Filed
May 25, 2021
Fighting For The Rights Of Trans Youth in Arkansas
Brandt et al v. Rutledge et al

Several doctors and families are challenging a discriminatory Arkansas law that would prohibit healthcare professionals from providing or even referring transgender youth for medically necessary health care. Their case is being heard this week in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

What you can do

Take the Pledge: Support Trans Youth Now
Take the Pledge: Support Trans Youth Now
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy policy.
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2023

O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
The ACLU, the ACLU of Northern California, and the ACLU of Southern California filed amicus briefs in support of everyday people fighting for government transparency and accountability in two cases set for review by the U.S. Supreme Court this Term: O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2023

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Deborah Laufer
Whether a “tester” has standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s illegal failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she does not intend to visit that place of public accommodation.
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2023

Pulsifer v. United States
This case involves the interpretation of a federal law that allows defendants to avoid mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent drug crimes, allowing judges to impose sentences tailored to their individual circumstances.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Arizona
May 2023

Fund for Empowerment v. Phoenix, City of
Fund for Empowerment is a challenge to the City of Phoenix’s practice of conducting sweeps of encampments without notice, issuing citations to unsheltered people for camping and sleeping on public property when they have no place else to go, and confiscating and destroying their property without notice or process.
Status: Ongoing
View case
All Cases
1,338 Court Cases
Alabama
Oct 2023

Oasis Family Birthing Center et. al. v. Alabama Department of Public Health
A group of midwives and doctors filed a lawsuit in state court challenging ongoing actions by the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH), which have imposed a de facto ban on freestanding birth centers throughout Alabama, preventing three such birth centers from providing much-needed pregnancy care to their patients. One center was forced to abruptly shut down operations earlier this year, despite a perfect safety record. After hearing oral argument in late September 2023, the Circuit Court of Montgomery County granted our request for a Preliminary Injunction on September 30, 2023, preventing ADPH from refusing to timely license freestanding birth centers that comply with nationally-recognized safety standards for birth centers while litigation continues.
Status: Ongoing
View case

Alabama
Reproductive Freedom
Oasis Family Birthing Center et. al. v. Alabama Department of Public Health
A group of midwives and doctors filed a lawsuit in state court challenging ongoing actions by the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH), which have imposed a de facto ban on freestanding birth centers throughout Alabama, preventing three such birth centers from providing much-needed pregnancy care to their patients. One center was forced to abruptly shut down operations earlier this year, despite a perfect safety record. After hearing oral argument in late September 2023, the Circuit Court of Montgomery County granted our request for a Preliminary Injunction on September 30, 2023, preventing ADPH from refusing to timely license freestanding birth centers that comply with nationally-recognized safety standards for birth centers while litigation continues.
Oct 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Indiana
Sep 2023

K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana
Four Hoosier families, joined by medical providers, are challenging an Indiana law passed in April 2023 barring access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Indiana is home to over 4,000 transgender adolescents and the health care targeted by this law is supported by the entire mainstream of the medical community.
Status: Ongoing
View case

Indiana
LGBTQ Rights
K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana
Four Hoosier families, joined by medical providers, are challenging an Indiana law passed in April 2023 barring access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Indiana is home to over 4,000 transgender adolescents and the health care targeted by this law is supported by the entire mainstream of the medical community.
Sep 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Montana
Sep 2023

Van Garderen et al v. State of Montana
Transgender adolescents, their parents, and two medical providers who work with transgender youth are challenging a 2023 Montana law that bans gender-affirming care for trans youth. The plaintiffs charge the law with violating their rights under the Montana Constitution, including the right to equal protection, the right to access medical care, and the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.
Status: Ongoing
View case

Montana
LGBTQ Rights
Van Garderen et al v. State of Montana
Transgender adolescents, their parents, and two medical providers who work with transgender youth are challenging a 2023 Montana law that bans gender-affirming care for trans youth. The plaintiffs charge the law with violating their rights under the Montana Constitution, including the right to equal protection, the right to access medical care, and the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.
Sep 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Montana
Sep 2023

Marquez v. State of Montana
Amelia Marquez is transgender woman and life-long Montanan. John Doe is a transgender man who was born in Montana, but currently lives out of state. Both wish to correct the sex marker on their birth certificates to reflect who they are. However, a law enacted in 2021, Montana Senate Bill 280, sought to prohibit transgender individuals born in Montana from correcting the sex marker listed on their birth certificate without obtaining a court order indicating that their “sex . . . has been changed by surgical procedure.” The ACLU, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP have sued, claiming that SB 280 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Montana State Constitution.
Status: Ongoing
View case

Montana
LGBTQ Rights
Marquez v. State of Montana
Amelia Marquez is transgender woman and life-long Montanan. John Doe is a transgender man who was born in Montana, but currently lives out of state. Both wish to correct the sex marker on their birth certificates to reflect who they are. However, a law enacted in 2021, Montana Senate Bill 280, sought to prohibit transgender individuals born in Montana from correcting the sex marker listed on their birth certificate without obtaining a court order indicating that their “sex . . . has been changed by surgical procedure.” The ACLU, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP have sued, claiming that SB 280 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Montana State Constitution.
Sep 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case