TRANSGENDER RIGHTS DIGEST - JULY 30, 2026

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. 

---

TRANSGENDER RIGHTS DIGEST - JULY 2, 2026

Developments in Transgender Rights:

It’s been a big week in the world of Transgender Rights. The Supreme Court held that banning transgender women and girls from playing on teams with their cisgender peers does not violate Title IX nor Equal Protection. This ruling came a day after the Supreme Court announced it would be hearing another consequential case impacting transgender rights in its upcoming October 2026 session. This edition of the Transgender Rights Digest also includes stories about a new fund in New York City that seeks to expand access to gender affirming healthcare and a shocking new Texas GOP policy that proclaims that the party is seeking to exclude transgender people from public life. 

Want access to a detailed analysis of the transgender rights law in every U.S. state and territory? Please view our free Policy Resource Hub for Transgender Rights, an exclusive legal database where we update the state of the law every single day - so you’re always up to speed.

Top Line News Stories

• Supreme Court Rules That States May Ban Trangender Girls From Playing On Sports Teams With Their Cisgender Peers

  • The long awaited decisions in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox from the Supreme Court were handed down on the final day of opinions on June 30th, 2026. In a consolidated decision, the Court majority held that banning transgender women and girls from participating on sports teams with their cisgender peers does not violate Title IX or Equal Protection. The devastation of the loss rippled across the transgender community as attorneys and journalists scrambled to understand the scope of the decision. 

  • The Court held that “sex” as defined under Title IX “cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex” (Note: “biological sex” is an inaccurate term that is often used to marginalize transgender people and should be avoided)  by using the “ordinary meaning … at the time of enactment[.]” This definitive definition “leaves wide lanes for the Trump administration to pressure schools and colleges” warns journalist Erin Reed. 

  • The Trump administration, which has opened dozens of investigations into schools for having trans-inclusive policies under Title IX, celebrated the decision, saying that it: “[b]olsters President Trump’s Push to Eliminate Transgender Insanity.” Axios further reports that the case gives anti-transgender activists "its sharpest weapon yet for coming fights over bathrooms, IDs and gender-affirming care.” Kristen Waggoner, CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom which assisted the States’ defense, has already hinted that she wants to expand the ruling by posting on X, “Blue states with boys on girls’ podiums . . . you’re next.”

  • However, not all analysts seem to agree about the broad future impacts of this case. Ames, for example, argues that the ruling was “relatively narrow.” He believes that by using the Javits Amendment, the Court was able to “say.. that there is something unique about school sports that is not true of school generally - or other nondiscrimination laws generally.” While the debate continues, one thing remains certain, schools with existing inclusive policies are not in violation of Title IX. In fact, they may be required to have inclusive policies under state and local laws. 

  • While there is still some debate on the scope of the loss, legal scholars agree that this outcome could have been much much worse. Sam Ames, a civil rights attorney with Threshold Strategies, put it best, “I breathed a sigh of relief realizing that the words I was reading would set us back years but not decades, it caught in my throat that not getting beaten worse is the win.” One greater harm that was avoided was that the Court once again refused to determine if transgender people are a quasi-suspect class. Unlike Skrmetti, the court applied intermediate scrutiny, holding that the government had an important government interest when passing the law and the law furthered that interest by a means that was substantially related to said interest. Additionally, the Court specifically narrowed its decision to sports, saying that  “sports are different from, say, a typical employment or educational opportunity where equal protection often may require that the government generally treat an individual without regard to the individual’s sex.” 

  • While this is certainly a blow to transgender rights, the fight is far from over. This ruling “sets up a brutal state-by-state, school-by-school fight” according to Sasha Buchert, senior attorney and director of the non-binary and transgender rights project at Lambda Legal. Lawyers for Good Government’s Zane McNeill agreed in an interview with Bloomberg Law warning that he “imagine[s] the Trump administration will take this case and really run with it.”

Legislation & Litigation Developments

• Overview:

• The Supreme Court of the United States took up another transgender rights case for their October 2026 session. This will be the third major case determining the fate of transgender youth across the country.

• The Washington State Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving the housing of incarcerated transgender folks.

• The Supreme Court Takes Up Another Transgender Rights Case

• The Supreme Court has granted certiorari on the question of whether parents have standing–or the capacity to bring a lawsuit–to challenge a law or policy that “displaces their decision-making role as to “gender transitions” of their children,” in International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson. The lawsuit was originally filed in 2023 to enjoin Washington State Senate Bill 5599, which allows shelters to notify state authorities, rather than parents, when a minor flees home to pursue gender-affirming care or reproductive health services. 

• At the time, Washington State law directed shelter operatives to notify parents within 72 hours of when a minor arrives, but lays out compelling reasons not to notify such as abuse or neglect. Senate Bill 5599 expands the list of reasons not to notify parents to include situations where a minor feels they could be subject to abuse or neglect due to the fact they are seeking gender-affirming care or reproductive health services. The bill incensed conservatives, who found it to be an “attack on parental rights.” Despite conservative's attempt to get the bill into a referendum, SB 5599 went into effect on July 23, 2023. 

• Shortly after the bill went into effect, a lawsuit was filed by America First Legal–a conservative legal organization founded by White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller. In May of 2024, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the State’s motion to dismiss because “[the] Plaintiffs’ attempt to develop this lawsuit into a mechanism to attack [SB 5599]… fails for lack of standing.” The Court found that the parents’ “allegations rest on speculation and conjecture, which is insufficient to confer standing.” Plaintiffs then appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in June of 2024, which affirmed the lower court's ruling. Plaintiffs then petitioned to appeal to the Supreme Court in January of 2026. 

• A grant of certiorari does not inherently mean that the Ninth Circuit was wrong to affirm the dismissal – it may mean the Court could dispose of the case on other grounds. The grant is also not on the merits of the case, as the question presented to the Supreme Court concerns Article III standing. Even if the Supreme Court finds that plaintiffs do have standing, the case will most likely be remanded to a lower court to either be decided on the merits or dismissed for another reason. The case will most likely be heard by the Supreme Court in Fall 2026 or Winter 2027, with a decision most likely by June of 2027. 

• Washington State Supreme Court To Weigh In On Housing Of Incarcerated Transgender People

• On June 23, 2026, the Washington State Supreme Court heard arguments from the ACLU in In re. The Personal Restraint of Amber F. Kim., regarding the transfer of a transgender woman to a men’s prison. The ACLU filed the case in December of 2024 on behalf of Amber Kim, a transgender woman in the custody of the Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) for her confinement at Monroe Correctional Facility (MCF), a men’s prison. The petition argues that the transfer constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Art. 1, Sec. 14 of the Washington State Constitution. 

• The Washington State Court of Appeals denied her petition in July of 2025, which Kim appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington. It could be months before a decision is published.

Trend and Policy Watch

• Overview

• New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani pledged $15 million towards three trans healthcare initiatives.

