Executive Action Needed to End Employment Discrimination

BOSTON – Tomorrow, a federal district court will hear arguments from attorneys representing transgender and nonbinary Americans impacted by a new State Department policy requiring US passports to reflect their sex assigned at birth, rolling back decades of State Department policy. What: Orr v. Trump Preliminary Injunction Hearing When: Tuesday, March 25 10:00 a.m. Eastern Where: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston, MA) Press Availability: When the hearing concludes, attorneys will be available for questions outside the District Court building (near the intersection of Northern Avenue and Courthouse Way). The hearing will not be livestreamed but is open to the public in-person. According to the District Court’s website, attendance is limited to the capacity of the courtroom and an overflow room on a first-come-first-serve basis. Please refer to the District Court’s guidance for members of the media. “Even before Donald Trump was inaugurated, it was clear to me he wanted to control the lives and identities of transgender people like myself,” said Ash Lazarus Orr, transgender West Virginian and title plaintiff in Orr v. Trump. “Like many others, I rushed to update my passport hoping I could get an accurate version. Now, the State Department has suspended my application and withheld all my documents from me, including my passport, my birth certificate, and even my marriage license. I’m hopeful the court will see this discriminatory policy for what is and prevent even more people from having their lives disrupted and their freedom threatened by this administration.” “The policy we’re challenging in this case is openly discriminatory and animated by a transparent desire to drive transgender people out of public life altogether,” said Li Nowlin-Sohl, Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, who will be presenting arguments before the court on Tuesday. “Our clients rely on their passports to travel abroad for work, for school, and to see family abroad, and the administration has put forward no reasonable justification for rolling back decades of policy and disrupting the lives of thousands of people across the country. We’re hopeful the court will agree that transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people are entitled to the same freedom we all deserve—the freedom to be ourselves without fear.” “The new passport policy threatens to expose transgender people to violence, harassment, and discrimination in nearly every element of public life: while flying, opening bank accounts, enrolling in school, and more,” said Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “We’re challenging this policy because every person deserves the right to move freely about the world safely and with dignity." On his first day in office in January 2025, Trump signed an executive order attempting to mandate discrimination against transgender people across the federal government and government programs. This included a directive to the Departments of State and Homeland Security “to require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards” reflect their sex “at conception.” Under the ensuing Passport Policy, within 48 hours the State Department began holding some passports and other documents (such as birth certificates and court orders) submitted by transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people who had applied to update the sex designation on their U.S. passports and returning others with their applications rejected and their newly-issued passport marked with their sex assigned at birth. In February 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Massachusetts filed Orr v. Trump on behalf of seven people who have not been able to obtain passports that match their identities because of the State Department’s new Passport Policy or are likely to be impacted by the new policy upon their next renewal. The complaint was filed in the federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

COLUMBUS- Today, in an historic win for bodily autonomy and LGBTQ+ Ohioans, a three judge panel on the Tenth District Court of Appeals overturned House Bill 68, Ohio’s law banning gender-affirming medical care for trans youth, and prohibiting trans women and girls from participating in sports. The case, Moe v. Yost, was originally filed on March 26 by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Ohio, and the global law firm Goodwin on behalf of two families whose transgender adolescents would be negatively impacted by HB 68. On August 6, following a five-day trial in July, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge, and allowed the ban to take effect. Today, transgender youth in Ohio will once again be able to access lifesaving healthcare. The following is reaction to the ruling: Freda Levenson, Legal Director at the ACLU of Ohio: “Today, we celebrate this win not only for our brave plaintiffs, but for all LGBTQ+ Ohioans and their families. This win restores the right of trans youth in Ohio to choose vitally important health care, with the support of their families and physicians. We are gratified by the Court’s decision, which soundly rejects this interference of politicians with Ohioans’ bodily autonomy. Although this litigation will likely not end here, we remain fervently committed to preventing this egregious bill from ever again taking effect. The path towards protecting the rights and civil liberties of trans Ohioans goes on, and we will continue to hold the torch.” Harper Seldin, Senior Staff Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union: “This is a critical victory for transgender youth and their families across Ohio. The state’s ban is discriminatory, baseless, and a danger to the well-being of the same Ohioan youth lawmakers claim to want to protect. It’s also part of a sweeping effort to drive trans people out of public life altogether by controlling our health care, our families, and our lives. We’re thankful the court upheld their rights under the state constitution.” Miranda Hooker, Complex Litigation & Dispute Resolution Partner, Goodwin: "We applaud the families who courageously shared their personal experiences to oppose House Bill 68. This victory underscores the critical need to safeguard bodily autonomy and access to essential healthcare. The decision marks an important milestone in advancing equality and personal freedom for all Ohioans and we will continue to fight against the unconstitutional Bill moving forward." The ruling can be found online here.

Three transgender people currently incarcerated in federal custody have filed a class action lawsuit against the Trump Administration and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) challenging an Executive Order and new BOP policies prohibiting their access to gender-affirming care. The class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of approximately 2,000 transgender people incarcerated in federal prisons across the United States.

RICHMOND, Va. -- On Friday, February 28th, the ACLU of North Carolina joined the ACLU Disability Rights Program, Rights Behind Bars, Tycko & Zavareei LLP, and Kaplan & Grady LLC, in filing an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on behalf of Tracey Edwards. While she was incarcerated in the North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women (NCCIW), prison officials abruptly cut off Ms. Edwards' medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) after she gave birth, causing an extremely painful, dangerous, and unnecessary withdrawal. Prison officials also kept Ms. Edwards shackled during and after giving birth – in direct violation of the prison system’s own policy – causing severe pain and interfering with Ms. Edwards’ ability to bond with her newborn child. “People who are incarcerated deserve respect and dignity, as well as safe and responsive medical care,” said D Dangaran, Director of Gender Justice Rights Behind Bars. “By shackling Ms. Edwards during childbirth, keeping her shackled after she gave birth, and cutting off her medication, prison officials needlessly escalated the physical, mental, and emotional harm to Ms. Edwards during a time when she was already vulnerable.” “The use of shackles on Ms. Edwards and the denial of MOUD caused her pain and suffering, and greatly increased the risk of relapse, overdose, and death,” said Shana Khader, partner at Tycko and Zavareei LLP. “Defendants in this case violated medical standards of care as well as Ms. Edwards’ civil rights.” Ms. Edwards brought claims for damages under the Eighth Amendment and federal disability rights laws. The district court ruled against Ms. Edwards. In this appeal, Ms. Edwards seeks to have the district court’s decision reversed so a jury can decide her claims. “The treatment that Ms. Edwards experienced is both inhumane and unconstitutional,” said Joseph Longley, ACLU Disability Rights Program Staff Attorney. “This appeal is about accountability. No one, especially a new mother, should endure such cruel and degrading conditions. And no one should be denied access to their lifesaving medications for opioid use disorder, especially when tens of thousands of Americans are dying of an overdose every year. We are working to ensure Ms. Edwards gets her day in court and that this kind of mistreatment is never repeated.” The brief can be found here: https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/2025.02.28_appellants_opening_brief_4th_cir._dkt._23-1.pdf