ONGOING CASES
United States v. Skrmetti
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
On June 24, 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments on this case and an analogous trans healthcare case in Kentucky, to take place on December 4, 2024. It is unclear how the Justices will rule on this issue; what is known, however, is that whatever decision the high Court delivers will have far-reaching consequences for trans people, especially trans children, for the foreseeable future.
Doe v. Surgeon General, State of Florida
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
On August 26, 2024, a split panel on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stayed enforcement the district court's June 2024 decision pending resolution of the appeal. The now-invalid lower court decision, which was a resounding victory for trans Floridians, struck down the state's severe trans healthcare restrictions after determining that they violated the U.S. Constitution. The restrictions may now go info effect while the merits of the state's appeal are evaluated by the appellate court.
Moe v. Yost
FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Two families of trans children filed a lawsuit challenging Ohio H.B. 68, which bans gender-affirming care for trans youth and prohibits trans youth from participating equally in school sports. On August 6, 2024, the court upheld the healthcare ban and vacated the temporary restraining order, allowing the ban to go into effect. Plaintiffs appealed the decision and await a ruling by the state appeals court.
Lange v. Houston County, Georgia
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
On August 15, 2024, the Eleventh Circuit decided to reconsider en banc the recent panel ruling which upheld Ms. Lange’s right to seek coverage for gender-affirming care through her employer's healthcare plan. The order also vacated the panel’s order pending the Court’s en banc decision. The ruling may now be overturned, which could gravely affect the rights of trans employees seeking to have the costs of gender-affirming care covered by their employer's health insurance. Oral arguments will be heard by the en banc court on February 4, 2025.
B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education
FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
On April 16, 2024, the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiff, a middle school-aged trans athlete and held that a West Virginia law prohibiting trans students from participating equally in school sports violated Title IX. On November 18, 2024, the Supreme Court denied defendants’ petition for review.
The Title IX Cases
Red states have been in a performative uproar since the Biden Administration announced new trans-inclusive changes to Title IX, which will become effective on August 1, 2024. Twenty-six republican-led states have filed seven separate lawsuits against the Biden Administration, challenging this change.
Hecox v. Little
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
In April of 2020, female athletes (both trans and cis) filed a complaint against the Idaho Governor challenging HB 500, which broadly banned trans and intersex females from participating in women’s and girls’ sports and mandated invasive medical testing to be done on girls and women whose “biological sex” was “in dispute.” The district court blocked enforcement of the law, as did the appellate court. However, in light of the Supreme Court’s stay order in Poe v. Labrador, the appellate court amended the injunction to apply only the plaintiff. Proceedings are currently stayed pending resolution of the State’s petition for review with the Supreme Court.
K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana
SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
In April of 2023, families of trans youth in Indiana sued the state challenging a law banning gender-affirming care for trans youth. The district court stayed enforcement of the law, but the appellate court allowed the law to go into effect. The parties are still waiting for a determination on the case’s merits from the district court.
Soule et al. v. Connecticut Assoc. of Schools et al.
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
In 2020, four cisgender female student athletes brought a lawsuit against their schools and two trans-female student athletes, alleging that the district’s trans-inclusive athletics policy violated Title IX by allowing “male-bodied” students to compete unfairly against “biological females.” The district court dismissed the case, and the Second Circuit reinstated it and remanded for further proceedings. The case pends now before the district court, where Defendants have moved to dismiss.
Zayre-Brown v. North Carolina Dep’t of Public Safety
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
The North Carolina Dep’t of Public Safety housed Ms. Kanautica Zayre-Brown, a transgender woman, in a male prison for two year, while also denying her access to gender-affirming care and subjecting her to inhumane treatment because she is transgender. On April 16, 2024, the district court found that the state agency violated Ms. Zayre-Brown’s Eighth Amendment rights. The case is ongoing.
Kansas v. Harper
KANSAS STATE COURT OF APPEALS
Attorney General Kris Kobach brought a suit against state agencies that refused to comply with the Kansas Women’s Bill of Rights, a discriminatory law that targets trans people by restricting the definition of “woman” to the biological function of producing ova. The AG now claims that the law prohibits residents from changing their gender markers on state-issued IDs, a practice that has been going on in Kansas, without issue, for decades. The ACLU of Kansas joined the lawsuit on behalf of the state agencies.
Coombe v. Muse Management, Inc.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Plaintiff and trans fashion model Frances Coombe brought suit against his former management company for discrimination, retaliation, and lost wages. Coombe claims that defendants constructively terminated him after he announced that he would be transitioning and cease to present (or model) as female.
Anderson v. Crouch
FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
VICTORY! On April 29, 2024, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a joint decision en banc in Kadel v. Folwell and Anderson v. Crouch, finding that healthcare plans that cover medically necessary treatments for certain diagnoses but bar coverage of those same medically necessary treatments for patients diagnosed with gender dysphoria violate federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
Kadel v. Folwell
FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
VICTORY! On April 29, 2024, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a joint decision en banc in Kadel v. Folwell and Anderson v. Crouch, finding that healthcare plans that cover medically necessary treatments for certain diagnoses but bar coverage of those same medically necessary treatments for patients diagnosed with gender dysphoria violate federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
Kluge V. Brownsburg Community School
SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
John Kluge resigned from his position at the Brownsburg Community School after administrators refused to allow him to misname and misgender trans students as an accommodation for his religious beliefs. On April 30, 2024, the district court entered judgment for the school and ruled that teachers do no have a religious right to misname and misgender students.
Kozak v. CSX Transp., Inc.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In a breakthrough decision, the district court ruled that gender dysphoria is not a “gender identity disorder” excluded from the definition of disability under the ADA. The decision paves the way for individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria to access greater workplace protections as disabled persons.
Hammons v. University of Maryland Medical System, Inc.
FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
Jesse Hammons was denied a commonly performed medical procedure at the University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center because he is transgender. The taxpayer-owned hospital claims that providing Hammons with medical care would be a violation of their religious beliefs. The case is currently in abeyance pending the Fourth Circuit's en banc decision in Anderson v. Crouch.
Zinner v. Tennessee
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Plaintiffs Gerda Zinner and Story VanNess brought suit against the State of Tennessee, alleging that the state’s public employee health benefits program unlawfully deprived both women of coverage for essential medical services because they are transgender.
Copeland V. Georgia Dep’t of Corrections
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
On March 28, 2024, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that repeated and intentional misgendering could constitute a hostile work environment. The case was remanded for further proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
Brandt v. Griffin
EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
On April 11, the Eighth Circuit en banc Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in this case, which involves a challenge to an Arkansas law banning gender-affirming care for trans youth and prohibiting doctors from treating or even referring minors for gender-affirming care.