• A transgender woman in Kansas faced criminal charges despite complying with an anti-trans state ID law. 

• The Texas Republican Party adopted a new platform that includes banning transgender people from participating in public life. 

• Overview

• New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani pledged $15 million towards three trans healthcare initiatives.

• A transgender woman in Kansas faced criminal charges despite complying with an anti-trans state ID law. 

• The Texas Republican Party adopted a new platform that includes banning transgender people from participating in public life. 

• Mamdani Offers Funds for Independent Clinics for Transgender Youth

• On June 26, 2026, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani pledged $15 million towards three trans healthcare initiatives: 1) a direct care access fund for transgender youth healthcare service providers; 2)  a call and text line for New Yorkers; and 3) funding for research that will direct future financial commitments. 

• Activists point out that this dollar amount is far lower than Mamdani’s original pledge of $65 million to transgender healthcare services on his campaign trail. However, the Mayor’s office has assured its constituents that the funds will be used to effectively safeguard access to gender-affirming care for youth and all trans New Yorkers, and help identify gaps in New York City’s provision of healthcare for the transgender community. 

• Transgender Woman in Kansas Was Charged Despite Following State Law

• When Kansas passed Senate Bill 244 earlier this year, Kris Ripper and hundreds of other transgender Kansans were told to turn over their driver’s licenses and procure new ones reflecting their sex assigned at birth. After the state notified transgender Kansans, they had 30 days to comply or potentially face criminal charges, including operating a motor vehicle without a valid license. 

• Kris Ripper is one of many trans Kansans who changed their ID to comply with the state’s anti-trans law. However, despite complying Ripper faced criminal charges and more, after a police officer conducting a routine traffic stop found issue with her valid, state-mandated drivers license as her gender marker did not comport with what the officer believed to be her sex based solely on her appearance. 

• Despite the assertion that he would let her off with a warning, the officer instead issued her a citation for driving without a valid license, apparently due to his confusion regarding her transgender identity. Ripper only discovered the citation after receiving a notice stating that she had failed to appear for her arraignment, and that if she did not appear in court within thirty days, she would accept a guilty plea, a $1,000 fine, and a six-month jail sentence.

• After international outcry, prosecutors dropped the charges against Ripper. The dangers posed by SB 244 to transgender Kansans, however, are not over. The newly passed law not only strips trans people of gender-affirming documentation, but also the basic right to use their bathroom that aligns with their gender identities. Trans lawmakers and advocates continue to warn of the indignities and dangers that trans Kansans will face under this law, but for now, Ripper’s unfortunate experience is a cautionary tale that exposes the flaws with laws like SB 244. 

• Texas GOP Wants to Ban Transgender People from Public Life In New Platform

• Last month, the Texas Republican Party held its biennial convention and released a new official platform that hosts some of the most extreme anti-LGBTQ+ policy platforms in the country. 

• The Texas Republican Party’s official platform is amended and adopted every two years, but is importantly non-binding. It is only intended to guide Republican legislators in Texas and it is often much more conservative than the party’s voters and candidates. However, it is often influential in shaping national policy. For example, the 2024 platform advocated for aggressive border enforcement, endorsed Bible reading and prayer in schools, and barred teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity – all stances the national GOP mirrored. 

• Under the new 2026 platform, the GOP asserts that the official position of Texas schools should be “that there are only two genders… which are immutable and cannot be changed.” The platform also proposes passing a new law “prohibiting social transitioning or other treatments” until the age of majority. Social transitioning is non-medical in nature and involves affirming actions such as changing ones names or pronouns, wearing clothes that match your gender identity, or getting a haircut to better align your outward presentation with your gender identity. Similar laws have been proposed in other states only to face intense scrutiny as experts warn that such a law could be a violation of the first amendment.

• The platform also supports prohibiting transgender individuals from serving in any school district position, including volunteer roles; prohibiting gender-affirming care for persons between the age of 18 and 26; and criminally prosecuting anyone that promotes, performs, or facilitates gender-affirming care for child abuse. If Texas were to make any of these draconian policy positions

---

TRANSGENDER RIGHTS DIGEST - JUNE 18, 2026

Developments in Transgender Rights:

This week’s Transgender Rights Digest covers: (1) the new FTC lawsuit against the World Professional Association for Transgender Health; (2) a narrow win for LGBTQ+ groups regarding the Idaho bathroom ban; (3) the reinstatement of the 988 LGBTQ+ crisis hotline by the Trump Administration; (4) the launch of a new transgender healthcare clinic for adults in New York city, championed by Mayor Mamdani; (5) updates on Department of Justice attempts to access the medical files of transgender and gender non-conforming youth in Rhode Island and California; (6) the reelection of Zooey Zephyr in Montana; and (7) Nancy Mace’s fifth place finish in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary. 

Want access to a detailed analysis of the transgender rights law in every U.S. state and territory? Please view our free Policy Resource Hub for Transgender Rights, an exclusive legal database where we update the state of the law every single day - so you’re always up to speed.

Top Line News Stories

• Federal Trade Commission and States Sue the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Over Alleged Deceptive Claims:

  • On June 17th, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), along with Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska, and Texas, filed suit against the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas. The complaint focuses heavily on the ‘market’ for transition services that they allege is created and expanded by WPATH through the self-publication and distribution of its Standards of Care (SOC), which are evidence and consensus based clinical guidelines for medical transition services. The FTC feigns concern for youth by arguing that the latest version of the SOC provides either misleading at best or fraudulent at worst recommendations for medical transition services by omitting age limitations for mastectomies or penectomies. The Nebraskan, Iowan, and Alaskan Attorney Generals all echoed a similar sentiment: that WPATH is not a medical body, but instead advances profit-driven ideology unsupported by science and makes recommendations based on politics rather than science. 

  • Although WPATH has not yet filed its response, on June 17th, it published an organizational statement referencing prior federal court wins against the FTC and a federal court finding that the FTC “is acting out of pure retaliation as a part of the federal government’s relentless and targeted campaign to undermining gender-affirming care.” 

  • The lawsuit will likely prompt statements from organizations and advocates across the nonprofit sphere. The Consumer Federation of America wrote that the FTC could be a “powerful fighter against high prices”, but instead they have chosen to fight a “baseless culture war,” and that American consumers should “question whether this is the best use of public time and resources.”

• Trump Administration to Reinstate Crisis Hotline for LGBTQ+ Youth After Eliminating the Program in 2025:

• The 988 Lifeline program offers confidential 24-7 mental health and suicide prevention services to individuals in crisis across the nation. People experiencing acute emotional distress or suicidal ideation can call, text, or chat with counselors who are trained to help and are able to refer individuals to further wellness services. Every 45 seconds in the United States, an LGBTQ+ person between the ages of 13-24 years old attempts suicide. Despite this, the Trump Administration cut the 988 Lifeline’s Press 3 initiative last year, which was created to reroute incoming calls from self-identified LGBTQ+ individuals to specialized crisis counseling. This stripping of services for at-risk queer folks is characteristic of this administration’s open hostility towards LGBTQ+ citizens. 

