BEDMINSTER, NJ. – A federal grand jury has indicted former U.S. President Donald Trump on seven criminal counts in connection his mishandling of more than 100 classified documents.

In a series of posts to his ‘Truth Social’ account Thursday, Trump said that he has been indicted related to his mishandling of the classified documents taken to his estate at Mar-a-Lago after his term of office ended in January, 2021.

The unprecedented decision comes after a more than yearlong investigation by special counsel Jack Smith into whether Trump knowingly retained classified and top secret government records when he left office and then disregarded a subpoena to return all classified documents in his possession and whether he and his staff obstructed FBI efforts to ensure all documents had been returned.

A person familiar with the situation who was not authorized to discuss it publicly said Trump’s lawyers were contacted by prosecutors shortly before he announced on his Truth Social platform that he had been indicted the Associated Press reported.

In the first of a series of posts Trump wrote:

“Page 1: The corrupt Biden Administration has informed my attorneys that I have been Indicted, seemingly over the Boxes Hoax, even though Joe Biden has 1850 Boxes at the University of Delaware, additional Boxes in Chinatown, D.C., with even more Boxes at the University of Pennsylvania, and documents strewn all over his garage floor where he parks his Corvette, and which is “secured” by only a garage door that is paper thin, and open much of the time.“

“Page 2: I have been summoned to appear at the Federal Courthouse in Miami on Tuesday, at 3 PM. I never thought it possible that such a thing could happen to a former President of the United States, who received far more votes than any sitting President in the History of our Country, and is currently leading, by far, all Candidates, both Democrat and Republican, in Polls of the 2024 Presidential Election. I AM AN INNOCENT MAN!“

“Page 3: This is indeed a DARK DAY for the United States of America. We are a Country in serious and rapid Decline, but together we will Make America Great Again!”

The Justice Department didn’t respond to a request for a comment.

The AP also noted it remains unclear what the immediate and long-term political consequences will be for Trump. His first indictment spurred millions of dollars in contributions from angry supporters and didn’t damage Trump in the polls.

No matter what, the indictment — and the legal fight that follows — will throw Trump back into the spotlight, sucking attention away from the other candidates who are trying to build momentum in the 2024 presidential race, the Associated Press pointed out.

NEW YORK — A lawsuit filed by anti-transgender activists on behalf of four women sprinters that’s already been tossed out by two federal judges is once again getting a hearing on its potential path to the Supreme Court. 

Attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal firm labeled an extremist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, made oral arguments Tuesday before the full U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City. 

They’re asking for the right to sue a Connecticut state agency and several high schools over a policy that allows trans student-athletes to compete with cisgender students according to their authentic gender identity. 

The ADF represents four cisgender women who competed against trans athletes as runners in high school: 24-year-old Chelsea Mitchell and 20-year-old Selina Soule, as well as Alanna Smith and Ashley Nicolleti, who are both 19. 

“All we need to decide today is whether they get into the courthouse door,” ADF lawyer John Bursch told the court, according to ABC News. The judges seemed unconvinced. 

“It is a clear violation when a school or school district knowingly lets sexual discrimination proceed,” said Judge Denny Chin. “I don’t think we can say that here.”

An attorney for the state agency argued the athletes have not alleged any concrete or imminent harm.

“Nothing about track results would affect the plaintiffs’ life prospects,” said Peter Murphy, the lawyer for the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, whose trans inclusive policy has stood for a decade.

“Is there an injury in fact that you see on this complaint by money damages, if money damages is available?” asked Judge Alison Nathan.

“No,” said Murphy. “The plaintiffs are alleging they ran a race and lost, and they don’t like the rules.”

The ADF lawsuit specifically names two transgender former student-athletes, Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller, labeling them “biological males” — a term federal Judge Robert Chatigny ordered the ADF lawyers to avoid using when he was hearing the case in 2020. Chatigny ruled in 2021 that the ADF’s request for an injunction blocking the enforcement of the CIAC policy was “moot” because the athletes named as defendants were no longer high school students, and the plaintiffs did not identify any other transgender girls that were likely to compete against them the following season.

