

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Do you want this bigoted Republican telling you what books you and your children can read?
When it comes to protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation, Illinois Congresswoman Mary Miller is an odd choice for the job. The downstate Republican was first elected in 2020. During her 2022 reelection campaign, one of her employees was a man named Bradley Graven. The conservative Washington Examiner reported that Graven “was convicted of soliciting sex with a minor,” but this conviction did not stop him from fundraising for Miller, collecting signatures on her behalf, and chauffeuring the candidate around.
Shortly into her first term, Miller gave a shout out to Adolf Hitler in a speech before right-wing group Moms for America. Miller told the group “Hitler was right on one thing: he said, 'Whoever has the youth has the future.'” Miller later apologized for her compliment to der Fuhrer, saying she was referring to the efforts of “left wing radicals” to “re-educate young people.” Miller, unsurprisingly, does not see anything wrong with the efforts of right wing radicals like herself to re-educate young people.
And Miller is, to be clear, a right-wing radical. Often described as a “Christian nationalist,” she proclaimed that the United States was “founded as a Christian nation” when she opposed a Sikh leading a prayer at the capitol after misidentifying him as Muslim. She is a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, and in return that caucuses political action committee is her largest campaign donor.
These seeming handicaps aside, Miller introduced House Resolution 7661, the “Stop the Sexualization of Children Act” on February 24th of this year, a misleadingly titled bill that restricts federal funding for schools unless they take action to ban “sexually oriented” books from classrooms and school libraries. For the purposes of the legislation, “gender dysphoria” as well as "transgenderism" [sic] considered sexually oriented. Schools could lose federal funding merely for having a title that features a trans person or fictional transgender character. On March 17th, the bill advanced from the House Committee on Education and the Workforce to the House floor.
Miller and the gang are operating under the simplistic notion that children will become gay or trans simply from reading a story with a gay or trans person in it.
Congressional supporters of HR 7661 are notable for their anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric. Miller claimed the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act “attacks the traditional family.” Committee Chair Tim Walberg, who released a statement saying the bill will “safeguard children from inappropriate content in the classroom” went on a jaunt to Uganda in 2023 to urge their government to “stand firm” on maintaining their “Kill the Gays” law. Randy Fine, one of the most notorious anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigots in the House, has also made statements calling for the eradication of the LGBTQ+ community. One could continue down the list but the point is made.
Miller and the gang are operating under the simplistic notion that children will become gay or trans simply from reading a story with a gay or trans person in it. Children, though, are complex beings with a variety of influences acting on them, social, biological, and familial. If educators were capable of influencing children to such a degree that Miller believes, they would focus on ensuring students complete schoolwork on time, study for tests, and bring classroom materials, not on changing their gender identity or sexual orientation. As gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk said during the campaign to defeat the homophobic Briggs Initiative: “If it were true that children mimicked their teachers, you’d sure have a helluva lot more nuns running around.”
One is reminded of the US Senate testimony of comic book publisher William Gaines (Tales from the Crypt, Mad Magazine).In the 1950s, a moral panic asserted that crime and horror comics were making criminals out of helpless children, who, like automatons, followed the examples of comic book characters.“What are we afraid of?” Gaines asked. “Are we afraid of our own children? Do we forget that they are citizens, too, and entitled to select what to read or do?” The anti-comics crusade was popularized by psychiatrist Fredric Wertham, who worried about the “homosexual” influence Batman, Robin, and Wonder Woman were having on their young readers in his sloppily researched tract Seduction of the Innocent. The current censorship efforts are an unfortunate repetition of Wertham’s pseudoscientific arguments.
As expected, HR 7661 has been opposed by the American Library Association, the National Education Association, Authors Against Book Bans, PEN America, among many others. The advocacy group 5 Calls has created a simple script for contacting Members of Congress and Senators to ask them to oppose this bill.
This horrific bill, HR 7661, represents the first attack on children’s freedom to read at the federal level seen in the United States. It creates a national censor deciding what every child in the United States can read. Under the guise of protecting children, Mary Miller—a woman who hired a convicted sexual predator and who once praised the Nazi dictator—has set herself up as the face of censorship and thought control in the United States. Would you let this woman decide for you what to read?
"The district has made clear it will not fold quietly, signaling that some institutions still have the resolve to stand against a federal campaign of erasure," wrote one LGBTQ+ rights journalist.
As educational institutions around the country capitulate, Denver's public school system said Tuesday that it would defy demands from the Trump administration to discriminate against transgender students even if it means losing federal funds.
Alex Marrero, the superintendent of Denver Public Schools (DPS), said the school "will protect all of their students from this hostile administration," by refusing to implement a ban on gender-neutral bathrooms mandated by Trump's Department of Education.
On Thursday, the department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent Denver Public Schools an email demanding that the school remove a multi-stall, gender-neutral restroom at one of its high schools, which it claimed violated Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.
As Erin Reed, an independent journalist who covers LGBTQ+ rights, notes, the facility built by DPS and other schools is "similar to facilities in major airports, European cities, and increasingly across the United States." The school, meanwhile, has said that the facility was requested by students themselves and has 12-foot high partitions to protect their privacy.