• In May,  members of Congress sent a bipartisan letter to Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. demanding that Press 3 services be reinstated following both Kennedy’s own testimony stating  that they would be and prior Congressional appropriation of over $33 million dollars towards the initiative. Though Press 3 Services will be restored, representatives from HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration stressed that the revamped program would comply with the President’s Executive Order 14168, which essentially denies the existence of transgender individuals. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, a co-signatory of the letter, reminded HHS in a statement that, “Executive Orders cannot override federal law.” However, for now, this administration’s damaging erasure of the transgender community may continue to overshadow the restoration of these life-saving services.

Legislation & Litigation Developments

• Overview:

• In Rhode Island, a federal judge handed down a scathing ruling quashing an administrative subpoena seeking the medical records of transgender youth; she also referred two DOJ attorneys for disciplinary action based on their conduct during the case; 

• In California, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting a hospital from complying with a grand jury subpoena that similarly sought the medical records of youth receiving gender-affirming care; and 

• In Idaho, a federal judge issued an injunction partially blocking a draconian bathroom ban that applies to both public and private buildings. 

• Rhode Island Judge Refers DOJ For Potential Discipline In Transgender Rights Case:

  • On Friday, June 5th, U.S. District Judge for Rhode Island Mary McElroy referred two U.S. Department of Justice attorneys –  Brantley Mayers and Jordan Campbell – for disciplinary hearings based on actions taken during arguments over  an administrative subpoena seeking six years of medical records for minor patients treated at Rhode Island Hospital. Last month, McElroy – a Trump-appointee – issued a scathing ruling nullifying the subpoena itself. 

  • In her 24-page ruling quashing the subpoena, McElroy wrote that the DOJ attorneys “acted in bad faith, fibbed to federal courts, and sought records guarded by Constitutional rights.” She called the DOJ unworthy of citizen trust, as it had  “misrepresented and withheld information to both [her] Court and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.” She accused Mayers and Campbell of misleading the parties in Rhode Island in such a way that the plaintiffs have now been placed in an “untenable and unprecedented procedural position.”

  • The Rhode Island federal judiciary will review McElroy’s referral and determine the appropriate course of action under the local rules. As of this newsletter, no proceedings have been scheduled and there is no timeframe for a decision. DOJ spokesperson Natalia Baldassarre derided McElory’s conclusion, and stated that  the Civil Division of the DOJ had “thoroughly reviewed the allegations and deemed them without merit.” She went on to say that although the DOJ is “committed to taking all appropriate remedial action where warranted,” the agency also “stands behind its attorneys without reservation and has appealed the… erroneous order.” 

• Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks DOJ from Accessing Names and Medical Files of Trans Youth in California:

• On June 8th,  Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital (Stanford) to not turn over sensitive patient information in response to a grand jury subpoena issued by the Northern District of Texas. Judge Pitts further ordered that the DOJ may not seek to enforce any similar grand jury subpoena seeking sensitive patient information issued to any healthcare provider in the State of California. The order came one day prior to the DOJ’s deadline for Stanford to turn over the medical records. The block reverses the Court’s prior decision not to grant preliminary relief to the plaintiffs, in part because they raised constitutional questions against a non-state actor. 

• On June 17th, however, the DOJ filed a brief arguing that the District Court lacks the authority to block a grand jury subpoena, because any challenge to the subpoena belongs in the district court supervising the grand jury, which in this case would be the District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The brief requests that if Judge Pitts grants a temporary restraining order, injunction, or certifies the class, that he stay his opinion for ten days to allow the government to appeal. The next motion hearing is set for 24 June.

• Idaho Judge Allows Transgender People To Use Multi-Occupancy Bathrooms Only If A Single Stall Bathroom Is Unavailable:

• Idaho House Bill 752 (HB 752), set to take effect on 1 July 2026, prohibits a person from entering the restroom or changing room that doesn’t match their sex assigned at birth. It amends Idaho Code to make knowingly entering a bathroom that doesn’t match a person’s sex assigned at birth in a government-owned building or place of public accommodation, or any place that is open to the public where commerce is carried out per the Americans With Disabilities Act, a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. Any subsequent offenses are felonies, with imprisonment of up to five years. It is the only state ‘bathroom ban’ that extends to private businesses, raising serious concerns about discrimination in public accommodations. 

• On June 16th, a federal judge in the District Court of Idaho issued a preliminary injunction that partially prevents  HB 752 from going into effect.  However, contrary to some reporting, the injunction is narrow – a trans person in Idaho is able to use: (1) a single user restroom; (2) a multi-user facility that aligns with their gender identity if there is no single user facility on the same floor as the multi-user facility; or (3) a multi-user facility aligned with their gender identity if the single-user restroom on the same floor is either occupied or out-of-service. 

• Additionally, Idaho law enforcement has noted that the law will be difficult to enforce and require too much discretion on the part of officers. When brought up in court, the state  suggested that individuals suspected of violating HB 752 could be DNA tested to confirm their assigned sex at birth. In the ruling, the Judge reminded Idaho that law enforcement can’t collect DNA without consent or a warrant, unless an individual is already convicted of certain crimes. These open and escalating calls for invasive and illegal DNA testing raise alarm bells over privacy concerns for everyone

Trend and Policy Watch

• Zooey Zephyr Wins Primary Election for Montana House of Representatives:

  • Montana State Representative Zooey Zephyr won her most recent primary election on June 2nd, 2026 with 100% of the vote. She is running unopposed in this election cycle, and ran unopposed in the past two election cycles as well. This means that Montana can look forward to another two-year term with a trans Representative in the state legislature.

  • In addition to the great news of Rep. Zephyr’s victory, in April, the Supreme Court of Montana ruled that transgender citizens are protected as a suspect class under the state’s constitution. The landmark ruling ensures equal protection against discrimination for transgender people in an otherwise deeply conservative state. Representative Zephyr has long been fighting against anti-trans legislation introduced in the state, including attempts to restrict trans healthcare, official documentation, and dignity in using the correct restroom. Per journalist Erin Reed, because Montana’s state constitution is more protective of its citizens’ rights than that of the broader United States, and because the ruling is an interpretation by the state of its own constitution, the ruling cannot be appealed up to the Supreme Court, potentially shielding trans Montanians from any hostile federal agenda.

