Your Choice: Wrong Gender on Driver's License, or Surgery

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union is urging members of the House of Representatives to vote “NO’ on a bill sponsored by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene that would criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care for any transgender person under 18 and subject providers to up to 10 years in federal prison. This would be the most extreme anti-trans legislation ever considered by Congress.. These treatments, commonly referred to as gender-affirming medical care, are supported by the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. At the same time that the legislation criminalizes care for transgender youth, it explicitly endorses non-consensual surgical procedures on intersex youth and infants. Greene announced on social media that she has received a commitment from House leadership to bring the bill to the floor for a vote on December 17. “This extreme bill puts the threat of prosecution between hundreds of thousands of families and their doctors and would put doctors behind bars for exercising their best medical judgment,” said Mike Zamore, National Director of Policy & Government Affairs at the ACLU. “Passing this bill would be a grave escalation of an already severe effort to not only push transgender people out of public life but also allow the state to control our bodies and our lives further. Families with transgender youth across the country have already taken the dire step of leaving the United States for fear of exactly this kind of proposal becoming the law of the land. Abortion bans have already shown us the deadly consequences of putting baseless politics into our doctors’ offices. Every member of Congress who believes that health care decisions should stay between families and their doctors should vote no and vigorously oppose this bill’s passage. The fundamental equality of transgender people and our families is at stake now, but the implications of criminalizing health care could be far-reaching for everyone.”

WASHINGTON - A civilian employee of the Illinois National Guard today filed a class action lawsuit in federal court challenging a Trump-Vance administration policy prohibiting transgender and intersex federal employees from using restrooms aligned with their gender. The complaint was filed on behalf of Ms. Withrow by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of D.C., the ACLU of Illinois, and Democracy Forward. Plaintiff LeAnne Withrow of Springfield, Illinois, is a lead military and family readiness specialist and civilian employee for the Illinois National Guard. Previously, she served as a staff sergeant for the National Guard and is the recipient of multiple commendations and awards, including the Illinois National Guard Abraham Lincoln Medal of Freedom. Following a January 20 executive order signed by President Trump, officials with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the federal National Guard Bureau issued notices to all employees requiring use of designated restrooms strictly based upon their “biological sex,” as inaccurately defined in the executive order. Soon after, Withrow was told by supervisors within her chain of command that she could not use restrooms designated for women. On May 5, Ms. Withrow filed a class action complaint to the Army National Guard Bureau Equal Opportunity Office (NGB-EO), and later to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), challenging the federal order, but both the NGB-EO and EEOC failed to resolve the matter. Ms. Withrow has now gone to court to stop this unlawful and discriminatory order. Today’s class action lawsuit alleges that the executive order and implementation actions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment. In a 2020 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held 6-3 that Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender workers on the basis of their sex. The complaint also alleges that the order and implementation violate the federal Administrative Procedure Act. “No one should have to choose between their career in service and their own dignity,” said LeAnne Withrow, a civilian federal employee for the Illinois National Guard. “I bring respect and honor to the work I do to support military families, and I hope the court will restore dignity to transgender people like me who serve this country every day.” “No federal employee should have to face hostility and discrimination while they are working to serve the American people,” said Shana Knizhnik, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “We look forward to demonstrating to the court that this unlawful executive order not only denies the existence of transgender and intersex employees, it is yet another attempt by the Trump administration to target and punish transgender people for simply being who they are. There is no place for such blatant discrimination in our government or society.” “We cannot let the Trump administration target transgender people in the federal government or in public life,” said Michael Perloff, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU-D.C. “An executive order micromanaging which bathroom civil servants use is discrimination, plain and simple, and must be stopped.” “It is absurd that in her home state of Illinois, LeAnne can use any other restroom consistent with her gender– other than the ones controlled by the federal government,” said Michelle Garcia, Deputy Legal Director at the ACLU of Illinois. “The Trump Administration’s reckless policies are discriminatory and must be reversed.” “This policy is hateful bigotry aimed at denying hardworking federal employees their basic dignity simply because they are transgender,” said Kaitlyn Golden, Senior Counsel at Democracy Forward. “It is only because of brave individuals like LeAnne that we can push back against this injustice. Democracy Forward is honored to work with our partners in this case and are eager to defeat this insidious effort to discriminate against transgender federal workers.” Today’s complaint can be found here.

OKLAHOMA CITY – Teachers and students in Oklahoma filed a brief in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals this week asking the court to enjoin the state's classroom censorship law in its entirety. HB 1775 restricts teachers’ abilities to discuss race, sex, and American history in the classroom, and since its passage in 2021 and throughout the lifecycle of the case, the law has contributed to widespread fear and self-censorship among educators. “Students in Oklahoma deserve the opportunity to learn the full truth about American history, something that is currently impossible under HB 1775,” said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are proud to have had success striking down the higher education provisions in this censorial law, and we will continue to work to ensure that K-12 classrooms can be open and free so that teachers no longer fear repercussions for doing their jobs and students can enjoy a rigorous, inclusive education.” The district court in BERT v. Drummond enjoined part of HB 1775 but left much of the law in place. Now, the ACLU and partners, on behalf of a diverse group of teachers and students, ask the 10th Circuit to enjoin HB 1775 in its entirety because the law violates the 14th Amendment by failing to provide teachers notice of what the law prohibits and the First Amendment by denying students the right to receive information. The 10th Circuit has the opportunity to issue the first circuit court opinion striking down a classroom censorship statute, setting a powerful precedent nationwide. “Anyone who is concerned about free speech and free expression should be concerned about this law,” said Rebecca Barrett, staff attorney with the ACLU of Oklahoma. “Anyone who is concerned about education should be concerned about this law. It is a blatant attack on public education in America, and that is why we are now asking the Tenth Circuit to enjoin the law in its entirety and to ensure Oklahoma students have access to a robust and inclusive education.” As part of their appeal, the government asserts that curriculum and book choices constitute “government speech.” If adopted, this theory could remove K-12 classrooms from First Amendment scrutiny altogether, leaving classrooms totally unprotected from partisan, political interference with children’s education. "The State's use of the government speech doctrine to try and defend HB 1775 should concern everyone,” said Maya Brodziak, senior counsel with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law. “Their argument is that every time a teacher speaks in class, the teacher speaks only as the government's mouthpiece. School, however, is not a place where students go to learn only what the government believes but rather to learn how to think about and analyze a variety of viewpoints – including but not limited to – the view adopted by the government." The lawsuit was originally filed in 2021 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Oklahoma, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and pro bono counsel McDermott Will & Schulte LLP on behalf of a wide range of plaintiffs across higher ed and K-12 schools, including the Oklahoma State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP-OK); the American Indian Movement (AIM) Indian Territory on behalf of itself and its members who are public school students and teachers; a high school student; and Oklahoma public high school teachers Anthony Crawford and Regan Killackey. Amicus briefs were filed by a wide range of civil rights and educational advocacy groups, including Oklahoma Appleseed, the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Academy of Education. The 10th Circuit brief can be viewed here.