The OCR went further. To be compliant with Title IX, it said, the school also had to "adopt biology-based definitions for the words 'male' and 'female'," meaning they needed to classify transgender students by their biological sex at birth rather than their preferred identities, including banning them from restrooms that do not correspond to their biological sex.
The Trump administration also called on the school to eliminate components of its "LGBTQ+ Toolkit," which includes guidance on how students and faculty can create a welcoming environment for their trans peers. Among other things, the document encourages members of the school community to step in to stop bullying of LGBTQ+ students, respect the preferred pronouns of all students, and for faculty to enforce dress codes in a gender-neutral way.
As Reed put it, the department was effectively "claiming that Title IX actually mandates discrimination against transgender students."
If DPS refused to comply within 10 days, the department threatened to strip the district of federal funding, which makes up 7% of the school's annual budget, according to Chalkbeat. A large portion of that federal money goes toward low-cost school lunches for poor children.
In a statement issued Tuesday, DPS's school board and administration put out a statement "disagreeing unequivocally" with the government's interpretation of the law.
"Title IX permits schools to provide sex-separate restrooms. It does not require that to be the only option," DPS argued. "The interpretation put forward by OCR would undercut our equity commitments, contradict our mission, harm the very students we are entrusted to support, and would have a devastating impact on East High School and the broader LGBTQ+ community. What matters most is that students are safe, have privacy, and can learn without fear."
"The decision to implement gender-neutral restrooms at East followed direct feedback from LGBTQ+ students who reported they did not feel safe," the statement continued. "For these students, access to a restroom where they feel secure is not symbolic. It is about dignity, health, and the ability to learn. When students speak, we listen and we act."
Superintendent Marrero, meanwhile, put out a short video on Instagram expressing his support for the district's LGBTQ+ students.
"As you might have seen in the news, the federal government has decided to take a firm stance and have us roll back our support to the LGBTQ+ community, and of course, we're not having it," Marrero said. "We will continue to stand in solidarity, and as you engage this weekend and beyond, I just wanted to let you know that we got you, and everything is going to be ok."
In a statement published alongside the video, Marrero wrote: "We will fight. In the courts, if we must. In the public square, when necessary. Always in partnership with those who believe that every student deserves to show up to school ready to learn, free from fear."
With this pledge to stand by its LGBTQ+ students, DPS joined five school districts in Virginia that last month responded with similar defiance when the Trump administration ordered them to stop allowing trans students to use bathrooms matching their gender. Those districts—which include Loudoun, Arlington, and Fairfax Counties—have launched a lawsuit against the Trump administration to keep their federal funding.
"Elite institutions like Brown, Columbia, and Penn—as well as multiple hospitals serving transgender youth—have already capitulated, signing away protections through bathroom and sports bans or cutting off medical care entirely," Reed wrote. "Denver Public Schools, by contrast, has drawn a line. With the Department of Education's deadline looming next Monday, the district has made clear it will not fold quietly, signaling that some institutions still have the resolve to stand against a federal campaign of erasure."
Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that "there is no constitutional justification" for the decision, and access to gender-affirming care "can be a question of life or death."
LGBTQ+ advocates decried Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Tennessee's prohibition on gender-affirming medical treatments for minors as a dangerous green light for states to violate personal privacy and ban healthcare that many transgender people say saved their lives.
Writing for the 6-3 majority in U.S. v. Skrmetti, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that S.B. 1, Tennessee's 2023 ban on gender-affirming care for people under age 18, does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The majority concurred with a lower court's ruling that S.B. 1 is not subject to heightened scrutiny, a standard of judicial review also known as intermediate scrutiny used to determine a law's constitutionality, especially in cases involving classifications based on sex or gender.
"The Supreme Court is green-lighting the eradication of trans people from society."
"This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field," Roberts wrote. "The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The equal protection clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best."
"Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us... but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment," the ruling adds. "Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process."
BREAKING: In a 6-3 Roberts decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care is not subject to heightened scrutiny. This decision will strip millions of trans people off their constitutional rights.www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
[image or embed]
— Alejandra Caraballo (@esqueer.net) June 18, 2025 at 7:17 AM
Roberts was joined in the majority by right-wing Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that "there is no constitutional justification" for the decision, which "does irrevocable damage to the equal protection clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them."
She continued:
Transgender adolescents' access to hormones and puberty blockers... is not a matter of mere cosmetic preference. To the contrary, access to care can be a question of life or death. Some transgender adolescents suffer from gender dysphoria, a medical condition characterized by clinically significant and persistent distress resulting from incongruence between a person's gender identity and sex identified at birth. If left untreated, gender dysphoria can lead to severe anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance abuse, self-harm, and suicidality. Suicide, in particular, is a major concern for parents of transgender teenagers, as the lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts among transgender individuals may be as high as 40%. Tragically, studies suggest that as many as one-third of transgender high school students attempt suicide in any given year.
S.B. 1—introduced by Tennessee state Sen. Jack Johnson (R-23)—who was also behind the state's public drag ban—prohibits minors from undergoing hormone therapy or taking prescribed puberty blockers. Three transgender teens and their parents, as well as a Tennessee doctor who treats trans youth, challenged the law, claiming it violated the equal protection clause.
