oaths and well-established, evidence-based standards of care,” said Paul D. Castillo (he/him), senior counsel, Lambda Legal. “The Travis County District Court recognized both the real harm of SB 14 and the improper interference of the state in healthcare decisions properly left to parents, children, and their doctors. We welcomed the opportunity today to reinforce that message with the Supreme Court of Texas.”
“As we await the decision of the Texas Supreme Court, we take this moment to thank the courageous plaintiff families and organizational plaintiffs, PFLAG and GLMA, as well as the doctors, trans youth, and the hundreds of trans Texans and their allies who have shown up to rallies, committee hearings, and the Capitol to ensure trans youth can access life-saving and necessary medical care,” said Lynly Egyes (she/her), legal director of Transgender Law Center. “Texans of all races, genders, and backgrounds deserve access to medical care. No matter what happens in the days ahead, we will continue the fight for trans youth and their families to have the freedom to make the medical decisions that are best for them.”
“Providers in Texas have a duty to prioritize the well-being of their patients and adhere to established evidence-based practices,” said Alex Sheldon (they/them), executive director of GLMA. “Senate Bill 14, an affront to medical ethics, places providers in an untenable position, imposing burdensome legal restrictions that hinder their ability to practice medicine to the best of their ability. Our hope is that the Texas Supreme Court recognizes the gravity of this injustice and takes decisive action to protect the rights of transgender youth and the health professionals dedicated to their care.”
“Every parent in Texas deserves for their child to have access to health care when they need it, but S.B. 14 takes away that assurance of health and safety for children who are transgender. Our hope is that today, the Court heard this injustice and will take steps to rectify it, so every child in Texas, transgender or not, has the freedom to thrive,” said Brian K. Bond (he/him), CEO of PFLAG National.
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.