A judge on the Second Circuit affirmed Chatigny’s ruling in December, as the Los Angeles Blade reported, but in February, the full federal appeals court agreed to re-hear the ADF’s appeal.

The centerpiece of the ADF’s lawsuit is to claim Connecticut’s trans-inclusive policy violates Title IX, the law that prohibits educational institutions that receive federal funding from discriminating against students on the basis of sex. In April, the Biden administration unveiled a proposal to expand Title IX to include protections for transgender students and eliminate broad bans that prevent them from competing in school sports, such as the one passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in April, but the proposal drew mixed reactions. 

Title IX historically has been used to ensure equal funding and opportunities for all girls and women, given that their male counterparts still receive greater scholarships and athletic opportunities to this day. The ADF’s central goal, Jezebel reported last summer, is to turn Title IX into a weapon cisgender girls and women can use against those who are trans. 

Even though Mitchell finished first, defeating Miller and another cisgender runner in 2020, the ADF argues that when Mitchell placed third behind Miller and Yearwood in 2019, that loss caused Mitchell “irreparable harm.” 

Her lawyers claim that impacted Mitchell’s college acceptances and “employment opportunities.” Yet Mitchell and at least two of the other cis women plaintiffs received scholarships to run track in college and at least three are currently part of NCAA Division I track and field programs. 

Miller and Yearwood were not offered athletic scholarships. “As a result of this whole process, they’re not competing in sports at all,” said American Civil Liberties Union attorney Joshua Block, who represents the trans women. 

“The allegations in the complaint don’t come anywhere close to showing an actual denial of equal athletic opportunity,” Block successfully argued in September. “Plaintiffs’ complete athletic records show that they defeated Andraya and Terry on multiple occasions and amassed an impressive collection of first-place trophies in the process. The complaint is filled with hypotheticals of a dystopia where cisgender girls disappear from the victory podium but a complaint requires allegations of facts. The races were run under the rules that were in place at the time.”

In the one and only race in which Nicoletti competed against Miller, she finished dead last. 

Since 2020, at least 21 states have enacted laws or policies that ban transgender athletes from playing on school sports teams with women and girls, according to the Movement Advancement Project.

Those are among the nearly 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills passed and enacted across the country, including legislation or policies restricting gender-affirming care for minors, and now even trans adults in some states. 

A recent landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court may figure into whether the ADF ultimately wins the right to sue. In April, the justices rejected West Virginia’s emergency appeal of an appellate court’s decision to block the state from enforcing an anti-trans youth sports ban against a 12 year old trans girl, as the Los Angeles Blade reported.
Court observers said while that decision did not set a legal precedent such as in the Bostock case, it did signal that the High Court is not ready to quickly approve discrimination against trans Americans. The West Virginia case marked the first time the Supreme Court has weighed-in on matters involving the inclusion of trans youth in sports.

TALLAHASSEE – In his 44 page ruling, Judge Robert Hinkle of the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida barred the state from any further enforcement action against trans youth or their parents from seeking appropriate gender-affirming care.

Hinkle’s ruling allows Florida parents challenging the ban to access necessary medical care for their transgender children while the legal challenge to the bans continues. The ruling blocks enforcement of Florida state Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine rules banning established medical care for transgender adolescents as well as provisions in SB 254 that codify those rules into state law with added criminal and civil penalties.

In his summary Hinkle wrote: “Gender identity is real. Those whose gender identity does not match their natal sex often suffer gender dysphoria. The widely accepted standard of care calls
for evaluation and treatment by a multidisciplinary team. Proper treatment begins with mental-health therapy and is followed in appropriate cases by GnRH agonists and cross-sex hormones. Florida has adopted a statute and rules that prohibit these treatments even when medically appropriate.”

In today’s ruling the court indicated that the plaintiff parents are likely to succeed in their claims that SB 254 and the Boards of Medicine rules unconstitutionally strip them of the right to make informed decisions about their children’s medical treatment and violate the equal protection rights of transgender youth by denying them medically necessary, doctor-recommended healthcare.

