LGBTQ Rights
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.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About LGBTQ Rights
Featured
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
195 LGBTQ Rights Cases
Michigan
Aug 2020
LGBTQ Rights
The People of State of Michigan v. Deonton Autez Rogers
Explore case
Michigan
Aug 2020
LGBTQ Rights
The People of State of Michigan v. Deonton Autez Rogers
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2020
LGBTQ Rights
LGBTQ Discrimination Cases at the Supreme Court
In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court ruled that anti-LGBTQ discrimination violates the federal law against discrimination in the workplace.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2020
LGBTQ Rights
LGBTQ Discrimination Cases at the Supreme Court
In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court ruled that anti-LGBTQ discrimination violates the federal law against discrimination in the workplace.
Pennsylvania
Jul 2019
LGBTQ Rights
Doe v. Boyertown Area School District
The ACLU and the ACLU of Pennsylvania filed a motion to intervene on behalf of a transgender student and an LGBTQ youth organization. They seek to defend the Boyertown Area School District’s practice of allowing transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.
Explore case
Pennsylvania
Jul 2019
LGBTQ Rights
Doe v. Boyertown Area School District
The ACLU and the ACLU of Pennsylvania filed a motion to intervene on behalf of a transgender student and an LGBTQ youth organization. They seek to defend the Boyertown Area School District’s practice of allowing transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.
Iowa
Mar 2019
LGBTQ Rights
Good v. Iowa Dept. of Human Services
EerieAnna Good and Carol Beal are two women whose medical providers determined that surgery was medically necessary to treat their gender dysphoria, but the Iowa Department of Human Services denied them Medicaid coverage for the surgery. In March 2019, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the Department’s ban on coverage violated the Iowa Civil Rights Act and affirmed the district court’s ruling that EerieAnna and Carol are entitled to coverage for the gender affirming surgery they need.
Explore case
Iowa
Mar 2019
LGBTQ Rights
Good v. Iowa Dept. of Human Services
EerieAnna Good and Carol Beal are two women whose medical providers determined that surgery was medically necessary to treat their gender dysphoria, but the Iowa Department of Human Services denied them Medicaid coverage for the surgery. In March 2019, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the Department’s ban on coverage violated the Iowa Civil Rights Act and affirmed the district court’s ruling that EerieAnna and Carol are entitled to coverage for the gender affirming surgery they need.
Colorado
Feb 2019
LGBTQ Rights
Moore v. InnoSource Inc.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado filed a discrimination charge against InnoSource Inc. on behalf of Dashir Moore, a 32-year-old transgender man who was denied health care coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and subsequent transition-related care. Insurance carve-outs for transition-related care are illegal, yet two days after his surgery Mr. Moore was informed that his insurance company had denied the claim and he began receiving bills from the hospital, which eventually totaled nearly $30,000.
Explore case
Colorado
Feb 2019
LGBTQ Rights
Moore v. InnoSource Inc.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado filed a discrimination charge against InnoSource Inc. on behalf of Dashir Moore, a 32-year-old transgender man who was denied health care coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and subsequent transition-related care. Insurance carve-outs for transition-related care are illegal, yet two days after his surgery Mr. Moore was informed that his insurance company had denied the claim and he began receiving bills from the hospital, which eventually totaled nearly $30,000.