Blog

What’s at stake in U.S. v Skrmetti?

The Supreme Court will decide an important LGBTQ+ case this session.

U.S. v Skrmetti is about whether state governments can tell families with transgender kids they can’t get their children health care that their doctors recommend, and that will allow them to be healthy, happy young people.

That’s a pretty harmful thing for states to do. Federal courts all over the country have agreed, saying governments can’t make a rule that the same safe effective medical care that is regularly used to help all kinds of kids must be denied only to transgender kids.

That’s discrimination. And what the Supreme Court is going to decide in this case is whether laws like these that deny something to people just because they are transgender go against an important principle in our constitution, that all people should have equal protection under the law.

And in fact the Court has already said something on this question. Just 4 years ago in a 2020 case called Bostock, the Court said that discriminating against someone because they are transgender, or gay or lesbian or bisexual, is discrimination on the basis of sex. Laws that discriminate on the basis of sex are subject to extra scrutiny. That means governments must be able to show a really strong reason why such a law is necessary even though it discriminates against some people. If they can’t show that compelling reason, the law has to go.

The fact is, states haven’t been able show any compelling reason why health care that has been safely used for decades should be denied just to transgender kids. Most federal courts have recognized that is not about health care, it’s about saying trans kids don’t deserve to get care they need like everyone else.

But a handful of higher courts have decided to ignore that important constitutional principle that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law and say it’s OK to discriminate against some people – in this case transgender people.

So now the Supreme Court is going to weigh in. There’s no reason the Court should say anything different in this case than they said in Bostock in 2020. Making sure people aren’t treated unfairly just because of who they are is key part of what our constitution stands for.

And that’s pretty important to all of us.

Support our work for transgender rights

News

Home

Florida Families File Brief Against Arbitrary Ban on Healthcare for Transgender Youth

“As a parent, it is heartbreaking to see my right to make healthcare decisions for my child taken away by political bullies, and the hurt and harm that has caused my child.”

Yesterday, Florida families challenging the state’s ban on medical care for transgender youth urged the Eleventh Circuit to strike down the ban because it was based on animosity toward transgender people and has no basis in medical science. Striking down the ban would affirm the earlier lower federal court decision, which took this action based on this reasoning.

Federal district court Judge Robert Hinkle issued an order on June 11 declaring that Florida’s ban on medical care for transgender youth and its unprecedented restrictions of care for transgender adults are unconstitutional and may not be enforced. Judge Hinkle issued his order after a multi-day trial including multiple witnesses and experts. In a 105-page decision, Judge Hinkle found that the evidence, including statements made by sponsors and key supporters of the law, overwhelmingly showed that a majority of legislators who voted for these restrictions on healthcare were “motivated by anti-transgender animus.”

“I love my child and want to get her the healthcare she needs,” said Plaintiff Jane Doe, parent of Susan Doe. “As a parent, it is heartbreaking to see my right to make healthcare decisions for my child taken away by political bullies, and the hurt and harm that has caused my child.”

Following Judge Hinkle’s order, the State of Florida appealed his decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which will decide whether to affirm or reverse his decision. Last month, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit stayed Judge Hinkle’s order pending its resolution of the appeal, which means that the challenged laws are currently in effect, depriving Florida families and transgender adults of the ability to obtain medical care.

As Judge Hinkle noted in his order, “the overwhelming weight of medical authority” supports making these treatments accessible to transgender people, and permitting Florida to enforce these arbitrary restrictions “will cause needless suffering for a substantial number of patients.”

Judge Hinkle also found that the administrative process that resulted in Board of Medicine and Board of Osteopathic Medicine rules banning medical care for transgender minors was riddled with bias and radical departures from the Boards’ ordinary practices, noting that “the Boards departed from their usual procedures, orchestrated public hearings, and single-mindedly pursued the predetermined outcome sought by the Governor and Surgeon General.” Judge Hinkle further noted that the State of Florida had failed to identify even a single person who has been harmed by the provision of this healthcare in Florida.

The families and adults challenging Florida’s restrictions are represented by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Human Rights Campaign Foundation (HRC), National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Southern Legal Counsel (SLC), and Lowenstein Sandler LLP.