• Nancy Mace Finishes Fifth in South Carolina Gubernatorial Primary:

• On June 10th, 2026, key anti-LGBTQ+ legislator Nancy Mace finished fifth place in South Carolina’s gubernatorial primary. Mace shaped her tenure in Congress around targeting transgender people, including championing a bill banning transgender individuals (most notably transgender Congresswoman Sarah McBride) from using Capitol bathrooms aligned with their gender identity. When Congresswoman McBride congratulated Mace on her “respectable” fifth place finish, she referred to Mace as “Congress’s top bathroom sheriff.” Throughout her career, Mace used slurs against transgender protestors, filed assault charges against a transgender foster care activist for a handshake, and, alongside Lauren Boebert, attacked a cisgender woman on the suspicion that she was a transgender woman using the wrong bathroom. Mace finished with 12%, not winning a single county in South Carolina, including her home county of Charleston. She also will not be able to keep her House seat, as the filing deadline has passed, meaning that, come January 2027, Nancy Mace will be out of a job. 

• Mamdani Launches City-Run Transgender Healthcare Clinic For Adults Only:

• New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is celebrating Pride this month with the launch of a city-run transgender healthcare clinic. Though the direct-care clinic has long been a dream of many LGBTQ+ advocates and care recipients in NYC, exasperatingly, the clinic will not allow care for any patients under the age of 19 years old. The NYC Health Commissioner has stated that the decision to withhold gender-affirming care for minors was made to prevent federal funding clawbacks. Although disappointing, this news is unsurprising, as the current administration has been extremely vocal in its hostility towards science-backed, physician-approved, age-appropriate care for transgender youth and has pursued baseless investigations into a multitude of clinics providing such care.

• As for the rest of Mamdani’s track record on transgender issues, he is credited with creating the Mayor's Office of LGBTQIA+ Affairs and appointing a transgender civil rights attorney to direct it, and launching the “Trans Rights Are Human Rights” Campaign. Critics note, however, that the Mayor’s most recent pledge of $15 million over two years for trans healthcare in New York City falls far short of his campaign promises and that his capitulation to President Trump on the provision of transgender healthcare is disappointing.

---

TRANSGENDER RIGHTS DIGEST - JUNE 4, 2026

Developments in Transgender Rights:

Happy Pride! We are entering this year’s season of celebration and remembrance eager to honor the lives of transgender people we wish were joining us this Pride, who drive our work every day. To that end, this week’s Transgender Rights Digest pays tribute to transgender victims of violence and explores the tools at our disposal to help combat hate-fueled violence. It also covers numerous litigation and legislation developments, including several attempts by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to broaden the narrow ruling in U.S. v Skrmetti. Thank you for taking the time to read this 6th Edition of the Transgender Rights Digest!

Want access to a detailed analysis of the transgender rights law in every U.S. state and territory? Please view our free Policy Resource Hub for Transgender Rights, an exclusive legal database where we update the state of the law every single day - so you’re always up to speed.

Top Line News Stories

• At Least Ten Transgender People Have Been Killed In 2026 Within The U.S.

  • So far in 2026, at least ten transgender people have lost their lives to violence in the U.S. This number reflects only the cases we know about. The actual number is likely higher due to underreporting, discriminatory policing practices, and the misgendering of transgender people in official records and media reports. Overall violence against LGBTQ+ people is on the rise. GLAAD reports that in 2025 there were more than 1000 incidents of LGBTQ+ hate, a nearly 400% increase since the organization started tracking incidents of LGBTQ+ hate in June 2022. Black and Brown people are at an increased risk for being victims of violent hate-crimes with Transgender Europe reporting that 73% of transgender murder victims are Black or Brown. 

  • Combating this hate fueled violence starts with educating yourself and your community on how to support survivors of anti-LGBTQ+ violence and talking about and raising awareness of anti-LGBTQ+ violence. The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) has created several guides that can assist you in taking action. Some of the action recommended by the NCAVP includes:

  • raising awareness about hate violence in your community,

  • visibility campaigns to end homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia,

  • rapid incident response organizing after hate violence incidents,

  • policy campaigns,

  • bystander intervention campaigns, and

  • campaigns focused on ending police violence and profiling of LGBTQ and HIV-affected communities.

Legislation & Litigation Developments

• Overview

• New Jersey (NJ) advocates celebrated reaching a major milestone as the NJ Senate passed a gender affirming and reproductive shield law.

• The Governor of Oklahoma signed a bill prohibiting the use of public funds, including Medicaid, from providing gender-affirming healthcare regardless of age.

• The D.C. Circuit Court affirmed district court’s finding that the military’s ban on transgender people serving in the military is fueled by animus.

• The Texas Attorney General sued a city pool over a pride event that includes gender-neutral changing rooms.

• The DOJ claimed that U.S. v Skrmetti allows them to ban gender affirming healthcare for incarcerated transgender people. 

• The construction of the Women’s History Museum is left in limbo after Republicans tried to exclude transgender women from the museum
  
  

• New Jersey Senate Passes Shield Law To Protect Transgender Healthcare

• After nearly two and half years of advocacy by the transgender community, their allies, and reproductive rights advocates, New Jersey is poised to pass one of the strongest shield laws in the country. On May 28th, S. 2260 passed the Senate in a 23-12 vote with a vote expected in the Assembly in the next few weeks. Lawyers For Good Government Action Fund has been a major part of the advocacy work to get this bill passed into law. 

• The shield law strengthens the state’s existing reproductive rights protections by extending them to other forms of best-practice medical care that are already legal in the state, including gender-affirming healthcare.. It further protects this healthcare by ensuring the New Jersey providers are subject solely to the laws of New Jersey. It also shields providers from harassment and interference related to the delivery of lawful care. As attacks on reproductive and gender-affirming healthcare continue to ramp up, it’s more important than ever to ensure our laws can meet the demands of the moment.
  
  

• Public Funding for Gender-Affirming Care is now Prohibited Under Oklahoma Law

• On May 12, 2026, the Governor of Oklahoma signed SB 904 into law. SB 904 prohibits the use of public funds, including Medicaid, to cover gender-affirming care for both adults and minors. It further prohibits the use of state property, facilities, or buildings in the provision of gender-affirming healthcare regardless of age. The bill went into effect immediately upon signing and any public official or employee of the state that is found in violation of the law can be charged with a misdemeanor crime.
  
  

• D.C. Circuit Court Finds Transgender Military Ban Based On Animus

• On June 1st, the D.C. Circuit of Appeals held that the District Court of the District of Columbia finding that the military’s policy banning transgender people–a direct response to Executive Order 14183 demanding the removal of all transgender service members from military service–was “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext” was well supported. In fact, the D.C. Circuit of Appeals points out that the government did “not meaningfully contest the animus finding” and “instead ignore[d] the Administration’s repeated [anti-transgender] statements.” The court affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction preventing the discharge of transgender military members. However, the court only affirmed relief to the named plaintiffs citing Trump v. CASA–the Supreme Court decision ending nationwide injunctions–and declined to extend that relief to other transgender individuals seeking to join the military. DC Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Wilkins split from DC Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Rogers to join the dissenting DC Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Walker by determining that the harms and equities towards those choosing to join the military differs from those who are currently in the military. 

