ACLU Condemns House Passage of Bill Censoring Teachers and Forcibly Outing Transgender Students

LAWRENCE - A state district court judge today temporarily blocked enforcement of a Kansas law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender people under 18, finding the law likely violates the Kansas state constitution. “This is an enormous relief to our clients and families across the state of Kansas,” said Harper Seldin, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Rights Project. “The medical care unjustly banned by this law serves as the foundation of young transgender people’s entire lives and helps give them the future all young people deserve. Any decision about this medical care should be between families and their doctors, and today’s order from the court restores that fundamental principle. We will continue to challenge this law until Kansas is a safe place to raise every family.” “Our brave clients invested tremendous effort to represent not only their interests but also the interests of all transgender youth in Kansas,” said Kristen Broz, partner in the Litigation Department of Ballard Spahr. “This was a remarkable team effort from hard-working attorneys from both ACLU and Ballard who devoted their time to achieve this result that will change the lives of many.” SB 63 prohibits medical providers in the state of Kansas from providing gender-affirming medical treatments, such as hormone therapies and pubertal suppressants, to transgender youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The law allows these same treatments to be provided to cisgender youth for any other reason. SB 63 was passed by the Kansas state legislature in January of 2025, then vetoed by Governor Laura Kelly, who said in her veto statement, “it is not the job of politicians to stand between a parent and a child who needs medical care of any kind.” The legislature overrode her veto, and SB 63 took effect on February 20, 2025. In May 2025, Loe v. Kansas was filed by the ACLU and the ACLU of Kansas in the District Court of Douglas County, charging SB 63 with violating the Kansas Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and fundamental rights. The case was filed pseudonymously on behalf of 16-year-old Ryan Roe and his mother, Rebecca Roe as well as 13-year-old Lily Loe and her mother, Lisa Loe.

BOISE, Idaho – Six transgender residents of Idaho have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging H.B. 752, a new state law prohibiting them from using sex-designated public restrooms in government-owned buildings and private businesses that are open to the public consistent with their gender identity, arguing the law violates their constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and privacy. The challenge was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Idaho, Lambda Legal, and the law firms of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Alturas Law Group, PLLC. H.B. 752, signed into law by Idaho Gov. Brad Little earlier this year, makes the first offense a misdemeanor with up to one year in prison, and a second offense a felony with up to five years in prison. It applies to all government-owned buildings and private businesses that are open to the public, such as libraries, rest stops, airports, malls, gas stations, restaurants, entertainment venues, hospitals, and other businesses. “When this law was put forward, I felt a heavy lump grow in my chest,” said Diego Fable, an Idaho transgender man and plaintiff in the lawsuit. “I knew this would make my life so much harder. I've been enjoying life as a man and using the men's restrooms hasn't been a big deal. But this law would force me to use the women's facilities, and doing so would only invite suspicion, questions, and raised eyebrows. I would have to face tough choices every time I leave my home: Do I know the restroom situation when I go out to eat with my friends? Do I know the restrooms available when I go to public parks to go birding? What do I do while I'm at work all day? Ultimately, complying with this law would be extremely isolating. The only safe option truly available is to just stay home – or leave the state entirely, leaving my treasured friends and community behind.” “HB 752 will severely, negatively impact my ability to safely engage in public life,” said Amelia Milette, a transgender woman, lifelong Idahoan, and plaintiff in the lawsuit. “As a transgender woman, I’ve used women’s bathrooms for years without encountering a problem or having another woman take issue with my presence. My job requires me to be out in the community through the normal course of my work, and as a result of this law, I no longer can assume I’ll have access to a bathroom facility that matches my gender. It forces me to compromise my privacy and safety by using a facility that doesn’t align with how I present myself in my daily life. I now have to evaluate every social activity I participate in against the risk I'll experience if I need access to a bathroom facility. This new law does not protect anyone. It only puts people like me in danger.” “Today’s lawsuit challenges H.B. 752 as an unconstitutional intrusion on the fundamental rights of Idahoans,” said Paul Carlos Southwick, legal director for the ACLU of Idaho. “H.B. 752 has a clear discriminatory intent, but its prohibitions and exceptions are vague, forcing Idahoans and law enforcement alike to guess at its meaning. The law invites intrusive stops, questioning, and even detention based on appearance alone. It also pushes the government into one of the most private areas of our lives, undermining the basic Idaho value that people should be left alone in matters of personal privacy.” “This law is a dangerous and discriminatory effort to push transgender people out of public life,” said Barbara Schwabauer, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project. “If you cannot use the restroom at work, you cannot go to work. If you cannot use the restroom at school, you cannot go to school. H.B. 752 undermines the freedom of our clients to live their lives with dignity, and we will do all we can to block it completely.” “There can be no doubt that this law was intended to erase the very existence of Idaho’s transgender community,” said Kell Olson, Counsel and F. Curt Kirschner, Jr. Strategist for LGBTQ+ Seniors for Lambda Legal. “Not only does H.B. 752 forbid transgender Idahoans from using restrooms that match their gender identity, but it criminalizes those who do so, even when there is no gender-neutral option. Even Idaho law enforcement opposed H.B. 752, recognizing its impracticality and unenforceability. We stand today with our plaintiffs to make it clear that transgender Idahoans will not be forced out of public life.” The Idaho Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and the Idaho Chiefs of Police Association opposed H.B. 752, noting there is no “clear or reasonable way” to determine a person’s sex at birth during a field contact without engaging in “invasive and inappropriate” questioning or searches. Analyses of public safety data have found policies inclusive of transgender people’s access to public accommodations have no impact on rates of harassment or violence, but policies restrictive of their access have increased transgender people’s already heightened risks for harassment and violence. Transgender people are four times as likely as their cisgender counterparts to be victimized by violence. Nine states and Puerto Rico ban transgender people from using restrooms consistent with their gender identity in government buildings and 12 others have similar laws applying to K-12 public schools. Idaho’s H.B. 752 is the only state law applying to private businesses and – of the three states with criminal penalties attached to their bans – carries the steepest criminal charges in terms of prison sentences for violations. Today’s filing in Jackson-Edney et al v. Labrador can be viewed here.

