LGBTQ Rights
Zyst v. Miller
Following the Oregon Department of Corrections’ unconstitutional treatment of a transgender prisoner, a habeas court ordered her removal from segregated housing, an individualized gender-affirming care assessment, a psychiatric evaluation, and identification of an appropriate cellmate. However, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the psychiatric-evaluation and cellmate orders, finding them “too attenuated” to qualify as habeas relief. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, joined an amicus brief by the law firm Sugerman Dahab arguing that habeas courts have broad discretion to remedy violations and resulting harms. The brief explains that the Court of Appeals’ “close connection” test unduly constricts habeas relief, and which should be construed to encompass not only the need to halt ongoing constitutional violations, but also the need to mitigate various harms that may arise from those violations.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About LGBTQ Rights
Featured
Florida
Nov 2023
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues
The University of Florida chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine filed a lawsuit on November 16, 2023, challenging the Chancellor of the State University System of Florida’s order to state universities to deactivate the student group. This order threatens the students’ constitutionally-protected right to free speech and association in violation of the First Amendment. The ACLU and its partners are seeking a preliminary injunction that would bar the Chancellor and the University of Florida from deactivating the UF SJP.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2020
LGBTQ Rights
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v EEOC & Aimee Stephens
Aimee Stephens had worked for nearly six years as a funeral director at R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes when she informed the funeral home’s owner that she is a transgender woman. She was fired, the EEOC sued on her behalf, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Aimee’s employer engaged in unlawful sex discrimination when it fired her because she’s transgender. We represented Aimee Stephens in front of the U.S. Supreme Court — and won.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2019
LGBTQ Rights
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda
Don Zarda loved to skydive. He worked as a skydiving instructor at Altitude Express, a company on Long Island, N.Y. He was fired for being gay.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2018
LGBTQ Rights
Religious Liberty
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Whether a business open to the public has a constitutional right to discriminate.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2015
LGBTQ Rights
Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges - Freedom to Marry in Ohio
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Ohio and Alphonse Gerhardstein of Gerhardstein & Branch have filed suit on behalf of Jim Obergefell and David Michener, two widowers, and Robert Grunn, a funeral director, in a challenge to the Ohio constitutional and statutory marriage recognition bans.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2015
LGBTQ Rights
Bourke v. Beshear & Love v. Beshear - Freedom to Marry in Kentucky
Bourke v. Beshear is a federal court challenge to Kentucky’s constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples, filed by attorneys at Clay Daniel Walton & Adams and Fauver Law Office on July 26, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The plaintiffs are four same-sex couples seeking state recognition of their out-of-state marriages.
All Cases
196 LGBTQ Rights Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Little v. Hecox
Lindsay is a college student at Boise State University. She wants to run on the track team so she can form friendships with other girls. A new law in Idaho would ban her from doing so because she is transgender.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Little v. Hecox
Lindsay is a college student at Boise State University. She wants to run on the track team so she can form friendships with other girls. A new law in Idaho would ban her from doing so because she is transgender.
South Carolina
Jul 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Misanin v. Wilson
Transgender South Carolinians and their families challenged a 2024 state law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth and prohibiting any state funds from supporting access to gender-affirming medical care. South Carolina’s ban led to medical providers ending treatment for transgender patients regardless of age.
Explore case
South Carolina
Jul 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Misanin v. Wilson
Transgender South Carolinians and their families challenged a 2024 state law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth and prohibiting any state funds from supporting access to gender-affirming medical care. South Carolina’s ban led to medical providers ending treatment for transgender patients regardless of age.
Tennessee
Jul 2026
LGBTQ Rights
+3 Issues
OUTMemphis v. Skrmetti (formerly OUTMemphis v. Lee)
OUTMemphis v. Skrmetti (formerly OUTMemphis v. Lee) is a first-of-its-kind challenge to a state-level HIV criminalization law as a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Constitution. Plaintiffs OUTMemphis and Jane Does 1-4 seek to strike down Tennessee’s discriminatory, irrational and cruel enforcement of its “Aggravated Prostitution” law and related sex offender registration requirements.
Explore case
Tennessee
Jul 2026
LGBTQ Rights
+3 Issues
OUTMemphis v. Skrmetti (formerly OUTMemphis v. Lee)
OUTMemphis v. Skrmetti (formerly OUTMemphis v. Lee) is a first-of-its-kind challenge to a state-level HIV criminalization law as a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Constitution. Plaintiffs OUTMemphis and Jane Does 1-4 seek to strike down Tennessee’s discriminatory, irrational and cruel enforcement of its “Aggravated Prostitution” law and related sex offender registration requirements.
North Dakota
Jul 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Free Speech
Thunderhawk v. Morton County
Explore case
North Dakota
Jul 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Free Speech
Thunderhawk v. Morton County
Ohio
Jul 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Moe v. Yost
Two transgender adolescents and their families are challenging Ohio’s House Bill 68, a law passed in January 2024 that prohibits gender-affirming medical care that is widely accepted to treat gender dysphoria, helping alleviate the distress of gender dysphoria and significantly improving patients’ mental health and well-being. Such treatment is supported by leading medical experts and all major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Explore case
Ohio
Jul 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Moe v. Yost
Two transgender adolescents and their families are challenging Ohio’s House Bill 68, a law passed in January 2024 that prohibits gender-affirming medical care that is widely accepted to treat gender dysphoria, helping alleviate the distress of gender dysphoria and significantly improving patients’ mental health and well-being. Such treatment is supported by leading medical experts and all major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.