Oregon ACLU Says Supreme Court Boy Scout Decision Won't Affect Portland School District Case

LAWRENCE – Two transgender adolescents and their parents have filed a challenge in Kansas state court against SB 63, a law passed earlier this year prohibiting access to gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender people under 18. Filed by the ACLU and the ACLU of Kansas in District Court of Douglas County, Loe v. Kansas charges 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. "Our clients and every Kansan should have the freedom to make their own private medical decisions and consult with their doctors without the intrusion of Kansas politicians," said D.C. Hiegert, Civil Liberties Legal Fellow for the ACLU of Kansas. "SB 63 is a particularly harmful example of politicians' overreach and their efforts to target, politicize, and control the healthcare of already vulnerable Kansas families. We are honored to represent our clients in standing up for their constitutional rights and in fighting back against this threat to our communities." “Bans like SB 63 have already had catastrophic effects on the families of transgender youth across the country,” said Harper Seldin, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “These bans have uprooted many families from the only homes they’ve ever known while forcing many more to watch their young people suffer knowing a politician stands between them and their family doctor’s best medical judgment. We are determined for every state to be a safe place to raise every family, and that means fighting SB 63 until all transgender Kansans have the freedom to be themselves.” 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 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. The complaint filed today can be found here.

MISSOULA, Mont. — Earlier today, a Missoula County District Court granted a preliminary injunction in Perkins v. State of Montana, blocking HB 121 during the lifetime of the case and allowing people to use restrooms and public facilities that align with their gender identity. In its order, the court found that: “All Montanans regardless of gender, fully and properly expect their transgender or intersex identity, anatomy, and genetics will not be subject to the prying eyes of others or to governmental snooping or regulation.” HB 121 is one of the broadest anti-transgender bathroom bans in the country. It banishes transgender and intersex people to the fringes of society by making it nearly impossible for them to exist in public life. The ACLU of Montana, the ACLU, and Legal Voice filed a challenge to HB 121 on March 27, 2025, immediately after the bill was signed into law. They represent five plaintiffs who are transgender or intersex. On April 2, a District Court in Missoula issued an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) on HB 121. At an April 21 hearing, the TRO was extended through May 16. In issuing today’s preliminary injunction, the court recognized that the plaintiffs made a strong initial argument that the law violates the Montana Constitution because it is discriminates against transgender and intersex people, undermines privacy rights, and blocks the pursuit of life’s basic necessities. It also found that HB 121 would cause real and significant injuries to the plaintiffs. In finding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their constitutional equal protection claim, the court held: “Transgender Montanans have been subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment and have been relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process.” “This ruling reaffirms the truth about bathroom bans: they’re motivated by prejudice, and they don’t protect anyone,” said Robin Turner, Montana staff attorney at Legal Voice. “HB 121 undermines Montana’s strong constitutional protections against government overreach and subjects people to unacceptable privacy violations. Transgender people are vulnerable to violence in restrooms, and they deserve protection instead of persecution.” “This law is the embodiment of the governmental overreach that the Montana Constitution protects against,” said ACLU of Montana Executive Director Akilah Deernose. “It promotes misinformation, bigotry, and fear towards our trans and intersex family and friends. Everyone deserves to use the bathroom safely and in peace. Discriminatory laws like HB 121 violate fundamental rights guaranteed by the state constitution and have no place in Montana.” The state has the option of appealing the District Court’s ruling on the preliminary injunction to the Montana Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the case will proceed in District Court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. As of 2019, twenty-one states, the District of Columbia, and more than 200 cities and counties had enacted laws permitting transgender people to access sex-separated facilities that align with their gender identity. Research has shown that these laws have not caused public safety incidents. The truth is that it is transgender people who are most vulnerable to harassment and violence in sex-separated spaces such as restrooms. One survey found that 12% of transgender respondents had been verbally harassed in public restrooms in the previous year and 60% had avoided using public restrooms because they feared confrontation.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — On behalf of six military families with students enrolled in Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) schools, the American Civil Liberties Union today filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to declare DoDEA’s enforcement of executive orders resulting in classroom censorship unconstitutional. DoDEA, whose students lead the United States in math and reading proficiency scores, operates 161 schools across 11 countries, seven states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The demand for an injunction was filed on behalf of 12 students and their families, ranging from pre-K to 11th grade, who attend DoDEA schools as children of active duty servicemembers stationed in Virginia, Kentucky, Italy, and Japan. Since January, the plaintiffs’ schools have removed books, altered curricula, and canceled events that the current administration has accused of promoting “gender ideology” or “divisive equity ideology.” Censored items include materials about slavery, Native American history, women’s history, LGBTQ identities and history, and preventing sexual harassment and abuse, as well as portions of the Advanced Placement (AP) Psychology curriculum. “We make sacrifices as a military family so that my husband can defend the Constitution and the rights and freedoms of all Americans,” said Jessica Henninger, a plaintiff on behalf of her children in DoDEA schools. “If our own rights and the rights of our children are at risk, we have a responsibility to speak out. Despite the anxiety and uncertainty among DoDEA parents and students right now, we know that our children have a right to an education free from censorship, and we won't stand by silently and watch that right be taken away.” The new motion includes a list of 233 books alleged to have been quarantined or removed from shelves, including: “To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee; “#MeToo: Women Speak Out Against Sexual Assault,” edited by the New York Times; “Looking for Alaska” by John Green; “Can't Stop Won't Stop: A Hip-Hop History” by Jeff Chang; “Generation Brave: The Gen Z Kids Who Are Changing the World” by Kate Alexander; and “Julián is a Mermaid” by Jessica Love. It includes further titles by acclaimed authors including Margaret Atwood, Toni Morrison, Kurt Vonnegut, and Ta-Nehisi Coates. The vast majority of titles appear to be by or about women, people of color, or LGBTQ people. “These are American students in American schools, and they have the same First Amendment rights as their peers,” said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Families in DoDEA schools have the right to access books about race and gender and the right to learn about the vibrantly diverse world around them. We owe it to these students to help them learn and grow, not stifle their age-appropriate exposure to ideas this administration happens to deem politically incorrect.” One DoDEA school canceled events honoring Juneteenth and Holocaust Remembrance Day, and another removed posters featuring Malala Yousafzai and Frida Kahlo. Families allege in the filings that their requests for information from DoDEA about what information has been removed or why have gone unanswered. “Classroom censorship has impacted our clients’ ability to prepare for AP exams, to learn about their neighbors and peers, and to see themselves in their curriculum,” said Corey Shapiro, legal director for the ACLU of Kentucky. “And in DoDEA schools, which are some of the most diverse and high performing schools in the nation, the impact is magnified. This kind of political meddling is antithetical to the First Amendment.” “The Trump administration cannot violate the First Amendment by removing books and curricula it doesn’t like,” said Matt Callahan, senior supervising attorney at the ACLU of Virginia. “Students have a right to see themselves reflected in their libraries and classrooms, and they also have a right to learn from the perspectives of people who aren’t like them. That’s no less true for military families than for anyone else.” The ACLU, the ACLU of Kentucky, and the ACLU of Virginia filed suit last month, arguing that DoDEA enforcement of three executive orders signed by President Donald Trump in January 2025 led to widespread violations of students’ First Amendment rights. The suit, and the motion for preliminary injunction, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The motion can be viewed online here.