The challenge to the Boards of Medicine and SB 254 healthcare bans is likely to proceed quickly to trial.

The families are represented by Southern Legal Counsel, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the Human Rights Campaign, which issued the following statement:

“Today’s ruling is a powerful affirmation of the humanity of transgender people, the efficacy of well-established, science-based medical care, and of the rights of parents to make informed healthcare decisions for their children. The court recognized the profound harm the state of Florida is causing by forcing parents to watch their kids suffer rather than provide them with safe and effective care that will allow them to thrive. We are incredibly relieved that these Florida parents can continue to get healthcare for their children while we proceed to challenge these bans and eventually see them fully overturned.”

“This ruling is an important win for those challenging the dangerous ban on gender-affirming care and an unwavering endorsement of the right of transgender people to be treated with dignity and respect,” said Jon Harris Maurer, Equality Florida Public Policy Director.  “Judge Hinkle was unequivocal: Transgender people are real and deserving of lifesaving healthcare. We are incredibly grateful for the courageous families who stepped forward to challenge these dangerous policies, the legal organizations leading the way, and for the clear-eyed ruling in favor of decency and medical freedom. The Governor’s pursuit of unconstitutional laws and personal vendettas comes at the direct expense of taxpayers. Instead of investing in initiatives that promote the welfare of the community, these actions drain valuable resources and undermine the potential for progress.” 

Read the ruling:

FORT SMITH, Ark. – The ACLU of Arkansas, joined by several Arkansas public libraries, and advocacy groups including the Freedom to Read Foundation, filed suit Friday challenging a new law designed to amend current state law regarding obscene library materials to prevent distribution to minors.

The plaintiffs allege that the law violate the First and 14th constitutional amendments regarding freedom of speech and equal protection and amounts to a form of censorship that endangers librarians.

In the court documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, the plaintiffs claim:

Section 1 of Act 372 makes it a criminal offense, punishable by imprisonment for
up to a year, to make available, provide, or show to a minor an item that meets the definition of “harmful to minors” (the “Availability Provision”). This will necessarily force libraries and
bookstores to confine to a secure “adults only” area—and so to segregate from their general
patrons and customers—any item that might be deemed harmful to the youngest minor, even if there is no constitutional basis for limiting its availability to older minors or adults.

Where libraries and booksellers lack the space or resources to construct “adults only” areas, their only choice will be to remove all materials which might be deemed harmful to their youngest, least developed patrons or customers”

Hayden Kirby, a 17-year-old high school student plaintiff in the case also states in the legal filings that Act 372 limits her access to information. “By joining this lawsuit, I hope to make a difference in preserving the rights of youth like me across the state,” she said.

“To restrict the spaces I’ve accessed freely throughout my life is outrageous to me. I want to fight for our rights to intellectual freedom and ensure that libraries remain spaces where young Arkansans can explore diverse perspectives,” Kirby added.

Three Crawford County parents filed their own lawsuit May 26 against the county quorum court, the library system board and interim library director, alleging that the “unlawful censorship of materials” in the libraries’ “social sections” violates the First Amendment.

Some of the books in question include a children’s guide to LGBTQ+ Pride flags and a retelling of the Cinderella fairy tale with gay characters, according to the parents’ complaint.

“None of these books could fathomably be accused of ‘grooming,’ ‘pornography,’ or ‘exposing children to explicit sexual ideas or imagery,’” as opponents have said they are, the complaint states.

The Arkansas Advocate reported all five Crawford County library branches moved children’s books with LGBTQ+ topics to a segregated “social section” in December after community members objected to their availability at multiple quorum court meetings. Former system director Deidre Grzymala said this was “a compromise.” She later resigned in February.

Some of the books in question include a children’s guide to LGBTQ+ Pride flags and a retelling of the Cinderella fairy tale with gay characters, according to the parents’ complaint.

“None of these books could fathomably be accused of ‘grooming,’ ‘pornography,’ or ‘exposing children to explicit sexual ideas or imagery,’” as opponents have said they are, the complaint states.