HELENA - Earlier today, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a District Court order temporarily preventing the State of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. This means that transgender Montanans will continue to have access to accurate and usable identity documents while the case proceeds. In December 2024, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to block the State from enforcing its discriminatory policies, finding that the policies likely violate their’ “fundamental right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex under the Montana Constitution.” In today’s decision, the Montana Supreme Court agreed with the District Court and recognized that and that “[t]ransgender discrimination is, by its very nature, sex discrimination” and that the policy treated transgender people unequally compared to their cisgender counterparts. “I am deeply grateful and encouraged by the Montana Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the injunction,” said Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik “This victory represents not only a personal milestone, but also a meaningful affirmation of fairness, justice and the rule of law.” “This is a good day not just for transgender individuals but for all Montanans,” said Akilah Deernose, Executive Director of the ACLU of Montana. “Our Constitution exists to protect all of us from government overreach, and we are pleased that the Montana Supreme Court faithfully interpreted our Equal Protection Clause to protect against unlawful discrimination.” “Today’s ruling is an important victory for transgender people across the state of Montana, and perhaps even a glimmer of relief to transgender people across the country who are enduring a relentless effort to strip away their rights at nearly every level of government,” said Malita Picasso, Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “We will not stop fighting for transgender Montanans.” Following this ruling, the case will now return to the District Court where Plaintiffs will fight to obtain a final decision on the merits. Until that final decision, transgender Montanans can continue to obtain a birth certificate and drivers’ license that accurately reflects their identity. Today’s order from the Montana Supreme Court can be found here. Click here for more about Kalarchik v. State of Montana

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, 2025 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.   In November 2025, Withrow filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the executive order and implementation actions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment, and that the order and implementation violate the federal Administrative Procedure Act. 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.   “No one should have to choose between their career in service and their own dignity,” said Withrow. “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.”