The plaintiffs were joined by the Biden administration along with the national and state ACLU, Lambda Legal, and the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP in asking the Supreme Court to review the ban after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it in September 2023.
Responding to Wednesday's ruling, Allison Scott of the Campaign for Southern Equality—which manages the Trans Youth Emergency Project (TYEP)—said: "I am heartbroken today. No one should be forced to leave their home state to access healthcare—and it is outrageous to see the U.S. Supreme Court uphold these bans and continue to allow the government to interfere with the personal medical decisions of families."
Scott was alluding to the argument often made by proponents of bans on not only trans healthcare but also abortion and other reproductive rights that people seeking such care are free to go where it is legal—even as some states pass laws banning such travel.
There are approximately 300,000 people aged 13-17 and 1.3 million adults in the United States who identify as transgender, according to the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, which notes that more than two dozen states have passed laws similar to S.B. 1.

Transgender activist Alejandra Caraballo, a civil rights attorney and instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, said on the social media site Bluesky, "I can't begin to tell you just how incredibly fucked trans people are here."
"This will pour gasoline on the Trump administration's attacks on trans people and they will get even harsher and more cruel," Caraballo added. "The Supreme Court is green-lighting the eradication of trans people from society."
Caraballo and others including the ACLU and trans rights activist Erin Reed noted that the decision is somewhat limited because it leaves previous rulings against anti-trans laws intact. However, Caraballo warned that "while the decision didn't explicitly say heightened scrutiny doesn't apply to all contexts involving trans people, it held that it was on the basis of medical diagnosis."
Therefore, "the government could just do whatever it wants to trans people based on gender dysphoria," she wrote. "For instance, they could strip everyone with gender dysphoria of security clearance in the government. Declare everyone with gender dysphoria a national security threat and purge them from the government entirely. The trans military ban will be upheld under this."
"Most importantly, states can now just ban gender-affirming care for everyone, including adults," Caraballo added. "We'll likely see that coming soon in addition to federal government efforts to eliminate access for all trans people."
"This will pour gasoline on the Trump administration's attacks on trans people."
U.S. President Donald Trump has renewed and expanded his first-term attacks on transgender people, including by issuing a day one executive order declaring that only two genders exist, another order advocating action against educators who "facilitate the social transition of a minor," and yet another directing the Department of Education—which he has vowed to abolish—to notify school districts that allowing transgender girls and women to compete on female teams violates Title IX, the federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in education.
Trump also appointed a transphobe to head the Justice Department's civil rights office, ordered the removal transgender people and issues from federal agency websites, and reinstated his first-term ban on new military enlistment by trans people, who—according to the White House—cannot lead an "honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle."
"Every day I speak with families of transgender youth who are worried about the future," TYEP patient navigator Van Bailey said after Wednesday's ruling. "Many are panicking, unsure of where or when they'll get the medicine that their child needs to continue leading a healthy, happy life. These laws are cruelly thrusting families into impossible choices, and it is deeply unfair."
As we wait for legal guidance from our partners at @aclu.org and @lambdalegal.org, we want to share what we already know:The Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti is devastating, and we will not stop fighting.
[image or embed]
— Christopher Street Project (@christopherstreet.bsky.social) June 18, 2025 at 8:34 AM
ACLU LGBTQ & HIV Project co-director Chase Strangio—the first openly trans attorney to argue before the Supreme Court—said that "today's ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution."
However, Strangio also noted that "the court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful."
"We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve," he added.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, said in a statement that "the court today failed to do its job."
"When the political system breaks down and legislatures bow to popular hostility, the judiciary must be the Constitution's backbone," Levi added. "Instead, it chose to look away, abandoning both vulnerable children and the parents who love them. No parent should be forced to watch their child suffer while proven medical care sits beyond their reach because of politics."
"When the political system breaks down and legislatures bow to popular hostility, the judiciary must be the Constitution's backbone."
National Center for LGBTQ Rights legal director Shannon Minter asserted: "The court's ruling abandons transgender youth and their families to political attacks. It ignored clear discrimination and disregarded its own legal precedent by letting lawmakers target young people for being transgender."
"Healthcare decisions belong with families, not politicians," Minter added. "This decision will cause real harm."
Sasha Buchert, counsel and director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal, called the ruling "heartbreaking" and contended it will make it "more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive."
"But we will continue to fight fiercely to protect them," Buchert added. "Make no mistake, gender-affirming care is often lifesaving care, and all major medical associations have determined it to be safe, appropriate, and effective. This is a sad day, and the implications will reverberate for years and across the country, but it does not shake our resolve to continue fighting."
The Supreme Court’s Skrmetti decision is a pivotal moment in our fight for LGBTQ+ equality. Here are three ways to TAKE ACTION:
[image or embed]
— Human Rights Campaign (@hrc.org) June 18, 2025 at 9:26 AM
Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Lambda Legal, and other advocacy organizations are planning to hold a "decision day" rally at noon Wednesday outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.
HRC lamented that Skrmetti "sets a dangerous precedent and threatens access to care for trans people across the country."