Progressive political groups charge that the rush to have Act 372 passed and signed into law was purely a part of the war being waged across the United States by so-called parental rights groups, such as Florida based ‘Moms for Liberty,’ objecting to materials that contain LGBTQ+ materials or themes.

Today, a broad coalition of authors, publishers, booksellers, librarians, and readers filed suit challenging AR Act 372, a law that would restrict access to books in bookstores & libraries, and in the process violate the First & Fourteenth Amendment rights of our reading public. https://t.co/IVURTCefxZ

— Arkansas Library Association (@ArLALibrary) June 2, 2023

The bill was signed into law by Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders on March 31 and is due to go into effect on August 1.

Related:

Moms for Liberty hiding behind front groups targeting schools

By Peter White | SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on two cases this month that could prohibit consideration of race in college admissions, undoing a 45-year history of Affirmative Action dating back to 1978.

Last October, conservative activist Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions, filed a lawsuit against Harvard claiming it discriminated against Asian-American applicants. Lower courts found no evidence of that claim, and no students testified against the current race-based policies at Harvard or in a separate suit involving the University of North Carolina.

Still, given the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, many expect an end to the policy, which supporters say has helped boost enrollment in colleges and universities for historically underrepresented groups.

“Progressives, patriots, and free thinkers of all colors and creeds and sexual orientations need to unite in the struggle to preserve the core American principles of inclusivity and multicultural democracy,” said civil rights lawyer Lisa Holder, president of the Equal Justice Society (EJS) in Oakland, California.

Holder spoke with reporters last week during a news briefing organized by Ethnic Media Services. She noted Affirmative Action is the best way to undo the historical legacy of inequality and discrimination in higher education, adding that California schools would become more segregated without it.

“We’re looking at apartheid schools where children of color are not getting access to opportunity. That is un-American,” she said. Holder noted the consensus among social scientists that diverse educational environments are 35% more productive than those that are more homogeneous.

Students who testified before the high court in both the Harvard case as well as a separate case involving the University of North Carolina – also filed by Blum’s group – stressed the advantages of being part of a more diverse student body.

Echoes of Roe v. Wade

In its 1978 Regents of University of California v. Bakke decision, the Supreme Court ruled that schools’ use of Affirmative Action policies to enhance student diversity is constitutional.

Tomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and former member of the Los Angeles County Board of Education – where he served for two decades – worries this current court is poised to overturn that longstanding precedent.

“We don’t know when it will come down,” Saenz said. But given the court’s stated views on race-conscious Affirmative Action policies, he expects the justices will overturn it just as they did with the Dobbs ruling last year overturning Roe v. Wade.

“I consider that to be the likely outcome,” he said, noting the Supreme Court revisited the issue of race conscious Affirmative Action in higher education on three separate occasions. Each time the court majority reasserted that the Bakke precedent continued to be the law.

“So, overturning that precedent would be extraordinary and on a par with the Dobbs decision of last year,” Saenz said.

He also predicted that opponents of Affirmative Action would seek to expand the court’s rationale. “This case will have nothing whatsoever to say about Affirmative Action in employment or contracting. And anyone who asserts otherwise, is misleading you,” Saenz said.

“You will hear folks from the right assert that somehow this Supreme Court decision also means that ethnic studies, even critical race theory, must be eliminated from schools.”  On the contrary, Saenz says the decision will say nothing about curriculum.

Impacts on campus diversity

\John C. Yang, president and CEO of Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC) reiterated that lower courts found no evidence of discrimination against Asian-Americans in Harvard’s admissions process, which is the basis of the lawsuit.

“An admissions process considering race… remains necessary to ensure that equally qualified students from communities of color have the same access as privileged white students,” Yang said.

He noted 28% of the incoming Harvard class are Asian-Americans and their numbers have quadrupled since 1978 when the Bakke decision was issued.

“Any suggestion that somehow Asian-Americans are being discriminated against is just belied by these simple facts,” Yang continued. If Affirmative Action is overturned, he anticipated campus diversity at Harvard would decrease from 14% to 6% for Blacks and from 14% to 9% for Latinos.

“At the end of the day, we have to recognize that we are not in a race-blind society. Our lived experiences should not be up for debate,” Yang said.

