Developments in Transgender Rights:
In this issue, we cover state litigation and ballot initiatives, federal legislation, and an international study finding that gender-affirming care for transgender youth is safe and effective.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to target school districts that support transgender students. It has recently threatened legal action and the loss of federal funding against school districts in Maryland and Michigan that protect transgender students from being involuntarily outed to their parents. The Department of Education also recently issued a letter of impending enforcement action against Jefferson County Public Schools in Colorado, which could result in the district losing more than $50 million in federal funding for allowing transgender girls to use bathrooms, locker rooms, and participate on sports teams that align with their gender identity. In response, the district has sued the Trump administration in federal court.
The Heritage Foundation, the far-right think tank behind Project 2025, recently released a report targeting Title IX, which could potentially lay the groundwork for further efforts by the administration to weaken the statute. At the state level, far-right groups are advancing anti-transgender ballot initiatives in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, and Washington that would restrict transgender youth's ability to participate on sports teams consistent with their gender identity and limit access to gender-affirming care.
Top Line News Stories
Colorado School District Sues Trump Admin After The Administration Threatens $50m in Federal Funding
Jefferson County Public Schools (JeffCo) in Colorado is suing the Trump Administration in the U.S. District Court of Colorado after the Department of Education issued a letter of impending enforcement action which could result in the school district losing more than $50m in federal funding.
In the complaint, the school district asserts that the letter and associated actions by the government is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, based on an interpretation of federal law that has not undergone proper notice-and-comment procedures, and in violation of the Spending Clause and the First Amendment.”
Notably, the school district points out that in the Department of Education’s letter of impending enforcement and its associated actions the Administration has claimed that Title IX requires that schools prohibit transgender people from participating in sports with their cisgender peers and from using bathrooms and locker rooms that do not match their gender identity. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., which was decided by the Supreme Court in June of 2026, the court left the question of requiring such policy open and simply ruled that schools could prohibit transgender people from participating in sports with their cisgender peers and from using bathrooms and locker rooms that do not match their gender identity.
The school district further argues that requiring JeffCo to make a public statement adopting the administration positions on the existence of transgender people and their preferred definitions of related words, would be a violation of the schools First Amendment rights under strict scrutiny.
Any decision in this case could be highly consequential to not only the rights of transgender students, but also all recipients of federal funding.
Legislation & Litigation Developments
Overview
The U.S. House of Representatives defeated a legislative attempt to permanently codify a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military.
The House Judiciary Committee advanced the Chloe Cole Act, named after an anti-trans activist, creating a federal private right of action to penalize providers of gender-affirming care for youth.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania filed a civil rights lawsuit against Penn State Health for abruptly canceling a patient’s gender-affirming surgery under religious justifications.
The ACLU of Wisconsin filed an amicus brief in New Richmond Parents for Strong Schools v. School District of New Richmond Board of Education defending inclusive school restroom policies against a conservative legal challenge.
Bipartisan House Coalition Defeats Attempt to Codify Military Trans Ban
In a narrow 217-212 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives defeated an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an annual defense policy bill, that sought to permanently write President Donald Trump’s unconstitutional executive order restricting transgender people from military service into federal law.
Sponsored by anti-trans Representative Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), the measure failed after a handful of Republicans broke ranks to side with Democrats. While the administration’s directive targeting transgender service members remains active, pending ongoing federal court challenges, LGBTQ+ advocates emphasized that failing to pass the ban prevents it from being permanently codified into law which allows a future administration to reverse the policy.
However, the NDAA did move forward with two anti-trans amendments introduced by Representative Nancy Mace. If enacted, these provisions would bar TRICARE, the health insurance program for service members, military retirees, and their families, from paying for gender-affirming healthcare, and prohibit trans girls from playing in sports aligning with their gender identity at Department of Defense Education Activity schools.
House Judiciary Committee Advances the Chloe Cole Act
The House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to advance H.R. 7651, known as the Chloe Cole Act, a federal measure sponsored by Representative Bob Onder (R-Mo.) that establishes a private right of action allowing minors and parents to sue medical providers for administering gender-affirming care if the individual later regrets transitioning
The bill is named after anti-trans activist Chloe Cole, who has made up to $200,000 opposing gender-affirming care, and it creates an extended statute of limitations for individuals to seek financial damages and legal remedies for procedures like puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries performed during youth. This bill would undermine established medical standards, penalize necessary healthcare, and interfere with parental and patient autonomy.
ACLU of Pennsylvania Sues Penn State Health Over Canceled Gender-Affirming Procedure
The ACLU of Pennsylvania and the law firm of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP filed a lawsuit in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas against Penn State Health, Penn State Health St. Joseph, and Pennsylvania State University after hospital administrators abruptly canceled a nonbinary patient’s top surgery less than 24 hours before it was scheduled. According to the complaint, officials at Penn State Health St. Joseph Medical Center called the patient to cancel the operation under the justification that gender-affirming care violates Catholic doctrine, despite the network regularly performing identical procedures for cisgender patients.