"We are showing up loud and clear: We will not go back," HRC said. "We will not be erased."
"Decisions about healthcare belong to patients, their doctors, and their families—not politicians," said Rep. Mark Pocan.
As LGBTQ+ rights advocates prepare for oral arguments in a U.S. Supreme Court case about bans on gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth, 164 members of Congress on Tuesday urged the justices to strike down Tennessee's 2023 law.
Tennessee is one of over two dozen states that has recently banned some or all of such care for trans minors, according to the Movement Advancement Project. In response to challenges from advocacy groups and the Biden administration, the right-wing high court agreed to take the case in June.
Arguments in United States v. Skrmetti are expected in the fall. The justices will decide whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1—which bans surgery, puberty blockers, and hormone treatment for trans youth—violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Congressional Democrats' new "friend of the court" brief argues that the court "should be highly skeptical of legislation banning safe and effective therapies that comport with the standard of care," and "should carefully examine the deeply troubling role that animosity towards transgender people has played in state legislation."
"The law at issue in this case is motivated by an animus towards the trans community and is part of a cruel, coordinated attack on trans rights by anti-equality extremists."
The amicus brief is led by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Congressional Equality Caucus Chair Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Subcommittee on Primary Health and Retirement Chair Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
"For years, far-right Republicans have been leading constant, relentless, and escalating attacks on transgender Americans," Markey said in a statement. "Their age-old, discriminatory playbook now threatens access to lifesaving, gender-affirming care for more than 100,000 transgender and nonbinary children living in states with these bans if the Supreme Court upholds laws like Tennessee's at the heart of Skrmetti that are fueled by ignorance and hate."
"It takes a special type of cruelty to target children for who they are," he continued. "I am proud to stand with my colleagues against dangerous, transphobic attacks and to reaffirm that our nation's commitment should be to equality and justice for all."
Pocan emphasized that "decisions about healthcare belong to patients, their doctors, and their families—not politicians."
"The law at issue in this case is motivated by an animus towards the trans community and is part of a cruel, coordinated attack on trans rights by anti-equality extremists," he added. "We strongly urge the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law and strike down Tennessee's harmful ban."
The brief is co-signed by another 150 Democrats in the House of Representatives, eight other Democratic senators, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with the party. It is also supported by the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
"Thank you to the many members of Congress for standing with transgender and nonbinary youth across our country in asking the Supreme Court to find bans on lifesaving gender-affirming care to be unconstitutional," said HRC vice president of government affairs David Stacy.
"The government should not be able to interfere in decisions that are best made between families and doctors, particularly when that care is necessary and best practice," Stacy stressed. "These bans are dangerous, animated purely by anti-transgender bias, and have forced families to make heartbreaking decisions to support their children."
"It's crucial to recognize that for trans youth and their families, this isn't about politics—it's about the fundamental freedom to access vital, lifesaving healthcare," said one advocate.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to Tennessee's March 2023 ban on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth—a development that LGBTQ+ rights advocates sought but which has them worried given the six right-wing justices.
The Biden administration along with the national and state ACLU, Lambda Legal, and the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP asked the justices to review the Tennessee ban after a September decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed it to stay in effect.
The justices granted certiorari in seven cases for the term beginning this fall, including United States v. Skrmetti, the administration's challenge to the Tennessee ban. Law Dork's Chris Geidner noted that they rejected local challenges to that law and a similar one in Kentucky, "which also raised a parental rights due process claim."
"These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country."
Still, rights advocates cautiously welcomed the news and called on the justices to apply precedents including the Supreme Court's 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County ruling that it is illegal for employers to discriminate against a worker because of transgender status and sexual orientation. That majority opinion was written by right-wing Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the four left-leaning members of the court at that time. Now, there are just three liberal justices.
"This court has historically rejected efforts to uphold discriminatory laws, and without similar action here, these punitive, categorical bans on the provision of gender-affirming care will continue to wreak havoc on the lives of transgender youth and their families," Lambda Legal senior counsel Tara Borelli said Monday. "We are grateful that transgender youth and their families will have their day in the highest court, and we will not stop fighting to ensure access to this lifesaving, medically necessary care."
While 15 states plus Washington, D.C. have enacted shield laws protecting access to gender-affirming healthcare, over two dozen states have banned some or all of such care for trans youth, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Medical professionals and rights advocates across the country have warned that these bans endanger the lives of trans people.
"The future of countless transgender youth in this and future generations rests on this court adhering to the facts, the Constitution, and its own modern precedent," said Chase Strangio, deputy director for Transgender Justice at the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, in a statement after the justices agreed to take the case.
"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," Strangio continued. "They are the result of an openly political effort to wage war on a marginalized group and our most fundamental freedoms."
Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee, stressed that "Tennesseans deserve the freedom to live their lives as their authentic selves without government interference, yet every day this law remains in place, it inflicts further pain and injustice on trans youth and their families."
"As politicians continue to fuel divisions for their own political gain, it's crucial to recognize that for trans youth and their families, this isn't about politics—it's about the fundamental freedom to access vital, lifesaving healthcare," the attorney added.