• Chris Geidner at Law Dork critically pointed out an egregious exclusion in dissenting Judge Walker’s conclusion. Judge Walker quotes Justice Jackson in Orloff v. Willoughby, “We know that from top to bottom of the Army the complaint is often made, and sometimes with justification, that there is discrimination, favoritism or other objectionable handling of men. But judges are not given the task of running the Army.” However, Judge Walker failed to put in the context that this case was about a single person’s habeas corpus petition due to his frustrations with his assigned role in the military. In fact, the paragraph immediately before the quote states, “[W]e are convinced that it is not within the power of this Court by habeas corpus to determine whether specific assignments to duty fall within the basic classification of petitioner.”
  
  

• Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues Over Pride Event Involving Gender-Neutral Spaces

• To kick off the first day of Pride Month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton–who recently mocked transgender children–announced that his office has filed a lawsuit against the City of Denton, Texas for renting a city pool to two non-profits for a pride event where they intend to make gender-neutral changing rooms available for the duration of the event. The State is seeking a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction to require the city to enforce the Texas Women’s Privacy Act (Senate Bill 8) and take meaningful action to prevent the non-profits from turning a typically gender-segregated changing room into a gender neutral one.
  
  

• The Trump Administration Argues That Skrmetti Allows Them To Ban Adult Healthcare In Prisons

• The DOJ argued on May 27th in Kingdom v. Trump in the District Court of the District of Columbia, that it did not need to provide medically-necessary gender-affirming healthcare to incarcerated transgender people in federal prisons. It argued that, consistent with Skrmetti–the Supreme Court decision allowing states to regulate transgender medicine for minors under rational basis scrutiny–, it is simply regulating what it believes to be the appropriate standard of care for individuals with gender dysphoria, which is applied regardless of sex or transgender status and thus does not offend the equal protection clause. If successful, this expansion of Skrmetti would greatly expand both the federal government and state governments ability to regulate transgender bodies and gender-affirming care regardless of age. In making this argument, the DOJ has signaled that it believes it can defend any anti-trans policy or law under the fiction that anti-trans laws and policies do not target a protected classification such as sex or transgender status, by applying the circular reasoning of Skrmetti.
  
  

• Planned Women’s History Museum in Jeopardy After Republicans Insert Anti-Trans Provision

• The Republican-controlled House of Representatives failed to secure the votes to approve the construction of the planned Women’s History Museum after they, among other things, slipped in a provision that would exclude transgender women from being featured in the museum. As The Advocate pointed out, the ban on exhibiting transgender women would remove women like Lynn Conway,  a transgender computer scientist who was a key figure in the modern computing space, and Lana and Lilly Wachowski, the legendary directors of The Matrix.  In addition to the exclusion of transgender women, the bill would have also given President Donald Trump the ability to change the location of the planned museum from the National Mall to another location entirely.

Trend and Policy Watch

• Overview

• On the first day of Pride, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani launched a campaign to raise awareness of New York City’s anti-discrimination laws.

• Maine’s ballot referendum to ban transgender athletes from participating on teams that match their gender identity, has been invalidated and will not be on the ballot in November.

• Despite extensive advocacy, the New York State budget, passed on May 27th, doesn’t include funding for gender affirming healthcare.
  

• New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani Launches “Trans Rights are Human Rights” Campaign

• Gender discrimination complaints in New York City are on the rise. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has partnered with the New York City Commission on Human Rights to create a citywide campaign raising awareness of the protections under the New York City Human Rights Law for transgender and gender non-conforming New Yorkers. “Every trans and gender nonconforming New Yorker needs to know that the law is on their side—whether in their workplace, their housing, or in public space,” said Mayor Mamdani in a statement. The New York City Human Rights Law protects people from discrimination in housing, employment, and public spaces on the basis of gender identity or expression.

• Maine’s Ballot Referendum Against Transgender Athletes Invalidated

• Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows announced on May 26th that a previously-approved anti-trans ballot initiative would not appear on the November ballot after an investigation found glaring issues with the signature-gathering process. The proposed ballot initiative would have prohibited transgender students from participating on sports teams and using bathrooms that align with their gender identity. Although Bellows had previously certified the question for the ballot, an investigation by her office has now invalidated over 12,500 signatures, leaving it 532 signatures short of the required threshold of 67,682 signatures. Bellows’ office’s investigation revealed widespread issues in the signature-gathering process, including petition forms being left unattended, forged and duplicate signatures, names that did not match registered voters, and signature collectors failing to follow proper procedures.

• New York State Budget Does Not Fund Transgender Healthcare Access

• LGBTQ+ advocates in New York are expressing disappointment with the state’s budget after it passed on May 27th. Despite ongoing state and federal attacks on the rights of transgender people, the state’s $269 billion budget for 2027 contains little support or protection for trans New Yorkers. Multiple hospitals in New York have caved to pressure from the Trump Administration and closed their doors to patients seeking gender-affirming care. In response, advocates have been pushing for dedicated state funding for outpatient providers to treat patients who have lost care; however, the 2027 budget failed to allocate any funding to fill that gap. Allie Bohm, senior policy counsel for New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) has called on the state’s leaders to take action to codify the state’s insurance coverage requirement for gender-affirming care, strengthen anti-discrimination laws, and enact increased privacy protections for healthcare information.

---

The 6th Edition of the Transgender Rights Digest is dedicated to the 10 known transgender people killed in the United States in 2026. May their memories live on in fierce defiance of those who attempt to erase us. ~ Allison Chapman

Jade Roberts Davonta Curtis Daniella Analee Escobedo Danielle Spillman Aleanna Royal Belcher Lucas Knapp Lanessa Rodriguez Erykah Caldwell Persia Amarra Conway Juniper Blessing

TRANSGENDER RIGHTS DIGEST - MAY 21, 2026

Developments in Transgender Rights:

This week’s Transgender Rights Digest covers multiple high profile transgender rights cases as the federal government continues to target transgender healthcare across the country.

Want access to a detailed analysis of the transgender rights law in every U.S. state and territory? Please view our free Policy Resource Hub for Transgender Rights, an exclusive legal database where we update the state of the law every single day - so you’re always up to speed.

Top Line News Stories

• The Transgender Rights Case That is Breaking the Courts

• In a procedurally bizarre case involving four different courts, Judge O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas (N.D. Texas) has ordered Rhode Island Hospital (RIH) to hand over all subpoenaed information to him personally, despite the subpoena being quashed by Judge McElroy in the District of Rhode Island (D. RI). The Department of Justice (DOJ) is currently enjoined from receiving the information by order of McElroy as both courts compete for jurisdiction and narrowly avoid a full-on constitutional crisis.

• Judge McElroy has accused the DOJ of forum shopping, stating, "I think we can all agree you sought a favorable forum or what you believe to be a favorable forum" by running to the N.D. Texas. Until this point, the DOJ had failed against seven different challenges to their overbroad and illegal subpoenas. In January of this year, Lawyers for Good Government announced they had reached a settlement with the DOJ after the Department agreed to  withdraw its subpoena demanding the medical records of over 3,000 transgender youth at Children's Hospital Los Angeles.