The plaintiff is arguing that the defendants violated the equal rights amendment and religious freedom provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution as well as the state’s Human Relations Act. The complaint seeks declaratory relief, an injunction blocking Penn State Health St. Joseph from engaging in such discriminatory practices and compensatory damages for emotional distress and humiliation.
This case could shape how courts resolve conflicts between religiously based healthcare policies and protections for transgender and nonbinary patients in Pennsylvania.
ACLU of Wisconsin Files Amicus Brief Defending Transgender Student Bathroom Access
The ACLU of Wisconsin filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on behalf of the LGBTQ+ student advocacy organization GSAFE, defending the New Richmond School District’s inclusive restroom policies. The brief opposes a lawsuit brought by a conservative parent organization that seeks to restrict trans people from accessing restrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity.
In the brief, ACLU attorneys argued that forcing transgender and nonbinary students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity exposes them to severe physical, social, and psychological harm, increases their vulnerability to harassment, and runs contrary to established Seventh Circuit precedent protecting equal access in schools.
Trend and Policy Watch
Overview
The Heritage Foundation published a report calling to roll back Title IX and replace competitive women’s sports with recreational activities.
The Trump administration launched federal enforcement actions against school districts protecting transgender student privacy under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
Anti-trans activists are advancing state ballot initiatives for the 2026 midterm elections that seek to restrict transgender athletes' participation in sports and limit access to gender-affirming care.
The Heritage Foundation Publishes Report Targeting Title IX
Following years of championing and advocating for bans on transgender people participating in sports at all levels with their cisgender peers under the banner of protecting women’s athletics, the Heritage Foundation published a sweeping report authored by senior research fellow Scott Yenor that calls for rolling back of Title IX.
The policy paper argues that the landmark 1972 civil rights law forces an “engineered parity” that contradicts so-called “natural differences” between the men and women, suggesting schools replace competitive women’s sports with recreational activities, like yoga, dance, and hiking clubs as they purportedly “support fertility” unlike “high-intensity” sports. Legal scholars, equality advocates, and athletes sharply criticized the move, noting that the rhetoric previously weaponized against transgender athletes has served as a strategic wedge to advance a broader conservative rollback of equal opportunity, competitive athletics, and bodily autonomy.
Trump Administration Targets School District Policies that Protect Trans Students’ Privacy
As part of its escalating attack on public education, the Trump administration intensified its coordinated federal enforcement actions against school districts maintaining policies that protect transgender students from being forcibly outed to their parents.
On July 27, 2026, the Trump Administration threatened legal proceedings and the loss of federal funding against districts in Maryland and Michigan, alleging that keeping a student’s gender identity confidential violates FERPA.
This is the latest action by the Trump administration, which has increasingly launched investigations into school districts with trans-affirming policies, to advance its broader efforts to reshape public education and roll back federal civil rights protections for transgender people.
Transgender Rights Head to the Ballot Box in Multiple States
As part of a coordinated effort to target states that have enacted protections for transgender residents, far-right activists have advanced anti-transgender ballot initiatives aimed at rolling back those safeguards.
Voters across multiple states will face a growing slate of direct legislative and citizen-led ballot measures addressing school sports and restrictions on gender-affirming care for transgender youth. While dozens of states have enacted similar restrictions through legislative battles over recent years, the upcoming elections mark a strategic pivot toward direct ballot measures giving voters the final say on transgender youth in school sports and access to gender-affirming care in states including Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, and Washington.
These measures would restrict trans youth’s access to gender-affirming healthcare and inclusive school environments, which have been found to negatively impact their mental health.
International Impacts
While this newsletter typically focuses on domestic policy and legal trends, we would be remiss if we did not at times zoom out even further and look at how these policies and trends fit into the greater context of the international struggle for bodily autonomy, liberation, and democracy.
Overview
The Health Council of the Netherlands issued a two-year review endorsing youth gender-affirming care as safe and effective.
Dutch Health Council Reaffirms Safety and Efficacy of Youth Gender-Affirming Care
In a comprehensive two-year review commissioned amid international policy debates, the Health Council of the Netherlands delivered a strong endorsement of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth.
The nation’s highest scientific advisory board concluded that these treatments are safe, effective, and medically necessary, noting zero recorded cases of later regret among patients who began treatment as minors.
The Council explicitly rejected the framing that withholding care is a neutral default, warning instead that treatment delays cause severe psychological harm and violate young people’s right to health.
Dutch review powerfully refutes frequent conservative talking points in the U.S. claiming that European nations are abandoning evidence-based healthcare for youth.
Helpful New Resources
Guidance and Codification Efforts Following Supreme Court’s Sports Ruling
Following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J. upholding restrictions on transgender athletes, advisory organizations such as EducationCounsel have released specialized legal resources to help school districts interpret the shifting compliance landscape.
The new guidance breaks down the practical implications of allowing sex-separate athletic policies under Title IX while emphasizing the unresolved gray areas surrounding inclusive state-level mandates.