For now, the Tennessee ban remains in effect—and since its passage last year, the Campaign for Southern Equality has supported families of transgender youth through the Southern Trans Youth Emergency Project.
"This is a high-stakes moment for transgender youth and their families, and we're glad that trans youth and their families will have their day in court to make the case that the bans are unconstitutional, interfere with private medical decisions, and severely harm families," Allison Scott, the campaign's director of impact and innovation, said Monday. "Everyone who needs gender-affirming care should be able to access it affordably, and close to home, and our team will never stop working to make that happen."
"Today's ruling blocks the state of Florida's cruel campaign to deny fundamental rights and basic healthcare to its transgender citizens," said one LGBTQ+ advocate.
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that key sections of Florida's ban on gender-affirming healthcare for minors—which also limits adults seeking such care—are unconstitutional and that the Republican state lawmakers and GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis were acting with "anti-transgender animus" and not in the interest of public health when they approved the legislation.
"The state of Florida can regulate as needed but cannot flatly deny transgender individuals safe and effective medical treatment—treatment with medications routinely provided to others with the state's full approval so long as the purpose is not to support the patient's transgender identity," Judge Robert L. Hinkle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division, wrote in his 105-page opinion.
"Transgender opponents are of course free to hold their beliefs, but they are not free to discriminate against transgender individuals just for being transgender," Hinkle—an appointee of former Democratic President Bill Clinton—continued. "In time, discrimination against transgender individuals will diminish, just as racism and misogyny have diminished."
"To paraphrase a civil rights advocate from an earlier time, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice," he added, referring to a famous quote by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Hinkle also struck down a provision of the law forcing adults seeking transition healthcare to meet with a doctor in person before beginning treatment.
One year ago, Hinkle temporarily blocked portions of the law prohibiting doctors from providing, and minors from receiving, so-called "puberty blockers" and other hormonal treatments, calling the proscription "purposeful discrimination" against transgender people.
Civil rights advocates cheered Tuesday's decision.
"Today's ruling striking down Florida's discriminatory restrictions on gender-affirming medical care is a huge victory for the transgender community and for the freedom of all Floridians and their families to make their own private medical decisions," Equality Florida executive director Nadine Smith said in a statement.
"Despite the governor and his rubber-stamp GOP supermajority continuously stripping away our rights, the brave plaintiffs, legal experts, and judges have dealt another powerful blow to DeSantis' agenda of censorship, surveillance, and government intrusion into our personal healthcare decisions," Smith added.
Simone Chriss, director of the Southern Legal Counsel's Transgender Rights Initiative, said in a statement:
The federal court saw Florida's transgender minor healthcare ban and adult restrictions for what they are—discriminatory measures that cannot survive constitutional review. Today's ruling blocks the state of Florida's cruel campaign to deny fundamental rights and basic healthcare to its transgender citizens. We are so proud of our brave plaintiffs, without whom we could not have achieved this victory for the state of Florida.
DeSantis—a failed 2024 GOP presidential candidate who has centered waging what fans and foes alike have called a "war on woke"—signed the gender-affirming care ban into law in May 2023 as part of what one activist condemned as "the most extreme slate of anti-trans laws in modern history."
Among the legislation signed that day were the so-called "Don't Say They" law prohibiting transgender public school students and staff from sharing updated preferred pronouns; S.B. 1438, which bans minors from attending "adult live performances" like drag shows; and H.B. 1521, which empowers cisgender people to order transgender people to leave publicly available restrooms or face criminal trespass charges that could result in up to a year behind bars for refusal to comply.
A spokesperson for DeSantis told The New York Times after Tuesday's ruling that "there is no quality evidence to support the chemical and physical mutilation of children."
"These procedures do permanent, life-altering damage to children, and history will look back on this fad in horror," she added.
Lucien Hamel, an adult plaintiff in the case, said Hinkle's ruling brought relief.
"I can't just uproot my family and move across the country," Hamel said in a statement. "The state has no place interfering in people's private medical decisions, and I'm relieved that I can once again get the healthcare that I need here in Florida."
Plaintiff Jane Doe—the mother of 12-year-old transgender girl Susan Doe—asserted that the ruling "means I won't have to watch my daughter needlessly suffer because I can't get her the care she needs."
"Seeing Susan's fear about this ban has been one of the hardest experiences we've endured as parents," she said in a statement. "All we've wanted is to take that fear away and help her continue to be the happy, confident child she is now."
"Thank you to Gov. DeWine for listening to the people of his state and making the right decision for young trans Ohioans," said one advocate.
LGBTQ+ rights advocates on Friday praised Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine for vetoing a bill that would ban gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth and bar them from participating in school sports teams that match their identity.
"Ohio families don't want politicians meddling in decisions that should be between parents, their kids, and their doctors," said Human Rights Campaign president Kelley Robinson in a statement.
"Instead, parents, schools, and doctors should all do everything they can to make all youth, including transgender youth, feel loved and accepted, and politicians should not be making it harder for them to do so," she added. "Thank you to Gov. DeWine for listening to the people of his state and making the right decision for young trans Ohioans."
