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
196 LGBTQ Rights Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2025
LGBTQ Rights
L.W. v. Skrmetti/U.S. v. Skrmetti
Samantha and Brian Williams of Nashville, TN and their 15-year-old transgender daughter challenged a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for transgender people under 18. Tennessee is home to over 3,000 transgender adolescents and the health care banned by this law is supported by the entire mainstream of the medical community.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2025
LGBTQ Rights
L.W. v. Skrmetti/U.S. v. Skrmetti
Samantha and Brian Williams of Nashville, TN and their 15-year-old transgender daughter challenged a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for transgender people under 18. Tennessee is home to over 3,000 transgender adolescents and the health care banned by this law is supported by the entire mainstream of the medical community.
Idaho
Sep 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Poe v. Labrador
A 2023 Idaho law criminalizing gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth is being challenged in federal court by two transgender adolescents and their families. HB 71, signed into law by Idaho Governor Brad Little in May 2023, 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
Idaho
Sep 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Poe v. Labrador
A 2023 Idaho law criminalizing gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth is being challenged in federal court by two transgender adolescents and their families. HB 71, signed into law by Idaho Governor Brad Little in May 2023, 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.
New Hampshire
Aug 2025
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
National Education Association - New Hampshire v. Formella
Explore case
New Hampshire
Aug 2025
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
National Education Association - New Hampshire v. Formella
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Religious Liberty
Mahmoud v. Taylor
On April 9, 2025, the ACLU and ACLU of Maryland filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in its efforts to ensure that its English Language Arts curriculum is LGBTQ-inclusive.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Religious Liberty
Mahmoud v. Taylor
On April 9, 2025, the ACLU and ACLU of Maryland filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in its efforts to ensure that its English Language Arts curriculum is LGBTQ-inclusive.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Free Speech
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Whether a content-based regulation that burdens adults’ access to protected speech has to be merely reasonable to satisfy the First Amendment because it was passed in the name of protecting children from sexual material online.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Free Speech
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Whether a content-based regulation that burdens adults’ access to protected speech has to be merely reasonable to satisfy the First Amendment because it was passed in the name of protecting children from sexual material online.