Learn more about the case Doe v. Ladapo, including the July 11 order denying the State’s request for a stay and the June 11 decision finding Florida’s health care ban unlawful and blocking its enforcement.

News

Home

Federal Court Blocks Enforcement of Transgender Sports Ban Against New Hampshire Students

Ruling allows high school students Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle to participate on their teams with their friends and classmates while their case challenging HB 1205 proceeds

CONCORD, N.H. – A federal court issued an order today blocking enforcement of a New Hampshire law that bans transgender girls from playing on school sports teams, against plaintiffs Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle while their case against it proceeds. The court ruled that the law, HB 1205, discriminates against transgender students in violation of Title IX and the U.S. Constitution.

The judge ruled that “HB 1205, on its face, discriminates against transgender girls,” that it “is not even a close call.” The ruling goes on to say, “The stigma and humiliation that comes from such treatment of a child at the hands of the State is substantial and irreparable.”

The families of Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, represented by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, ACLU of New Hampshire, and Goodwin, filed their federal lawsuit challenging HB 1205 on August 16.

The court issued an earlier emergency order that allowed sophomore Parker Tirrell to join her soccer team for practice and the first games of the season. Today’s ruling broadens that order to include her co-plaintiff, freshman Iris Turmelle who is looking forward to trying out for and playing with the tennis and track and field teams at her new school, and to extend throughout the duration of the case.

“I just want to go to school like other kids, play the game I love, and hang out with my friends. I’m really happy this decision means I don’t have to let my team down for the rest of the season,” said Parker Tirrell.

“It’s a huge relief to know that Parker will be able to keep playing soccer with her friends, which brings her so much joy. This ruling means my daughter can go to school everyday without carrying the weight of being treated differently because of who she is. That’s all her father and I want for her – to be happy, healthy, and know she belongs.” said Sara Tirrell, Parker’s mother.

“I was really looking forward to starting at my new school and trying out for track and tennis, but HB 1205 took that chance away. I just want the same opportunities as other girls at school. I’m really happy to know I now have the chance to try out for a team, learn, play and make new friends,” said Iris Turmelle.

“Iris just started high school which is hard enough for any kid. This decision means she doesn’t have an extra burden on her shoulders. I’m so glad she’ll get the chance to be part of a team, make new friends, and have fun with track and tennis. It gives her dad and me so much peace of mind to know she’ll be treated fairly and can have a safe and happy freshman year.” said Amy Manzelli, Iris’s mother.

The lawsuit, Tirrell and Turmelle v. Edelblut, alleges that HB 1205 denies Parker and Iris equal educational opportunities and singles them out for discrimination solely because they are transgender girls, in violation of federal law and constitutional guarantees of equal protection. The law denies them the many educational, social, and physical and mental health benefits that come with playing sports, and isolates them from friends and teammates.

In addition to today’s ruling, two federal courts of appeal and multiple federal district courts have issued rulings finding laws like HB 1205 which categorically ban transgender girls from participation in school sports to be unlawful discrimination.

Parker, Iris, and their families are represented by Chris Erchull, Ben Klein, and Jennifer Levi at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Henry Klementowicz and Gilles Bissonnette at the ACLU of New Hampshire, and Louis Lobel, Kevin DeJong, and Elaine Blais at Goodwin.

“Today’s ruling is clear: New Hampshire cannot justify singling out students to deny them essential educational benefits simply because they are transgender. We are pleased the court understands that Parker and Iris, along with all other transgender students in New Hampshire, deserve access to the countless benefits school sports provide, including physical and mental health, leadership skills, and social development.” said Chris Erchull, Senior Staff Attorney, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).

“Today’s court order is a positive step forward in restoring access not just for Parker and Iris but every child in the Granite State who has a right to equal opportunities at school guaranteed under the law. Laws that aim to exclude, single out, and discriminate against transgender youth have no place in New Hampshire and we are happy to see the court recognize how unconstitutional and harmful they are.” said Henry Klementowicz, Deputy Legal Director, ACLU of New Hampshire.

“Parker and Iris are deserving of an equal education, like every other student. We are pleased the court acted so quickly to ensure they are allowed to continue playing sports with their teammates while the case against HB 1205 proceeds,” said Louis Lobel, Associate, Goodwin.

Tirrell and Turmelle v. Edelblut was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

Learn more about Tirrell and Turmell v. Edelblut.