Thanking DeWine on social media, ACLU of Ohio executive director J. Bennett Guess stressed that "lives will be saved because of this critically important veto!"
Also welcoming the veto, the Ohio Chapter of the National Association of Social Workerssaid: "This is the result of advocacy of trans folks and their families, providers, and advocates. Thank you all for taking action. Our advocacy action steps continue. Now we need to contact our Ohio legislators to urge them not to overturn the veto."
Some Republican state lawmakers expressed disappointment with the governor's decision and teased an override effort. The Associated Press reported Friday that "GOP lawmakers hold enough seats to override DeWine's veto, but if or when they would do so was not immediately clear. Both within and between chambers, Republican legislators have not been in lockstep this year."
Several GOP-dominated states have recently moved to restrict gender-affirming care, especially for minors. In 2021, then-Republican Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson vetoed a healthcare ban targeting youth. State lawmakers overrode his veto, but a federal judge struck down the law in June. Earlier this week, another judge blocked a similar law in Idaho.
As for athletics, two dozen states have enacted laws or regulations preventing students from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity, often targeting trans girls, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Some of those bans are currently blocked—including one in Utah, where Republican Gov. Spencer Cox vetoed the bill last year but state lawmakers swiftly overrode the veto. Cox notably signed a ban on gender-affirming care for youth earlier this year.
After the Ohio Legislature passed House Bill 68 earlier this month, Nick Lashutka, president and CEO of the Ohio Children's Hospital Association, pointed out that "we do not perform any surgeries on minors for the condition of gender dysphoria."
"If this bill becomes law," he warned, "it will be devastating to kids and their families who are already at their most vulnerable and will place an insurmountable barrier between patients and their medical professionals for often lifesaving care."
DeWine, who visited children's hospitals and spoke with families before announcing the veto, echoed medical professionals on Friday. As The Washington Post reported:
"This bill would impact a very small number of Ohio's children. But for those children who face gender dysphoria, the consequences of this bill could not be more profound. Ultimately I believe this is about protecting human life," DeWine said Friday during a news conference announcing the decision. "Many parents have told me that their child would not have survived, would be dead today, if they had not received the treatment they received from one of Ohio's children's hospitals."
"These are gut-wrenching decisions that should be made by parents and should be informed by teams of doctors who are advising them," DeWine continued. "Were I to sign House Bill 68, or were House Bill 68 to become law, Ohio would be saying that the state, that the government, knows better what is medically best for a child than the two people who love that child the most: the parents."
The Columbus Dispatch noted that DeWine "said his administration will draft rules to ban surgery for patients under 18, collect data on transgender medical care for adults and children, and restrict pop-up clinics that don't provide adequate mental health counseling."
While welcoming the veto as "crucial" and "extraordinary," trans activist and content creator Erin Reed also highlighted the caveats, saying that "the most concerning aspect of Gov. DeWine's announcement was the potential for increased scrutiny of transgender adults in Ohio."
"The fight is far from over," said the groups that sued Texas over the ban.
The Texas Supreme Court, made up entirely of Republicans, decided Thursday to allow a ban on gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth to take effect on September 1, rejecting an emergency effort by advocacy groups to block the law.
The decision came a week after a Texas district judge temporarily halted the Republican-authored law, arguing that S.B. 14 infringes on the "fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children."
Texas officials swiftly appealed the district judge's decision, prompting the rights groups that sued over the law to file an emergency request urging the state's high court to prevent enforcement of the ban, which Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law in June.
The Supreme Court's order allowing the law to take effect on Friday offered no explanation for the decision.
As The Associated Press summarized, S.B. 14 "would prevent transgender minors from accessing hormone therapies, puberty blockers, and transition surgeries, even though medical experts say such surgical procedures are rarely performed on children."
"Children who already started the medications being banned are required to be weaned off in a 'medically appropriate' manner," the outlet added.
Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, and the Transgender Law Center issued a joint statement on Thursday declaring that "the fight is far from over."
"Today's cruel ruling places Texas' transgender youth, and the families and medical professionals who love and care for them, directly in harm's way," the organizations said. "The district court heard two days of testimony, weighed the evidence, and made a reasoned and thoughtful determination that the ban likely violated the Texas Constitution, and thus should be delayed while the full case plays out in court."
"Inexplicably, the Texas Supreme Court disagreed, and transgender Texas youth and their families are forced to confront the start of the school year fearful of what awaits them," the coalition added. "The district court clearly articulated the ways in which S.B. 14 likely violates the Texas Constitution by infringing upon the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, infringing upon Texas physicians' right of occupational freedom, and discriminating against transgender adolescents with gender dysphoria because of their sex, sex stereotypes, and transgender status. We couldn't agree more and look forward to continuing this fight."
With the enactment of S.B. 14, Texas will become one of more than a dozen U.S. states that have imposed legal restrictions on gender-affirming care.
If it was left in place, the district court's injunction against the law "would have blocked the state attorney general's office, the Texas Medical Board, and the Texas Health and Human Services Commission from enforcing the law," The Texas Tribune reported Thursday.
The judge in the case "wrote that transgender youth and their families would 'suffer probable, imminent, and irreparable injury' if S.B. 14 went into effect while the legal battle ensues," the newspaper added. "A trial is set to begin May 6."