• Rhode Island Hospital has begun complying with the N.D. Texas order and confirmed in a notice to the court that it turned over some of the requested information, though RIH emphasized that it had attempted to de-identify the information to conceal  patient identities as agreed upon by the DOJ.

• As Madiba K. Dennie so eloquently concluded in her article – “Judges like McElroy have broadly agreed that the DOJ is not allowed to bully trans kids. O’Connor volunteered to bully trans kids in the DOJ’s stead.”
  
  

• NYU Langone Served with Grand Jury Subpoena

• On May 11th, 2026, NYU Langone Hospital (NYULH) notified its patients that it  had been served a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Texas (N.D. Texas). According to the notice, NYULH was one of several institutions to receive a grand jury subpoena in connection with transgender healthcare on May 7th, 2026. As of Thursday, May 21st, 2026, no other recipients have been publicly disclosed. 

• This is a significant escalation in federal attacks on gender affirming healthcare and is an intrusion into a state’s sovereign right to regulate healthcare. Grand Jury Subpoenas are more difficult to challenge due to the secret nature of Grand Jury investigations. NYULH is required under state law to disclose the receipt of the subpoenas but most states do not have shield laws as robust as New York. Furthermore, Grand Jury Subpoenas have additional teeth, allowing courts to hold those who refuse to comply in contempt, including criminal contempt. These grand jury subpoenas have been issued while the DOJ simultaneously seeks to enforce a HIPAA subpoena against Rhode Island Hospital, as discussed above.
  
  

• Colorado Supreme Court Rebukes Lower Court Ruling Against Transgender Youth

• The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Children’s Hospital of Colorado (CHC) must reopen its gender clinic after finding that the lower court that denied a preliminary injunction against CHC had “abused its discretion.” 

• When weighing the public-interest factor to determine if transgender youth met the required factors set out in Rathke v. MacFarlane, the trial court had determined that the potential harm to the public posed by The Trump administration’s threats to cut funding outweighed the harm to transgender youth due to the sheer number of people affected. The Colorado Supreme Court held that it is inappropriate to simply weigh the number of individuals affected when anti-discrimination laws and protected classes are involved.

• The Colorado Supreme Court further held that when balancing equities,  judges should favor  granting an injunction “when the alleged harm to the nonmoving party is speculative and the moving party has demonstrated actual harm.”

Legislation & Litigation Developments

• Tennessee Creates Registry of Adults Receiving Gender Affirming Care

• On May 7, 2026, Governor Lee signed HB 0754, which imposes new regulatory burdens on adult care. It requires any healthcare facility receiving state funds that provides gender-transition procedures to also offer "detransition" care. It also mandates that insurance providers covering transition procedures provide equal coverage for detransitioning. Additionally, healthcare providers must report de-identified data about gender affirming care —including patient age, diagnosis, and treatment type—to the Department of Health. Failure to comply can result in a license suspension of at least six months and fines up to $150,000.
  
  

• Colorado Creates Civil Actions for Conversion Therapy Survivors 

• Pending Governor Signature – Effective July 1st, 2026: On May 7, 2026, Colorado passed bill HB 26-1322, Civil Actions for Conversion Therapy Survivors. This bill establishes a cause of action that is viewpoint neutral for claims of injury to directly address the concerns raised in the Supreme Court's decision on Colorado's Conversion Therapy Law. Under this bill, the definition of conversion therapy in Colorado Law will be  amended to mean "any practice or treatment by a licensed mental health-care provider that seeks to direct a patient toward a predetermined sexual orientation or gender identity outcome, or eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings towards individuals of a particular sex or gender, regardless of the sexual orientation or gender identity the patient is directed toward." The bill is heading to the governor's desk for signature.
  
  

• Kansas Gender Affirming Care Ban Likely Violates State Constitution

• A District Court in Kansas ruled that Kansas’ ban on gender affirming healthcare for transgender youth likely violates Section 1 of the Kansas State Constitution. The Judge asserts that the ban strips parents of the fundamental right to make medical decisions for their children thus requiring the application of strict scrutiny.

• The Judge also found that many of the experts relied upon to defend the law were not credible and gave them very little weight. In his 117 page opinion, he listed 349 findings that indicated that gender affirming care is supported by scientific evidence and credible expert testimony. 

• The Federal Trade Commission Enjoined From Enforcing Civil Investigative Demand

• In our 4th edition, we discussed the ways in which federal agencies are targeting transgender people in accordance with the President's outspoken anti-trans views. A federal Judge has found “extensive animus” against the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society and preliminarily enjoined the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from implementing its Civil Investigative Demand (CID) ruling that both organizations were likely to succeed on their First Amendment retaliation claims against the FTC.

• The Court opined that the government’s “wafer-thin justifications” to issue the demands were “lacking evidentiary support” with its findings of “extensive ... animus” towards transgender people and those who support them. This is yet another court that has found that the Trump administration has used “fraud” as pretext to target any organization that supports gender affirming healthcare. 

• Texas Children’s Hospital Settles with DOJ and Paxton

• After a three year legal battle, Texas Children’s Hospital (TCH) has settled with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and the Department of Justice (DOJ) agreeing to establish the nation’s first “detransition clinic” and paying the state $10 million. Throughout the three year battle, the TCH turned over more than 5 million documents to Paxton and the DOJ. 

Context: “Detransitioning” is a term used for the process by which someone who previously identified as transgender seeks to better align with their assumed gender at birth.

• Public Funding for Gender Affirming Care is now Prohibited Under Oklahoma Law

• On May 12, 2026, the governor signed SB904 prohibiting the use of public funds, including Medicaid funds, for gender-affirming care for adults and minors. It also prohibits the use of state property, facilities, or buildings in the provision of gender affirming healthcare, regardless of age. The bill went into effect immediately upon signing, and authorizes criminal penalties for violations of the law.

Trend and Policy Watch

• Massachusetts AG Issues Legal Advisory In Support of Transgender Healthcare

• The Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) issued a legal advisory to Massachusetts healthcare facilities and providers addressing the actions the AG has taken to protect gender affirming healthcare patients and their providers from the Trump administration. It highlights the victory secured by the AG and a coalition of 22 other states in Oregon v. Kennedy. It further clarifies that the proposed federal rules targeting Medicaid/Medicare funding have not been finalized and hold no legal effect as of publication.

• The AG minces no words on the final page of the advisory in reminding health care institutions of their obligations under Massachusetts state law:

• “Health care institutions should be aware that the decision to stop providing gender affirming healthcare to transgender minors may amount to discrimination on account of sex, gender identity, or disability under the Massachusetts public accommodations statute. Determinations of liability under the public accommodations statute are fact-intensive and involve an examination of the surrounding circumstances in which a decision is made.”
  