News

Home

Advocates Respond to U.S. Department of Justice Lawsuit Against State of Maine for Failures in Maine’s Children’s Behavioral Health System

The suit comes after more than two years of negotiations between the parties

Augusta – Today, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit against the State of Maine based on its June 2022 findings that Maine discriminated against youth with disabilities by failing to maintain an adequate system of behavioral health services that prevent institutionalization. The lawsuit comes after settlement negotiations broke down.

“Twenty-five years after the landmark Supreme Court decision Olmstead v. L.C., which found that unnecessarily segregating people with disabilities into institutional settings violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, Maine children and their families are still waiting for a legally compliant behavioral health system. And despite calls for more than a decade to ensure the availability of those services, Maine has failed to do so. Unfortunately, this lawsuit was the necessary result of that continued failure,” said Atlee Reilly, Managing Attorney, Disability Rights Maine.

After initially receiving a complaint filed by Disability Rights Maine, the U.S. DOJ conducted a lengthy investigation and found:

“Maine’s community-based behavioral health system fails to provide sufficient services. As a result, hundreds of children are unnecessarily segregated in institutions each year, while other children are at serious risk of entering institutions.”
“Children are unable to access behavioral health services in their homes and communities—services that are part of an existing array of programs that the State advertises to families through its Medicaid program (MaineCare), but does not make available in a meaningful or timely manner.”
“Maine children with behavioral health needs are eligible and appropriate for the range of community-based services the State offers, but either remain in segregated settings or are at serious risk of institutionalization.”
“Families and children in Maine are overwhelmingly open to receiving services in integrated settings. In fact, parents indicated a strong preference that their children receive services at home due to trauma, neglect, and abuse that their children reportedly endured in residential facilities within and outside of Maine.”

Those findings should not have been a surprise to the State of Maine, which had been on clear notice of the widespread inadequacy of its community-based behavioral health system for children when a comprehensive assessment concluded, in 2018, that children’s behavioral health services were not available when needed, or not available at all. Two years later, a separate independent assessment of the juvenile justice system found that many youth are detained and incarcerated at Long Creek because they could not access appropriate community-based services for their behavioral and mental health needs.

What was true in 2018 remains true today- Maine continues to fail to ensure that children with disabilities have access to the community-based behavioral health services they need in their homes and communities. As a result, children with disabilities in Maine are unnecessarily institutionalized in residential facilities, including at Long Creek and in other residential facilities both inside and outside the state, severing their ties to family and community. This violates their right, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, to receive services in the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs.

“When kids can access treatment and support close to home, they can stay connected with their families and communities,” said ACLU of Maine Legal Director Carol Garvan. “Unfortunately, for far too long, Maine has not ensured these services. Since 2016, we have been working to address human rights violations at Long Creek, but not enough has been done. Maine must provide its kids the services they need to live healthy and safe lives.”

“Maine children with disabilities and their families deserve what the law requires, which is community-based behavioral health services. The failure to provide those services harms children, strains and fragments families, and ripples across communities. Maine can and must step up to meet its obligations with the services the law requires,” said Mary Bonauto, Senior Director at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders.

As the U.S. DOJ indicated in its complaint,

“Maine can implement reasonable modifications so that children with behavioral health disabilities can live and thrive in integrated settings instead of entering institutions to access care.”
“But instead of modifying its service system to prevent and resolve unnecessary segregation, Maine has prioritized expanding its institutional services.”

Read the DOJ press release.

News

Home

We are heartbroken to learn that a transgender teenager was assaulted in Gloucester at the end of last week. We hope for a quick and full recovery from his injuries, and that he has the support he will need to heal from this traumatic incident. Family support plays a critical role in ensuring LGBTQ+ youth are protected and able to thrive, and we are heartened to know this young man has a loving advocate in his mother. As the investigation into what happened Friday proceeds, we hope that both the school and wider community are able to learn from this incident and turn toward kindness and away from violence.

To this young man and his family, and to all LGBTQ+ youth in Gloucester, throughout Massachusetts, and across the country, know that you are loved, you are supported, and you belong.

If you are an LGBTQ+ youth or family member looking for resources, you are not alone.