What about legacy admissions?

Michele Siqueiros has been supporting greater college access for students of color since 2004, and says it hasn’t been that long since women, Black, Latino, Indigenous and Asian-American students were even permitted to attend universities.

“Affirmative Action alone was never intended to be the panacea,” said Siqueiros, president of The Campaign for College Opportunity, a California-based non-profit.

“We must do everything in our power to provide all students an equal opportunity to pursue a college education,” she stressed, adding that with the anticipated SCOTUS ruling more will need to be done to ensure universities do not discriminate against students of color.

Siqueiros also pointed out that conservative opponents of Affirmative Action have nothing to say about legacy admissions – which can account for a quarter or more of all admissions at Ivy League schools like Harvard – or about recruiters exclusively visiting rich, wealthy, and predominantly white high schools.

“There are a lot of practices in higher education that should be challenged and removed,” said Siqueiros. “It’s really unfortunate that Affirmative Action is the one that’s being attacked today.”

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was published as part of an ongoing partnership between Ethnic Media Services and the Los Angeles Blade. For additional information or to learn more about Ethnic Media Services click on the link embedded in the logo above.

MEMPHIS – U. S. District Court Judge Thomas L. Parker of the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee declared Tennessee’s anti-drag Adult Entertainment Act to be unconstitutional.

Parker’s ruling comes after a two-day trial last month. A Shelby County-Memphis based LGBTQ theatre company, Friends of George’s, had sued the state of Tennessee, claiming the law unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

In April Judge Parker ordered a temporary injunction halting the just enacted Tennessee law that criminalizes some drag performances, hours before it was set to take effect Saturday, April 1. In his 15 page ruling ordering the temporary injunction Parker wrote:

“If Tennessee wishes to exercise its police power in restricting speech it considers obscene, it must do so within the constraints and framework of the United States Constitution. […] The Court finds that, as it stands, the record here suggests that when the legislature passed this Statute, it missed the mark.”

Attorneys for the theatre company had argued that drag performances were an artform and protected speech under the first amendment.

In his 70 page ruling Friday, June 2, 2023, Parker wrote:

“After considering the briefs and evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that—despite
Tennessee’s compelling interest in protecting the psychological and physical wellbeing of
children—the Adult Entertainment Act (“AEA”) is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL restriction on
the freedom of speech.”

“The Court concludes that the AEA is both unconstitutionally vague and substantially
overbroad. The AEA’s “harmful to minors” standard applies to minors of all ages, so it fails to
provide fair notice of what is prohibited, and it encourages discriminatory enforcement. The
AEA is substantially overbroad because it applies to public property or “anywhere” a minor
could be present.”

Read the entire ruling:

Related:

Federal Judge stops drag ban in Tennessee, cites First Amendment

BOISE — An Idaho law criminalizing gender-affirming health care for transgender youth is being challenged by families in federal court.

In a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Idaho, Wrest Collective, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, and Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP, two Idaho families assert that HB 71, signed into law by Governor Brad Little earlier this year, violates the rights of transgender youth and their parents under the U.S. Constitution.

“Being able to live my life as my true self has been a long journey and my medical care has been an important part of that journey. My family, my doctors, and I have worked together to make decisions about my medical care, and it’s shocking to have politicians take those decisions away from us,” said Plaintiff Jane Doe, a 16-year-old transgender girl. “Trans people like myself deserve the same chance at safety and liberty as everyone else, but this law specifically targets us and our health care for no good reason. I’m 16–I should be hanging out with my friends and planning my future instead of fighting my State for the health care I need.”

“This law is a dangerous intrusion upon the rights and lives of Idaho families. Our state should be a safe place to raise every child, including transgender youth, and HB 71 threatens to deny them the safety and dignity they deserve,” said Amy Dundon, Legislative Strategist with the ACLU of Idaho. “We welcome this opportunity to defend the transgender youth of Idaho and their families from this discriminatory political attack and we won’t stop defending them until each one has all the care and support they need to thrive.”

