![](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/661adb368d40162ea7167c1f/1713987756247-J1NYUPQLPVEPYZU74GD1/image-asset.jpeg)
ONGOING CASES
![Doe v. Surgeon General, State of Florida](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/661adb368d40162ea7167c1f/7cb1302b-18a7-4ea0-9138-a2b01fadc10b/florida.jpg)
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](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/661adb368d40162ea7167c1f/f5d70165-896a-44a1-9456-f348676a0eba/Franklin_County_Courthouse_3-1920x1080.jpg)
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.
![B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/661adb368d40162ea7167c1f/1713902886793-5748SX2QY6CAA5420V90/becky-pepper-jackson-at-a-track-field-b.jpg)
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](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/661adb368d40162ea7167c1f/1716758202137-1Q3QO3TR2DZBRHXIG8XF/let%2Btrans%2Bkids%2Bplay.png)
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](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/661adb368d40162ea7167c1f/1715115501149-S8P3RYF4EQ6QE5GBQLPK/Photo.jpeg)
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](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/661adb368d40162ea7167c1f/4c79f610-9350-42a4-a0db-acba5c0ecb94/protect+trans+kids.jpeg)
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.](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/661adb368d40162ea7167c1f/1714936514446-O192WUGIP09V657QBV8W/yearwood+2.jpeg)
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.
![Brandt v. Griffin](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/661adb368d40162ea7167c1f/1713901960434-I0NXAJPWD3CJL4Z2JMD4/brandt.jpg)
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.
![Poe v. Labrador](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/661adb368d40162ea7167c1f/1713902037134-OJ7O2YLC44J6DHU2ZMNL/pledge.png)
Poe v. Labrador
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
On April 15, 2024, the Supreme Court temporarily revived an Idaho law banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth. This is the first time the justices have intervened in a case on this issue. The parties await a decision on the case's merits from the Idaho district court.