Trans Lifeline

Peer support phone service run by transgender people for trans and questioning peers. Call if you need someone trans to talk to, even if you’re not in a crisis or if you’re not sure you’re trans.

Visit TransLifeline.org or call 877-565-8860.
Español: Visite a TransLifeline.org/es o llame al 877-565-8860 y presione 2 para conectarse con operadores que se hablan español.

Trevor Project

Suicide prevention, crisis intervention, and support for LGBTQ+ young people.

For support, call 1-866-488-7386, text ‘START’ to 678-678, or chat with a counselor online at TheTrevorProject.org/get-help.
For resources, visit TheTrevorProject.org/resources.

GLAD Answers

GLAD’s free and confidential resource for legal information, assistance, and referrals.

Visit GLADAnswers.org, email GLADAnswers@glad.org or leave a voicemail at 800-455-GLAD.

News

Home

Kentucky Families and Civil Rights Groups Urge Supreme Court to Rule Against Discriminatory and Harmful Transgender Health Bans

In their friend-of-the-court brief filed today in U.S. v. Skrmetti, Kentucky parents and a wide array of civil rights groups say laws like Tennessee’s and Kentucky’s discriminate against transgender people and harm youth and their families

LOUISVILLE, Ky – Kentucky parents of transgender children and a wide array of civil rights groups have weighed in as the Supreme Court prepares to hear U.S. v. Skrmetti, the challenge to Tennessee’s ban on healthcare for transgender adolescents. The families are plaintiffs in Doe v Thornbury, a challenge to a similar law in Kentucky, and are joined by SAGE, National Trans Bar Association, LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York, Mazzoni Center, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom (BALIF). They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The brief argues that the bans in Tennessee and Kentucky, like those passed in other states, intentionally discriminate against transgender youth by denying them medications that are prescribed for other youth. These laws do not ban these medications for all minors, but only when they are prescribed for transgender minors. As a result of this discriminatory treatment, transgender youth are unable to obtain the only effective treatment for the severe distress caused by gender dysphoria.

“The parents challenging these laws have seen firsthand the positive impact appropriate medical care has had on their children’s wellbeing, and the detrimental health impacts their kids experience without it,” said Corey Shapiro, Legal Director at the ACLU of Kentucky. “Denying these treatments to transgender youth who need them is not only unlawful, it is heartbreaking for parents. We are proud to represent these Kentucky families and will continue to fight for their right to make decisions for their families without government interference.”

“You don’t have to know about transgender health care to know that these bans are not about medicine – they are about discrimination,” said Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. “They ban safe, effective and widely available medications only when they are prescribed for transgender adolescents. The discrimination baked into these laws is intentional, clear, and devastating. The Supreme Court in Bostock powerfully affirmed that discriminating against transgender people is sex discrimination. Under that standard, no state can justify denying transgender adolescents essential medical care.”

“Families, not the government, should make decisions about medical care,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “These bans target youth whose doctors have determined they need this care and whose parents have made informed decisions about what is best for their own children.”

The overwhelming consensus among medical professionals is that established medical treatments are safe, effective, and necessary to protect transgender adolescents’ wellbeing. Yet, 26 states have passed laws banning essential medical care for transgender youth.

Across the country, federal district courts have held that bans like those in Tennessee and Kentucky single out transgender youth in order to deny them safe, effective, and well-established medical care. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court agreed to review a Sixth Circuit opinion which reversed district court decisions blocking these bans in Tennessee and Kentucky. The U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the Tennessee case, L.W. v. Skrmetti, and the U.S. Solicitor General will argue against the ban when the Supreme Court hears the case later this year.

“If America is to make good on its promises of freedom without favor and equality without exception, families and their doctors, not politicians, must be able to make health care decisions for transgender youth,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “We urge the Court to protect everyone’s right to live as their true selves, free from discrimination or litmus tests, and to access the medical care they need.”

“Transgender older adults have lived through eras where access to hormone therapy was severely limited or non-existent,” said Aaron Tax, SAGE’s Managing Director of Government Affairs and Policy Advocacy. “Fortunately, today we have evidence-based clinical guidelines that affirm what we now know: hormone therapy is safe, effective, and can be life-saving. Every generation deserves the right to access this vital, gender-affirming care.”