This story has been updated to clarify that the joint statement was issued by advocacy groups, not the law firms involved in the case.
"These laws are a shocking example of government overreach and a jarring intrusion into private family decisions," said a coalition of advocacy groups. "This case is far from over, and we will continue to aggressively seek legal protection for these families."
LGBTQ+ rights advocates in Alabama said late Monday that they were "devastated" by a ruling handed down by three federal judges that, in the coming days, will permit a previously blocked law banning transgender healthcare for minors to go into effect—but pledged to continue fighting so transgender and nonbinary youths in the state can get the care they need.
Applying reasoning from the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade, a panel of three judges on the right-wing 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the so-called Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act can go into effect, making it a felony to prescribe or administer puberty blockers or other hormonal therapy to people under the age of 19 who suffer from gender dysphoria.
Doctors or parents who administer the treatment could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.
The decision overturned an earlier ruling by a district court, which had set a trial date for next April to determine whether the law should be permanently blocked.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Human Rights Campaign, which have challenged the law, said transgender young people across Alabama will now be "vulnerable to what the district court... found to be irreparable harm as a result of losing the medical care they have been receiving and that has enabled them to thrive."
"Parents, not the government, are best situated to make these medical decisions for their children," the groups said. "These laws are a shocking example of government overreach and a jarring intrusion into private family decisions. This case is far from over, and we will continue to aggressively seek legal protection for these families."
The judges claimed in their ruling that there is "uncertainty regarding benefits," despite the fact that the use of puberty blockers and hormonal treatments for minors is endorsed by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical organizations. Medical experts note that gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youths is correlated with a sharp reduction in the risk of suicidal ideation and depression.
The Campaign for Southern Equality said the court's reversal of the injunction was "heartbreaking" for families in Alabama.
At The New Republic, Tori Otten noted that the ruling, handed down by judges who were all appointed by former Republican President Donald Trump, illustrates "the appalling legal consequences" of the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of Roe, in which the high court's right-wing majority said abortion rights are not "deeply rooted in history and tradition" in the United States.
"Essentially, because modern medicine has progressed, people do not have the right to bodily autonomy," wrote Otten. "It's also unclear how far back something has to go to be considered 'history.' Puberty blockers were first used in the 1980s, which apparently is not far back enough for gender-affirming care to be considered tradition. But abortion was first recorded in 1550 BCE, and it would seem that doesn't count either."
Transgender rights advocate Erin Reed pointed out that while the ruling only pertains to a law that bans care for those under age 19, the Trump-appointed judges suggested that care for adults should also be considered unconstitutional because it is also not "deeply rooted" in history.
"This is a five-alarm fire," said Reed.
The groups that sued over the law said they are confident that the legal setback is "only a temporary one."
"Every federal district court that has heard the evidence presented in these cases has come to the same conclusion: These medical treatments are safe, effective, and lifesaving for some youth, and there is no legitimate reason to ban them," the groups said. "We believe that at the end of the day, our nation's courts will protect these vulnerable youth and block these harmful laws, which serve no purpose other than to prevent parents from obtaining the medical care their children need."
"We want all the transgender youth of Tennessee to know this fight is far from over and we will continue to challenge this law until it is permanently defeated and Tennessee is made a safer place to raise every family," legal advocates said.
A 2-1 split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled Saturday that Tennessee can enforce its ban on gender-affirming healthcare for minors—reversing a lower court's preliminary injunction, ignoring the guidance of every major medical organization in the United States, and delivering a crushing blow to trans youth and their supporters.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson found that S.B. 1—which prohibits doctors from providing puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and other forms of gender-affirming care to minors and requires trans youth currently receiving such care to stop within nine months—discriminates on the basis of sex and is therefore unconstitutional, siding with plaintiffs who sued Tennessee. The Trump administration appointee blocked large swaths of the law, which was set to take effect on July 1, from being implemented.
Saturday's decision, which came in response to an emergency appeal from Republican Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, temporarily lifts Richardson's order and allows S.B. 1 to take immediate effect while the lawsuit proceeds.
Skrmetti applauded the appeals court, saying, "The case is far from over, but this is a big win." The panel plans to reach a final verdict by September 30, at which point the law could be struck down or upheld.
"This ruling is beyond disappointing and a heartbreaking development for thousands of transgender youth, their doctors, and their families," the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP said in a joint statement. "As we and our clients consider our next steps, we want all the transgender youth of Tennessee to know this fight is far from over and we will continue to challenge this law until it is permanently defeated and Tennessee is made a safer place to raise every family."
The U.S. Justice Department in April filed a separate lawsuit against the Tennessee law.
"This ruling is beyond disappointing and a heartbreaking development for thousands of transgender youth, their doctors, and their families."
Two of the three judges on the Sixth Circuit panel argued that the plaintiffs "have not shown that a right to new medical treatments is 'deeply rooted in our history and traditions,' and thus beyond the democratic process to regulate"—echoing language used by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito when he wrote the majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade and suggesting that transgender rights should be left to the discretion of state lawmakers. Notably, they are the first two federal judges in the country to allow a prohibition on gender-affirming care to fully take hold.