“We are determined to protect the transgender youth of Idaho, their families, and their medical providers from this unjust and dangerous attack on their rights and lives,” said Li Nowlin-Sohl, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “This health care is supported by every major medical organization in the U.S. and is critical for the futures of transgender youth across the state. We will not rest until this unconstitutional law is struck down.”

The challenge filed today is the eighth legal challenge by the ACLU and its nationwide affiliate network so far against a wave of bans targeting health care for transgender youth. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arkansas filed the first such challenge against the first such law in the country in 2021 and similar challenges have been filed in Indiana, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Montana, Kentucky, and Nebraska. 

Related:

Idaho bans gender-affirming care for trans kids

ST. GEORGE, Utah — Today, the Southern Utah Drag Stars (Drag Stars) filed a lawsuit against the city of St. George, Utah, which denied the organization a special events permit for a family-friendly drag show.

The city’s refusal to grant a permit is part of a years-long effort to target drag performances and LGBTQ+ pride events in violation of the First and 14th Amendments, as well as the Utah Constitution. Legal counsel intends to seek a preliminary injunction to allow Drag Stars to host its family-friendly drag show in June.

On March 3, Mitski Avalōx applied for a City of St. George special events permit to host a family-friendly drag event, Allies & Community Drag Show Festival, at J.C. Snow Park. A few weeks later, the city denied her application, alleging that she violated its advertising ordinance, an obscure local rule which prohibits advertising for special events until the city grants a permit.

The advertising ordinance was not routinely enforced, in part because it is unworkable – permits are typically not issued until the day of or the day before events, making advertising an event practically impossible.

Drag Stars appealed the city’s permit denial and at the hearing at least one city council member acknowledged that the advertising ban is not enforceable, but the city nonetheless denied Drag Stars’ appeal

To make matters worse, while Avalōx’s application was pending, St. George decided to suspend considering any new special event permits for six months, denying Drag Stars the opportunity to submit a new permit application after the initial rejection.

The city later exempted “city sponsored” events from the six month ban on new permit applications, creating a scheme whereby city officials selectively grant permits to favored events while denying all others. St. George’s special events policies discriminate against drag performances and are so opaque that no one can know what is allowed and what is not.

“Requiring drag performers to meet unreasonable standards to receive a permit, or denying them these permits without legitimate justification, is censorship,” said Valentina De Fex, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Utah. “Our lawsuit challenges the attempt by elected officials, who must uphold the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and Utah State Constitution, to push subjective viewpoints of what they deem appropriate.” Regarding the impact of this case, De Fex stated, “With this filing we continue our commitment to stop efforts to discriminate against and silence LGBTQ+ and gender-diverse individuals in Utah.”

“Drag is dance, fashion, and music — it is also deeply rooted in political speech — all protected by the First Amendment,” said Emerson Sykes, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “This is the latest offense in a larger pattern of attacks discriminating against gender-diverse and LGBTQ+ people and their rights in Utah and throughout the country.”

Just last year, lawmakers in six states proposed bills to ban drag. Under some of these bills, a business would be considered a “sexually oriented enterprise” – and therefore be subject to strict zoning requirements and fees – just for letting female comedians wear pants or male magicians grow their hair out. Drag performers and host venues across the country have had no choice but to move to higher security or cancel performances altogether.

Governmental attempts to restrict drag performances claim to protect children from so-called obscene material. However, drag is not obscene, and restricting access to a supportive community only causes more harm to trans and LGBTQ+ youth, who are already at a higher risk of depression and suicide.

“The city of St. George is violating the First Amendment rights of Drag Stars and discriminating against them through a façade of permits and ordinances that have never been applied in this manner with any other group or organization,” said Jeremy Creelan, Partner at Jenner & Block. “LGBTQ+ performers are entitled to protections under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and we are asking the court to protect these fundamental rights and put a stop to this deeply troubling attack on free expression.”

Related:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQm_BYB9rjc

AUSTIN, Texas – Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, and Transgender Law Center today pledged to file a lawsuit against a sweeping new law banning transgender youth from accessing medically necessary health care that the Texas Legislature passed today.