“The National Trans Bar Association endorses the request for the Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit’s decision and make clear that denying individuals medically necessary treatment on the basis of their gender identity violates the Equal Protection Clause,” said Rafael Langer-Osuna, Co-Chair of the National Trans Bar Association. “The National Trans Bar Association supports the right of all transgender people, regardless of age, to have access to medically necessary gender-affirming care. As transgender and non-binary attorneys and law students, we unequivocally stand with the plaintiffs and with the transgender youth of Tennessee and Kentucky, and condemn these states’ discriminatory attempts to deny their citizens life-saving medical care. We will continue to use our legal training and experience to protect transgender people throughout the U.S. and the world against discriminatory attacks on basic human rights.”

“BALIF unequivocally supports the right for transgender youth to have access to gender-affirming medical care,” said Dustin Helmer, Co-Chair of Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom (BALIF). “The consequences of denying this right are not only immoral, but often life-threatening. BALIF endorses the request for the Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit’s decision and make it clear that bans on medicinal treatment for transgender adolescents violate the Equal Protection Clause. We abhor Tennessee and Kentucky’s discriminatory attacks on transgender adolescents, and we will continue to fight for policies that uplift and provide safety and dignity for transgender people all over the U.S. and world.”

“Transgender young people and their families need access to medically necessary treatment, and they need the Court to recognize their right to determine, with their doctors, what is best for them without unjustifiable and discriminatory government interference,” said Thomas W. Ude, Jr., Legal and Public Policy Director at Mazzoni Center.

The Kentucky families’ brief is among over 30 friend-of-the-court briefs being filed today. Bioethicists, medical providers, medical historians, family law professors, additional families in states where care has been banned and more are urging the Supreme Court to rule against bans on essential medical care for transgender adolescents so that families can make the health care decisions that are best for their children.

News

Home

NH Supreme Court Upholds Manchester School District Policy Supporting Transgender Students and Student Privacy

CONCORD, N.H. – The New Hampshire Supreme Court today affirmed a lower court ruling upholding a Manchester school district policy in support of transgender students, which includes referring to students by their requested names and pronouns and maintaining student privacy when appropriate. The Court concluded that “[T]he plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Policy infringes a fundamental parenting right.”

“Schools must provide a welcoming and supportive environment for all students. Today’s decision upholds that core value and allows schools to manage the educational environment so that all students have an equal and safe opportunity to learn,” said Chris Erchull, Senior Staff Attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders.

“We are pleased with the court’s decision to affirm what we already know, that students deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and have a right to freely express who they are without the fear of being forcibly outed.” said Henry Klementowicz, Deputy Legal Director at the ACLU of New Hampshire. “Removing the Manchester School District’s existing, affirming policy would have created an environment where LGBTQ+ students don’t feel safe being who they are—and in school, they should feel safe, cared for, and able to learn to the best of their ability.”

In today’s decision the Court cited language from the trial court’s ruling regarding the Manchester School District Policy:

[T]he Policy does not prevent parents from observing their children’s behavior, moods, and activities; talking to their children; providing religious or other education to their children; choosing where their children live and go to school; obtaining medical care and counseling for their children; monitoring their children’s communications on social media; choosing with whom their children may socialize; and deciding what their children may do in their free time. In short, the Policy places no limits on the plaintiff’s ability to parent her child as she sees fit.

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and the ACLU of New Hampshire represented New Hampshire parent Heather Romeri and her son Nico, a New Hampshire high school student, on a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the case, Jane Doe v. Manchester School District.

“I’m so grateful that Nico has the support he needs in school,” said Nico’s mother, Heather Romeri, at the time their brief was filed. “Of course I want my child to feel he can talk to me about anything, but above all I want him to feel safe and happy. I understand that he needed to be able to talk about what he was going through with others before he came to me, and I’m so glad he had that chance, just as I am glad that he had the chance to see how much his family loves and supports him once he was ready to come to us.”

“It was important for me to have the support of other people I could trust to help me feel ready to talk to my parents, especially people who could help make it easier for me to talk to my mom,” said Nico Romeri, a New Hampshire transgender high school student. “Transgender students want the same opportunity to learn and be ourselves, just like any kid, without having to worry that adults at school will violate our trust. If someone had decided to tell my mom what they thought about my gender, it would have made things so much harder for me at school and at home.”