As part of their broader attack on LGBTQ+ people, Republican-controlled legislatures have approved bans or restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors in at least 20 states since 2021, forcing many families and doctors to move or consider relocating. The federal judiciary, which has repeatedly blocked such laws from being enforced, had been a key source of reprieve until Saturday.
In addition to Richardson in Tennessee, judges in five other states—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, and Kentucky—have determined that trans youth healthcare bans are unconstitutional or likely unconstitutional.
Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld U.S. District Judge Jay Moody's preliminary injunction against Arkansas' ban. Last month, in what was the first ruling on the merits of such a law, Moody concluded the state had violated the U.S. Constitution—namely the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses as well as First Amendment rights—and issued a permanent injunction. Republican Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said he plans to appeal the ruling, though it will be heard by the same court that already backed Moody in 2022.
At his Law Dork blog, journalist Chris Geidner explained the shoddy reasoning behind and dangerous implications of Saturday's 17-page ruling—written by Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, and endorsed by Judge Amul Thapar, who, like Richardson, was picked by former President Donald Trump.
After Sutton cited the aforementioned series of decisions halting multiple gender-affirming care bans around the country, he wrote: "We appreciate their perspectives, and they give us pause. But they do not eliminate our doubts about the ultimate strength of the challengers' claims."
Despite being the only court to dismiss plaintiffs' constitutional arguments, Geidner noted, "Sutton still attempted to claim the mantle of judicial modesty, stating that these are just 'initial views,' and adding: 'We may be wrong. It may be that the one week we have had to resolve this motion does not suffice to see our own mistakes.'"
"Nonetheless," Geidner pointed out, "Sutton was okay with his court being the sole one in the nation to allow such restrictions to be enforced."
Dissenting Judge Helene White said that she would have limited Richardson's statewide injunction so that it applied only to the plaintiffs and the Vanderbilt University Medical Center where they sought care. But unlike Sutton and Thapar, White sided with the many judges who have ruled in similar cases, writing that "the law discriminates based on sex" and "is likely unconstitutional."
Geidner went on to describe how Saturday's ruling "alters the legal landscape for these bans, at least temporarily."
As discussed at the outset, Tennessee is now allowed to enforce S.B. 1, barring any further court orders.
"The untenable position that adolescents, their caregivers, and their doctors have been put in is not only illegal, but also deeply unethical and dangerous."
Chase Strangio—a prominent ACLU lawyer working on several challenges to anti-trans laws nationwide, including Tennessee's—told Geidner that "things are moving quickly and for many families, waiting for legal relief is not an option. The untenable position that adolescents, their caregivers, and their doctors have been put in is not only illegal, but also deeply unethical and dangerous."
Strangio, the deputy director for transgender justice within the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, said that the ACLU "will continue to aggressively litigate these cases in Tennessee and across the country."
When asked whether the challengers would try to get the stay lifted, either by the full Sixth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court, Strangio stated, "We are still evaluating all our options with our primary concern of course being how can we help ensure that people in Tennessee are not cut off from the care they need."
Sutton's self-imposed deadline to resolve the case is September 30.
Meanwhile, Kentucky falls within the Sixth Circuit. In a Saturday court filing, Republican Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron cited the panel's ruling as a reason why U.S. District Judge David Hale should "immediately" issue a stay of his June 28 decision granting a preliminary injunction.
According to Geidner, "The Sixth Circuit also consolidated Cameron's appeal of the Kentucky injunction in a separate order Saturday, which not only brings that case on the same schedule as the Tennessee appeal but also essentially confirms that Sixth Circuit would almost certainly issue a stay of the Kentucky injunction if the district court does not do so."
He continued:
Finally, the new, if tentative, lack of unanimity itself matters for two reasons—one rhetorical and one practical. Obviously, having unanimity is its own argument against the constitutionality of these bans. Additionally, although only at the stay request posture, the ruling increases the likelihood that a "circuit split" on these bans will develop—a factor that greatly increases the chances of the U.S. Supreme Court taking up one of these cases.
Few people know that better than Sutton.
It was, after all, Sutton's 2014 decision in the marriage cases out of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee that prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue of same-sex couples' constitutional right to marriage equality. Less than two months before Sutton's decision in those cases, the Supreme Court denied other states' requests to hear similar appeals when the federal appeals courts were in unanimity on the issue. After Sutton's decision created a circuit split, however, the Supreme Court took up the issue.
Geidner's argument dovetails with one put forth last week by The Intercept's Natasha Lennard, who warned that the GOP is poised to replicate its anti-abortion strategy—pushing the issue up the judicial ladder until it reaches a potentially favorable audience among the high court's reactionary majority—to destroy LGBTQ+ rights.
"Republicans have made clear that they plan to brute force their eliminationist assault on trans people into legal reality," Lennard wrote. "The far right knows how to bend legal paradigms to their will through tireless and well-funded campaigns, working through the minority rule of Republican-led statehouses until eventually reaching the Supreme Court. The same playbook hacked away at abortion access until an established right was wholly overturned, and settled law was ripped to shreds."