Texas Senate Bill 14 bans the only evidence-based care for gender dysphoria for transgender people under 18 and aims to strip doctors of their medical licenses for providing their patients with the care they know to be medically necessary. Texas lawmakers have ignored the warnings of transgender youth, their families, and the medical establishment about the harms of this law. Similar restrictions in Alabama and Arkansas have been enjoined by federal courts, and legal advocates have filed challenges in federal court to bans enacted in Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Montana. A state court judge in Missouri recently blocked enforcement of the Missouri attorney general’s emergency order blocking the provision of gender-affirming care.

The LGBTQ legal advocates today issued the following joint statement:

“We will be filing a lawsuit to protect transgender youth in Texas from being stripped of access to health care that keeps them healthy and alive. Coming on top of the effort last year to classify providing medically necessary and scientifically proven care to transgender youth as child abuse and threatening to tear Texas families with transgender children apart, an effort currently blocked in state court, Texas lawmakers have seen fit to double down.

“They are hellbent on joining the growing roster of states determined to jeopardize the health and lives of transgender youth, in direct opposition to the overwhelming body of scientific and medical evidence supporting this care as appropriate and necessary. Transgender youth in Texas deserve the support and care necessary to give them the same chance to thrive as their peers. Medically necessary health care is a critical part of helping transgender adolescents succeed in school, establish healthy relationships with their friends and family, and live authentically as themselves. We will defend the rights of transgender youth in court, just as we have done in other states engaging in this anti-science and discriminatory fear-mongering.”

Related:

Gender-affirming care for trans kids ban sent to Texas governor

JACKSON, Miss. — The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Mississippi have filed a lawsuit against Harrison County School District (HCSD) after school officials told a graduating transgender student she could not wear a dress or heeled shoes to her graduating ceremony as requested by her and her parents.

L.B. is a transgender girl and graduating senior of the class of 2023 at Harrison Central High School. She has been looking forward to finally walking across the stage at her high school graduation this Saturday, May 20, and picked out a dress and pair of heeled shoes months ago to wear under her traditional cap and gown in accordance with the school’s dress code for female students. On May 9, L.B. and her parents were informed by Principal Kelly Fuller that the school would enforce the male dress code against L.B. In a call with L.B.’s mother, Harrison County School District Superintendent Mitchell King said that L.B. “needs to wear pants, socks, and shoes like a boy” in statements that repeatedly misgendered her.

The superintendent cited a written dress code policy, distributed last week, that requires girls to wear white dresses and boys to wear black suits. There is no reported enforcement of this policy against students who are not transgender and school officials have not taken any steps to check the planned outfits for other students.

“My graduation is supposed to be a moment of pride and celebration and school officials want to turn it into a moment of humiliation and shame,” said L.B., a senior at Harrison Central High School. “The clothing I’ve chosen is fully appropriate for the ceremony and the superintendent’s objections to it are entirely unfair to myself, my family, and all transgender students like me. I have the right to celebrate my graduation as who I am, not who anyone else wants me to be.”

“It’s deeply offensive the school would choose to take a celebration of our daughter and her accomplishments and attempt to ruin it with such discriminatory action,” said Samantha, mother of L.B. “Like any parent of a graduating senior, we’re eager to see L.B. cross this critical threshold and enter a new stage of her life, but the superintendent is threatening this once-in-a-lifetime moment for our family. We’re so proud of our daughter and are determined to protect her from this baseless attack on her rights and her identity.”

“L.B. should be focused on celebrating this important milestone alongside her peers; however, this targeted attack by the leaders of the Harrison County School District seeks to strip her of her right to celebrate this occasion as her true self,” said McKenna Raney-Gray, staff attorney at the ACLU of Mississippi. “While we are deeply disappointed in the conduct of the Harrison County School District, we remain committed to defending the rights and autonomy of trans youth across the state, and hope that the court agrees that all students in Mississippi have the right to live as their authentic selves.”

The lawsuit, filed today in federal court, seeks an immediate temporary restraining order allowing L.B. to wear her chosen outfit. 

The complaint can be found here and TRO motion can be found here.