Learn more about the case.

News

Home

Statement on 11th Circuit Denial of Alabama Families’ Request to Reconsider Ruling That Allowed Transgender Health Ban to Take Effect

The 2023 panel opinion at issue reversed a federal district court opinion granting the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law

With four of eleven judges dissenting, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals today issued its decision denying the request of parents and children challenging Alabama’s ban on healthcare for transgender adolescents for the entire court to rehear the case.

In a sharply divided vote with multiple dissents, a bare majority of the court declined to review the 2023 panel opinion holding that Alabama’s ban neither discriminates against transgender people nor violates the fundamental right of parents to make medical decisions for their children. The 2023 panel opinion reversed a federal district court opinion granting the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law.

In dissent, Judge Rosenbaum wrote:

“[T]he panel opinion is dangerous and wrong. Make no mistake: while the panel opinion continues in force, no modern medical treatment is safe from a state’s misguided decision to outlaw it almost regardless of the state’s reason. Worse still, if a state bans a post-1868 treatment, no patient has legal recourse to provide their child with that necessary, life-saving medical care in this Circuit. And if an individual can’t access a medical treatment because of their sex or transgender status, they are similarly without recourse.”

Also dissenting, Judge Jordan wrote:

“The panel’s decision necessarily means that the fundamental right of parents to obtain medical treatment for their children extends only to procedures and medications that existed in 1868, and not to modern advances like the polio vaccine (developed in the 1950s), cardiac surgery (first performed in 1983), organ transplants (first successfully completed in 1954), and treatments for cancer like radiation (first used in 1899) and chemotherapy (which started in the 1940s).”

Judges Wilson and Jill Pryor also dissented from the denial of rehearing.

The plaintiffs’ case seeking a permanent injunction blocking the law is still pending before the district court. Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging a similar law from Tennessee, which also bans medical care for transgender adolescents. That case will be heard later this year, and a decision is expected in 2025.

Statement from counsel representing the plaintiff parents and youth challenging Alabama’s law:

“We are disappointed by the decision, but encouraged that nearly half the court dissented from the denial of rehearing. We are also encouraged by the strong dissenting opinions, which are consistent with the view of most judges who have ruled in similar cases across the country. As the dissenting judges point out, the panel’s decision is not only wrong, but dangerous. Families, not the government, should make medical decisions for children. The evidence presented in the case overwhelmingly showed that the banned treatments provide enormous benefits to the adolescents who need them, and that parents are making responsible decisions for their own children. We will continue to challenge this harmful measure and to advocate for these young people and their parents. Laws like this have no place in a free country.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) are joined in the litigation by co-counsel King & Spalding LLP and Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC.

Learn more about Boe v. Marshall.

News

Home

Statement on 11th Circuit Order Allowing Florida Transgender Health Ban to Take Effect

In 2-1 ruling, 11th Circuit Allows Florida Transgender Health Ban to Take Effect Pending Action on State’s Appeal of Decision Blocking the Law

Today a divided panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a federal district court decision blocking enforcement of the Florida laws banning health care for transgender minors and restricting it for transgender adults. The 2-1 ruling allows the state to enforce the laws while the Court hears Florida’s appeal of the June 11 decision finding that SB 254 and the Boards of Medicine rules unlawfully targeted transgender people.

Writing in dissent, Judge Wilson found that the district court had “identified sufficient record evidence to support concluding that the act’s passage was based on invidious discrimination against transgender adults and minors,” and that “withholding access to gender-affirming care would cause needless suffering.”

The organizations representing the plaintiffs in Doe v. Ladapo, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Human Rights Campaign Foundation (HRC), National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Southern Legal Counsel (SLC), and Lowenstein Sandler LLP, issued the following statement in response to today’s ruling:

“We are deeply disappointed by this decision and the panel’s disregard for the district court’s careful findings and adherence to the Eleventh Circuit’s recent precedent. Allowing these discriminatory restrictions to go back into effect will deny transgender adults and adolescents lifesaving care, and prevent Florida parents from making medical decisions that are right for their children. As the district court found based on voluminous evidence, the record shows that these extraordinary restrictions were based on disapproval of transgender people and serve no purpose other than to harm transgender Floridians. The plaintiffs in this case are considering their options and will take every step possible to protect their right to equal treatment under Florida’s laws, which these restrictions egregiously violate. We will continue fighting for transgender Floridians and their families, and for everyone’s right to make healthcare decisions without government interference.”