  

Take Action!

• Tell NJ Legislators: Keep Their Hands Off Our Hospitals! Pass S. 2260/A. 2218!

• Lawyers for Good Government Action Fund has been proud to partner with transgender New Jerseyans and NJ providers, advocacy organizations and members of the state government to get S. 2260/A. 2218 through two health committees. Now, we need your help to get it over the finish line. 

• This bill would codify New Jersey's existing shield protections to cover both reproductive and gender-affirming care. It clarifies that NJ providers, patients, and the people who support them are subject solely to New Jersey and federal law — and that hostile out-of-state subpoenas, judgments, and criminal processes targeting lawful care will not be enforced.

• Lawyers understand the constitutional stakes of extraterritorial jurisdiction better than most and we have a professional obligation to defend the integrity of New Jersey's courts and the lawful practice of medicine within its borders.

• Send your message here: L4GG.org/ShieldNJ!
  
  

• Tell HUD: Protect LGBTQ Housing

• On April 28, 2026, the Trump administration announced a proposal to rescind the Equal Access Rule (EAR), which guarantees equal access to programs and services funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status.

• The Equal Access Rule benefits all people seeking access to housing and homeless services, but its impact is vital for transgender and nonbinary people seeking the services of homeless shelters.  HUD officials are proposing the elimination of the EAR to replace it with a new rule that would force recipients of federal funding to discriminate against the trans community.  

• Please submit your comment to our partners at A4TE, and stay tuned for an L4GG comment training if you need support drafting a substantive comment!

Our 5th Edition of the Transgender Rights Digest is dedicated in loving memory of Juniper Blessing. May her kindness and love be felt beyond her wildest dreams. ~Allison

Juniper Blessing was described as “pure love” and “the most amazing person in the world” by her family. According to her community she enjoyed “meteorology, music, singing, and video games like Hollow Knight.” We join Juniper’s community in mourning the loss of a beautiful life to unfathomable violence.

Juniper is just one of many transgender people who have lost their lives to senseless violence this year. Be sure to read our next issue where we will unpack the limited tools at hand for addressing anti-trans hate crimes.

TRANSGENDER RIGHTS DIGEST - APRIL 23, 2026

Developments in Transgender Rights:

This week’s Transgender Rights Digest covers a judge's scathing ruling against the Department of Health and Human Services, the Montana Supreme Court protecting transgender ID documents, attacks on transgender healthcare for adults, and international developments that are impacting transgender people around the globe. 

Want access to a detailed analysis of the transgender rights law in every U.S. state and territory? Please view our free Policy Resource Hub for Transgender Rights, an exclusive legal database where we update the state of the law every single day - so you’re always up to speed.

Top Line News Stories

Overview:

• The Kennedy Declaration was ruled illegal by a federal judge.

• The Southern Poverty Law Center was targeted by the federal government in an attempt to silence and coerce civil rights groups into submission.L4GG stands in solidarity with the SPLC against this attack.

• Federal Judge Rebukes Kennedy Declaration As A “Wanton Disregard For The Rule Of Law” 

• On April 18, U.S. District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai issued a scathing, thoroughly reasoned judgment vacating Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s December “Declaration” that sought to overturn the standard of care for providers who deliver gender-affirming care to young people. Judge Kasubhai pulled no punches, excoriating Kennedy’s abuse of his role in issuing the Declaration along with his agency’s entire plan to eradicate services for transgender and nonbinary youth, which has already resulted in roughly 40 hospitals dropping their care.

• Judge Kasubhai went as far as granting injunctive relief due to the government's repeated disregard for court orders and the rule of law, reserving the power to hold the government in contempt if they failed to comply with his order.

  Context: As we noted in issue #1 of this Digest, on December 18, 2025, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. posted a “Declaration” to the HHS website titled “Safety, Effectiveness, and Professional Standards of Care for Sex-Rejecting Procedures on Children and Adolescents.”
  
  

• DOJ Attempts to Silence Civil Rights Organization Through Criminal Indictment 

• On April 21st, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it was criminally charging Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) after securing an 11-count indictment against the organization for its use of paid confidential informants. These claims are an alarming escalation to this administration’s undermining of nearly a half-century of civil rights work by people and organizations like SPLC. 

• Note: Grand jury indictments have a very low bar for evidence and often include evidence inadmissible in court. They are used simply to determine if there is probable cause to pursue charges.

• While no individuals have been charged at this time, Chris Geidner of Law Dork points out that “these counts include a forfeiture allegation later in the indictment that could be an extreme attempt — given the charge — to seek forfeiture of all donations to the organization if a conviction is secured on these counts.” This is a clear attempt to disrupt and bankrupt a highly effective civil rights organization with a deep history of fighting white supremacy and far-right hate groups, including those who target transgender and gender non-conforming people.

• Lawyers for Good Government is part of the broad coalition of civil rights organizations that signed the Unity Pact, committing to stand together when any one of us comes under attack. In a statement issued April 22, we have called on Congress, the legal profession, and every person who believes dissent is not a crime to say so publicly, and to say so now. Traci Feit Love, Founder and Executive Director of Lawyers for Good Government, said: “This administration is using the Department of Justice to punish organizations that protect Americans from hate and discrimination, and to send a message to every nonprofit, law firm, and advocate in this country: fall in line, or you are next. We refuse that choice.”

  Context: Southern Poverty Law Center plays a critical role in defending transgender rights and provides extensive research on anti-LGBTQ+ hate groups. 

Legislation & Litigation Developments

Overview

• The Montana Supreme Court upheld a district court order blocking the state from enforcing its policy banning transgender people from obtaining accurate ID documents.

• The Idaho Governor signs numerous anti-LGBTQ+ laws targeting pride flags and “social transition” for transgender youth.

• The Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that was preventing 18 trans women from being transferred to a male prison.

• Montana Supreme Court Victory Protects Transgender Residents 

• On April 14, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a district court order preliminarily enjoining the state from enforcing policies banning transgender people from obtaining birth certificates and driver’s licenses that align with their gender identity. In its decision, the Montana Supreme Court recognized that “[t]ransgender discrimination is, by its very nature, sex discrimination” and held that the policies likely violated the state constitution’s Equal Protection clause.

• Malita Picasso, Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, said in a statement that the “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.”

• The Montana Constitution provides that “[t]he right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.” The Supreme Court of Montana describes this provision as “one of the most stringent protections of its citizens’ right to privacy in the United States—exceeding even that provided by the federal constitution.”
  

• Idaho Governor Signs Numerous Anti-LGBTQ+ Laws

• On March 31, Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 561 into law, expanding the state’s existing restrictions on flags displayed on government property to any “land owned and maintained by the governmental entity, including buildings, adjoining land, parks, roads, and boulevards” and closed a loophole that allowed city officials to adopt pride flags as an official city flag.

