“Sexual Justice” Doesn’t Have to Mean Criminal Justice

WASHINGTON — Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a press release announcing a notice of interpretation of a nearly 30-year-old law to restrict access to critical early education programs for immigrant families. The agency’s action unlawfully expands the definition of “federal public benefit” for HHS under the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) to include Head Start — effectively making certain children ineligible for Head Start for the first time in the program’s history. HHS’s notice offers no implementation guidance to Head Start agencies and declares the interpretation is effective immediately. HHS also notes that verification requirements under PRWORA remain unchanged, which makes the full scope of the operational impact of the policy unclear. If the notice takes effect, plaintiffs in a lawsuit that was filed in April challenging attacks by the Trump administration to Head Start vow to amend their complaint to fight back against this new attack on Head Start. The plaintiffs include parent groups Parent Voices Oakland and Family Forward Oregon, and the Head Start associations of Washington state, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Plaintiffs in the case are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Washington, the ACLU of Illinois, and the Impact Fund. “Head Start was created to serve low-income children and families, including immigrant communities who are vital to our economy and our future. This directive attempts to force agencies to turn away the very families we are legally mandated to support. It’s a cruel and unlawful move that threatens the wellbeing of children and the stability of entire communities,” said Joel Ryan, executive director, Washington State Head Start & Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program. “Head Start has been a cornerstone in communities across the country. We urge Head Start providers to continue to serve children and refrain from making any immediate changes to enrollment policy until they have an opportunity to fully evaluate their legal obligations,” said Jennie Mauer, executive director of the Wisconsin Head Start Association. “As part of its broader attack on working families, this administration is unlawfully attempting to rewrite the PRWORA to make it harder for children to access critical early childhood education. No agency – including HHS – has ever defined early education as a restricted ‘federal public benefit,’” said Jennesa Calvo-Friedman, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Women’s Rights Project. “The Head Start Act clearly states it is an education program with the purpose to ‘promote the school readiness of low-income children,’ and includes both statutory and regulatory criteria which impose no eligibility restriction based on immigration status.” "Implementation of this directive will create fear and confusion for immigrant families about enrolling their children in Head Start regardless of what their legal status may be. This will harm children and destabilize Head Start programs,” said Lori Rifkin, litigation director at the Impact Fund. “If the administration moves forward with publication of this notice, we will take legal action.” The case page can be found here.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court today granted certiorari in two federal court cases involving transgender youth challenging bans on their participation in local school and college sports. “Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status. Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do–to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” said Joshua Block, Senior Counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.” “Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.” Earlier this year, efforts to enact a national ban failed in the U.S. Congress. Since 2020, 27 states have banned transgender youth from playing school sports. Many of these bans allow for invasive forms of sex testing that put all female student athletes at risk and open the door for any school official or adult to question and harass young women. In Florida, a 15-year-old junior varsity volleyball player was the subject of a police investigation after an anonymous accusation, prompting local officials to draft a 500-page report investigating her medical history, body weight, and anatomy. In Utah, a teenage basketball player was accused of being transgender by a member of the state board of education, leading to threats of violence against her and her family, and a teenager in Maine faced a similar attack from a state senator. In May, President Donald Trump bullied a 16-year-old transgender girl for participating in a high school track meet. Many women athletes have spoken out against bullying and discrimination against transgender student athletes. This includes Billie Jean King, Megan Rapinoe, Dawn Staley, Sue Bird, and Brianna Turner, as well as leading organizations fighting for gender equality in athletics including the Women’s Sports Foundation, the Women’s National Basketball Player’s Association, and the National Women’s Law Center. The two cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear include: Little v. Hecox, a challenge brought by one transgender and one cisgender student athlete against Idaho’s 2020 ban on transgender athletes and requirements for sex testing West Virginia v. B.P.J., a challenge brought by a teenage transgender girl against West Virginia’s 2021 ban on transgender athletic participation The two cases charge the bans with violating the rights of transgender and cisgender female students under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. In addition, West Virginia v. B.P.J. argues that the bans violate Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs. Federal courts have blocked enforcement of these bans in both lawsuits. These cases are part of the ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled today that Medicaid patients do not have a right to sue to enforce their right to a qualified health care provider of choice under the Medicaid statute. The decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic will facilitate some states’ politically motivated efforts to block low-income patients’ access to certain health care providers and may effectively defund Planned Parenthood and other disfavored providers by barring them from state Medicaid programs. “The majority decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic contradicts Congress’s clear purpose to give Medicaid patients their choice of qualified health care providers and also wrongly curtails patients’ rights to vindicate their choice of provider through Section 1983,” said Cecillia Wang, National Legal Director for the ACLU. “The decision may have the effect of blocking patients’ access to birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment for patients in South Carolina and potentially will permit state officials to override patients’ choice of provider based on political whims.” “The impact of this decision on our reproductive freedom will be compounded if Congress follows through on federal efforts to 'defund' Planned Parenthood by prohibiting patients from choosing Planned Parenthood health centers for their care,” said Deirdre Schifeling, Chief Political and Advocacy Officer of the ACLU. “Doing so would force the closure of hundreds of Planned Parenthood health centers nationwide, robbing people of their freedom to get reproductive health care from trusted providers in their communities and would result in shuttering 1 in 4 of the country’s abortion providers. "Make no mistake: our reproductive freedom is still under siege. The ACLU remains committed to fighting for Planned Parenthood, abortion access, and the fundamental human right to control one’s own body using every tool we have.

The Trump administration is attempting to gut Head Start, a federally-funded early childhood program Congress created for low-income families