Learn more about Doe v. Ladapo

News

Home

Students Challenge New Hampshire Law Excluding Transgender Girls from School Sports

High school students Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, joined by their parents and represented by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the ACLU of New Hampshire, and Goodwin, say the new law denies them equal education and singles them out for discrimination as they prepare to start the new school year

Today, the families of two New Hampshire public high school students filed a lawsuit challenging a new state law, HB 1205, which categorically bans all transgender girls in grades 5-12 from participating in school sports.

Parker Tirrell is entering tenth grade this year. Parker played on her high school girls’ soccer team in ninth grade and is excited to rejoin her teammates when competition starts again on August 30.

Iris Turmelle is entering her first year of high school and is looking forward to trying out for and playing with the tennis and track and field teams.

Under HB 1205, Parker and Iris’s schools are commanded to bar them from their teams. The law denies them the many educational, social, and physical and mental health benefits that come with playing sports, isolating them from friends and teammates while singling them out for discrimination solely because they are transgender girls.

“Playing soccer with my teammates is where I feel the most free and happy. We’re there for each other, win or lose. Not being allowed to play on my team with the other girls would disconnect me from so many of my friends and make school so much harder. I just want to be myself and to learn, play, and support my teammates like I did last year,” said Parker Tirrell.

“I have watched Parker dance with joy on the soccer field during warmups and have seen how her teammates have become her closest friends. Any parent wants to know their child is healthy, happy, and feels like they belong. That is no different for my husband and me as parents of a transgender daughter. I am really worried about the harmful impact it will have on Parker’s self-esteem and wellbeing if she is told she has to start the new school year without joining her teammates on the field.” said Sara Tirrell, Parker’s mother.

“Starting high school is exciting and new. I played intramural tennis in middle school. I’ve been looking forward to trying out for the tennis and track teams because it will be a way to make more friends in my new school, and I know I’ll learn a lot from it. I’m a transgender girl, I’ve known that my whole life and everyone knows I’m a girl. I don’t understand why I shouldn’t get to have the same opportunities as other girls at school,” said Iris Turmelle.

“The joy of being a part of a team and making friends with girls her age are really what inspires Iris to play tennis. After participating in Girls on the Run she is also looking forward to a new challenge by trying out for the school track and field team. Iris experienced bullying at her middle school, and my husband and I just want her to be safe, feel included, and to be treated fairly so she can have a positive and happy high school experience.” said Amy Manzelli, Iris’s mother

Motions filed today also ask the court for immediate relief to allow Parker to play with her team as the season gets underway and to allow Iris to participate in tryouts for this year’s tennis and track and field teams.

Parker, Iris, and their families are represented by Chris Erchull and Ben Klein at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Henry Klementowicz and Gilles Bissonnette at the ACLU of New Hampshire, and Louis Lobel, Kevin DeJong, and Elaine Blais at Goodwin.

“Parker and Iris are teenage girls whose high school experience hangs in the balance because HB 1205 is poised to stop them from playing sports. Sports are a pillar of education in New Hampshire public schools because of the countless benefits of physical activity in a team environment, including physical and mental health, leadership skills, and social development. New Hampshire cannot justify singling out transgender girls to deny them essential educational benefits available to other students,” said Chris Erchull, Senior Staff Attorney, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).

“Parker and Iris are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect like every other student. Instead, HB 1205 stigmatizes and discriminates against transgender girls and tells them they aren’t deserving of the same educational opportunities to other girls in public schools. All students do better in school when they have access to resources that improve their mental, emotional, and physical health and Parker and Iris deserve that same access,” said Henry Klementowicz, Deputy Legal Director, ACLU of New Hampshire.

“The start of a new school year brings excitement and challenges for all students, but unlike their peers, Parker and Iris are facing their new year being told they are less deserving of an equal education because of who they are. We hope the court will see the harm that will cause them and act quickly to ensure they are allowed to continue playing sports with their teammates,” said Louis Lobel, Associate, Goodwin.

Tirrell and Turmelle v. Edelblut was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

This release and the court filings are available on our case page.