• On April 10, Gov. Little also signed House Bill 822, which will prohibit schools, healthcare providers, and child care providers from assisting a minor’s "social transition" without written consent from the minor's parent. Effective July 1, regulated institutions will be required to notify parents within three days after hearing from a young person that they would like support for their gender identity that does not align with the sex on record with the institution.

• The bill defines "social transition" broadly, including:

• asking to use a different name than a legal name (including a nickname), 

• using pronouns or titles that do not match the student's assumed sex assigned at birth, 

• using restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, or overnight lodging that do not match the student's assumed sex assigned at birth, and 

• playing on a sports team that does not match the student's assumed sex assigned at birth. 

• Any health care provider, school, or child care provider that refuses compliance can be fined up to $100,000 by the state attorney general.
  

• Federal Court Opens the Door for Transfer of Incarcerated Transgender Women to Men’s Prisons

• On April 17th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an Order potentially allowing for 17 transgender women currently held in women’s prisons to be transferred to men’s prisons. Attorneys for the women argue that factors specific to the plaintiffs, including their physical appearance, the amount of time they have been undergoing hormone therapy, and their histories of facing sexual violence, mean that transfer would result in violations of their constitutional rights. Last year, district court Judge Royce Lamberth agreed, issuing an order blocking the inmates’ transfer. The Court of Appeals, however, found that Judge Lamberth’s ruling failed to adequately explain the particularized harm faced by each of the individual plaintiffs and sent the case back to his court for further review based on the merits. While it’s easy to assume this is a loss, legal experts explain this was a best-case scenario, as the plaintiffs will now have the opportunity to go back before Judge Lamberth to provide additional clarity on their individualized harms. 

  Context: This case arose after Trump issued an executive order early in his second term directing the federal government to enact an agenda of transgender erasure, including, among other things, requiring prisons to house transgender women in men’s facilities.  

Trend and Policy Watch

• Overview

  • The Washington Post published an opinion by its Editorial Board targeting healthcare for transgender adults.

  • The Florida Attorney General claims in a letter that Miss America and Miss Florida may have violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act by defining some transgender women as “women.”

• The Washington Post and Right Wing Organizations Set Their Sights on a New Enemy: Transgender Adults

• On April 17th, 2026, the Editorial Board of The Washington Post published an opinion piece targeting healthcare for transgender adults. This opinion follows an “exposé” style story originally published by City-Journal, a self-described urban-policy magazine run by the far-right think-tank Manhattan Institute– “exposing” that transgender migrants have access to healthcare in California. The Washington Post takes things one step further and questions why taxpayers should pay for transgender healthcare for adults at all. 

• This “just asking questions” style opinion is reminiscent of the New York Times articles that fueled the attacks on transgender rights that still rage on today. The Post is dumping gasoline on the fire of polarization as the Trump administration and far-right groups seek to scapegoat transgender people for any and all social issues, a move that experts warn must be wholly rejected, lest “the entire country becomes responsible for greater atrocity crimes against the trans community in the future.”
  

• Florida AG Claims It’s Deceptive To Claim Transgender Women Are Women

• Florida’s Attorney General, James Uthmeier, sent a letter to Miss America and Miss Florida warning that the groups may have violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act by defining transgender women who had received a vaginoplasty as “women.” In the letter, Uthmeier claimed that since the organization advertises this competition as for “women,” the organization may have falsely advertised and misled contestants. This letter is in direct response to the organization removing a contestant who refused to sign a contract that included transgender contestants as eligible in the pageant competition under this definition of “women.”Uthmeier gave the organizations until May 1 to “take corrective action” or risk “enforcement action.”

• Florida’s Office of the Attorney General has increasingly used the state’s consumer protection laws to go after groups supportive of transgender people. In December, it filed litigation claiming that the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by publishing supportive policies for providing gender-affirming care for trans youth. In March, the AAP filed a lawsuit against the Florida Attorney General in response, saying his legal attack on the AAP’s gender-affirming care guidance is unconstitutional.

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

• A Canadian health clinic has ceased providing hormone replacement therapy to students under 19 from the United States in compliance with Executive Order 14187, despite having no legal implications outside of the United States.

• The Experts with the United Nations raise an alarm on a new law potentially outlawing the spreading of information that raises awareness about issues involving LGBTQ+ people.

• The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled Hungary violated EU law when it banned content featuring LGBTQ+ people.

• U.S. Policy on Transgender Healthcare Impact Doesn’t Stop At The Border

• The Trump administration’s domestic policy continues to radiate beyond our borders. McGill University in Montreal, Canada, has informed students that they will no longer be prescribing hormone replacement therapy to students from the United States if they are under the age of 19, in accordance with  Executive Order 14187. Doctors with McGill Wellness Hub informed Montreal Trans Patient Union that the exclusion was due to the Health and Human Services form that encouraged people to report doctors in the United States and Canada who provided gender affirming care to transgender youth.   

• Celeste Trianon, a Canadian legal scholar and transgender rights activist, denounced the decision, saying, “McGill has betrayed its most vulnerable students — some of whom went to McGill specifically to escape Donald Trump’s policies — through compliance with an executive order that has no force and effect in Canada.”
  

• United Nations Experts Raise Alarm On Anti-LGBT Speech Law In Belarus 

• United Nations experts are raising the alarm on a new law passed in Belarus, the northern neighbor of Ukraine in Eastern Europe. The law creates a liability for “disseminating in any form information aimed at creating among citizens an impression of the attractiveness of homosexual relations, gender transition, childlessness or the acceptability of paedophilia”.

• The UN Experts express deep concern that the law could violate international human rights standards and urge the Belarusian government to retract the new law and ensure that law enforcement complies with these standards.
  

• Hungary Violated EU Law By Banning LGBTQ+ Content

• On April 21, the  Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that Hungary violated European Union (EU) law when it enacted a 2021 law that banned content featuring LGBTQ+ people in media accessible in schools and on primetime television. According to the Human Rights Watch, the law had a chilling effect on educators, journalists, and nonprofit organizations and created an “increasingly hostile environment for LGBT people and those working to support them.”

• The CJEU found that the law “contrary to the very identity of the Union as a common legal order in a society in which pluralism prevails” and “interfere[d] with several fundamental rights” including “the prohibition on discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation, respect for private and family life, and the freedom of expression and information.” 

• The EU executive can now seek financial penalties if Hungary fails to comply, which requires Hungary to remedy the violation and bring its laws into line with EU law.

Take Action!

• Tell the Major Pediatric Medicine Conference To Remove Anti-Trans Panel

• One of the largest pediatric medical society gatherings will convene on April 24th in Boston, MA, but some clinicians have expressed concerns with the conference's singular panel on transgender medicine. The panel will feature academics and pediatricians with ties to SPLC-designated hate group, the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine (SEGM). 

ACTION: Send a message to the society and ask them to cancel the panel! This can be done via this form or by directly emailing Daniel.Rauch@HMHN.org.