Justin Wetherell is a nonbinary flight attendant and flight attendant instructor at Alaska Airlines. As a flight attendant, they have been required to comply with Alaska Airlines’ uniform and grooming policies that are grounded in outdated sex stereotypes and conflict with Justin’s nonbinary gender identity and fluid gender expression. Now Justin and the Washington State Human Rights Commission are fighting to ensure that Alaska Airlines’ uniform and grooming policy complies with the Washington State Law Against Discrimination and permits all employees to dress and groom in a professional manner that is consistent with their gender identity and expression.

In February 2020, several parents anonymously sued the Madison Metropolitan School District in Wisconsin state court. The parents claim that the school district’s guidance that seeks to provide support for transgender, non-binary, and gender-expansive students violates parental rights by allowing students to use names and pronouns at school different from those they were assigned at birth, without providing parental notification absent a student’s consent. The ACLU and ACLU of Wisconsin intervened in the case on behalf of LGBTQ student groups at schools in the district to help defend the district’s guidance.

On May 31st, 2019, the ACLU of Iowa and National ACLU LGBTQ and HIV Project filed a lawsuit to block implementation of an Iowa law that was recently passed to restore the ban on Medicaid coverage for essential, gender-affirming surgery to transgender Iowans that the Iowa Supreme recently struck down.

In May 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Nebraska filed a lawsuit on behalf of Nebraska abortion providers and their patients challenging a state law that bans physicians from providing abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy and that, as of October 2023, will restrict health care available to trans youth. The ACLU has asked a state court in Nebraska to enter an emergency order blocking the law’s enforcement. The Court ruled that the two halves of L.B. 574 fall within the single subject of regulating health care, and thus the Court held that L.B. 574 does not violate the single-subject rule. Consequently, the abortion ban and gender-affirming care restrictions in L.B. 574 remain in effect. However, the Court did reject the state’s argument that the single-subject is a nonjusticiable political question.