Three lawsuits confirm that Kansas lawmakers concocted menacing attacks on civil rights
The Ad Astra statue atop the Kansas Statehouse takes aim against a wall of gray clouds on May 2, 2025. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
In their apparent eagerness to save money and do right by taxpayers, perhaps Kansas Republican leaders could try passing laws that don't trample on the rights of their constituents.
That's my only response to lawsuits filed throughout May that highlight the downright sloppy lawmaking that has become a hallmark of our state's rushed, secretive legislative session. Bills are introduced and rubber-stamped in committee, testimony from experts is ignored, and the House and Senate send them through with nary a speed bump.
Afterward, the taxpayers of Kansas have to foot the bill for any carelessness.
Let's take a quick look at the lawsuits and their subjects. Up first, Kansas Reflector editor in chief Sherman Smith, who reported the following May 28.
Two transgender teenagers and their parents are challenging a new Kansas law that bans gender-affirming care for minors.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and the national ACLU filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Douglas County District Court on behalf of a 16-year-old trans boy and a 13-year-old trans girl. The lawsuit argues the new law violates state constitutional rights for equal protection, personal autonomy and parenting.
Senate Bill 63 prohibits health care providers from using surgery, hormones or puberty blockers to treat anyone younger than 18 who identifies with a gender that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. Health care providers who break the law may be subject to civil penalties and stripped of their license.
You can read the law here. You can read the lawsuit here.
Next, Reflector reporter Anna Kaminski wrote about another lawsuit on May 19.
A Kansas reproductive rights advocacy group, backed by a Washington, D.C., law firm, sued state officials over a new law banning financial contributions from 'foreign nationals' to support or oppose constitutional amendments.
The group, Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, argued in a complaint filed in federal court Friday that House Bill 2106, which passed the Legislature in April and is set to go into effect July 1, is broad, vague and unconstitutional. The group said the bill inhibits its ability to advocate for or against future constitutional amendments. Kansans for Constitutional Freedom and its donors have received contributions from foreign nationals, the lawsuit said.
The complaint drew a connection between HB 2106 and opposition to the 2022 ballot measure that sought to limit reproductive rights. Voters rejected the proposed constitutional amendment by a 59-41 margin.
You can read the law here. You can read the lawsuit here.
But wait, there's still more! Here's senior reporter Morgan Chilson on May 6.
Three advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit Monday in Douglas County District Court challenging the Kansas Legislature's attempt to 'arbitrarily' reject advance ballots of voters if the mail system fails to deliver them by Election Day.
Kansas Appleseed, Loud Light and Disability Rights Center of Kansas are asking the court to find Senate Bill 4 unconstitutional. Defendants are Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab and Douglas County Clerk Jamie Shew.
SB 4, which the Legislature passed this year, disqualifies any mail-in ballots not received by 7 p.m. on Election Day. Previously, mail-in ballots were counted if they were postmarked by Election Day and arrived within three days later.
You can read the law here. You can read the lawsuit here.
We covered all of these proposals at various stages, from twinkles in legislators' eyes to enshrinement in the statute books. Leaders sent the anti-trans bill to Gov. Laura Kelly as their first act of business in the 2025 session. She allowed the foreign nationals ban to become law without her signature and a warning that it 'went too far.' The advance-voting bill was called 'pure partisan politics' by former Rep. Ann Mah.
Sure, the deluge of wastewater emanating from the Statehouse in 2025 may have overwhelmed at times. But none of this should have come as a surprise.
If people or groups believe the government has infringed on their rights — to medical care, to advocacy, to voting — no one can be surprised if they bring legal action. When senators and representatives cast votes on such issues, they decide whether the state should place a barrier in front of the people they represent. No amount of victim blaming or sanctimonious claptrap obscures the truth.
Defending the laws falls to Attorney General Kris Kobach and his office. Who pays their salaries? You and me and all the people of Kansas. We're all on the hook for legislative foolishness.
The state may win some or all of these suits. So may those who filed them. Regardless, their mere presence suggests that our elected officials tread far too easily into the swamps of ideological overreaction. Rather than representing all, they have bowed and scraped in service to a hateful few.
We will see the consequences play out before judges in the months ahead.
Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
24 minutes ago
- USA Today
NIL era news: Texas governor implements integral new bill heading into new athletic year
NIL era news: Texas governor implements integral new bill heading into new athletic year As we head into a new athletics year under the NIL era, a new bill has been signed into law in the state of Texas that could benefit Texas A&M and other universities in the state moving forward. As announced on Thursday afternoon, Governor Greg Abbott signed a new NIL law that will allow athletes over 17 in the state to receive NIL contracts directly from a university. This bill also aligns with the House settlement that is yet to be approved. For Texas A&M and other in-state universities, it will allow them to avoid any potential lawsuits or compliance issues and compete for recruits in some ways others may not be able to just yet. The implementation of the bill was first reported by KBTX senior sports writer Travis L. Brown via X: Let's cut straight to the facts: there is no denying the influence of NIL on all collegiate athletics and it continues to grow by the minute. The transfer portal has reached historic numbers since the decision was made to introduce financial gain for players for their name, image and likeness (NIL). That was just the beginning of something way bigger than anyone ever thought could happen in the sport. Some college athletes, like UCLA quarterback Nico Lamaleava, are making millions of dollars before they even reach the National Football League, which has always been the goal of most athletes, historically speaking. Now, what is stopping players from just managing their finances in college and then retiring? Is that going to cause a shortage of athletes in the NFL? Or, will the professional football league continue to blossom? That is still to be determined. For now, the House vs. NCAA antitrust lawsuit remains in full swing, with seemingly no end in sight just yet. The proposed, and now imposed, bill in the state of Texas protects universities in the state in more ways than one, while also providing a slight edge in recruiting as well. The world of NIL and the transfer portal is something that will change rapidly and often. As new bills are signed or rejected, there seems to be some major miscommunications between the House and the NCAA that could be detrimental for all parties if not solved. Contact/Follow us @AggiesWire on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Texas A&M news, notes and opinions. Follow Dylan on X: @dylanmflippo.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP tax and spending bill dings states that offer health care to some immigrants here legally
Demonstrators gather for a protest organized by the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee calling for the continuation of MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults outside of the Governor's Reception Room at the Minnesota State Capitol Tuesday, May 27, 2025. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer) The Republican budget bill the U.S. House approved last month includes a surprise for the 40 states that have expanded Medicaid: penalties for providing health care to some immigrants who are here legally. Along with punishing the 14 states that use their own funds to cover immigrants who are here illegally, analysts say last-minute changes to the bill would make it all but impossible for states to continue helping some immigrants who are in the country legally, on humanitarian parole. Under the bill, the federal government would slash funding to states that have expanded Medicaid and provide coverage to immigrants who are on humanitarian parole — immigrants who have received permission to temporarily enter the United States due to an emergency or urgent humanitarian reason. The federal government pays 90% of the cost of covering adults without children who are eligible under Medicaid expansion, but the bill would cut that to 80% for those states, doubling the state portion from 10% to 20%. That's the same penalty the bill proposes for states that use their own money to help immigrants who are here illegally. Ironically, states such as Florida that have extended Medicaid coverage to immigrants who are here on humanitarian parole but have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act would not be harmed by the bill, said Leonardo Cuello, a Medicaid law and policy expert and research professor at the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy. It is 'wildly nonsensical and unfair' to penalize expansion states for covering a population that some non-expansion states, such as Florida, also cover, Cuello said. 'It would appear that the purpose is more to punish expansion states than address any genuine concern with immigrant coverage.' Republican tax bill could slash billions for Oregon Health Plan, state officials say West Virginia is one of the states where lawmakers are nervously watching U.S. Senate discussions on the proposed penalty. Republican state Rep. Matt Rohrbach, a deputy House speaker, said West Virginia legislators tabled a proposal that would have ended Medicaid expansion if the federal government reduced its share of the funding, because the state's congressional representatives assured them it wasn't going to happen. Now the future is murkier. Cuello called the proposed penalty 'basically a gun to the head of the states.' 'Congress is framing it as a choice, but the state is being coerced and really has no choice,' he said. There are about 1.3 million people in the United States on humanitarian parole, from Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Ukraine and Venezuela as well as some Central American children who have rejoined family here. The Trump administration is trying to end parole from some of those countries. A Supreme Court decision May 30 allows the administration to end humanitarian parole for about 500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Not many of those parolees qualify for Medicaid, which requires a waiting period or special status, but the 40 states with expanded Medicaid could be penalized if immigrants qualify for the program, said Tanya Broder, senior counsel for health and economic justice policy at the National Immigration Law Center. It would appear that the purpose is more to punish expansion states than address any genuine concern with immigrant coverage. – Leonardo Cuello, Georgetown University research professor Meanwhile, an increasing number of states and the District of Columbia already are considering scaling back Medicaid coverage for immigrants because of the costs. The federal budget bill, named the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, is now being considered by the Senate, where changes are likely. The fact that so many states could be affected by the last-minute change could mean more scrutiny in that chamber, said Andrea Kovach, senior attorney for health care justice at the Shriver Center on Poverty Law in Chicago. By her count, at least 38 states and the District of Columbia would be affected by the new restrictions, since they accepted some options now offered by Medicaid to cover at least some humanitarian parolees without a five-year waiting period. 'They're all going to be penalized because they added in parolees,' Kovach said. 'So that's 38 times two senators who are going to be very interested in this provision to make sure their state doesn't get their reimbursement knocked down.' The change to exclude people with humanitarian parole was included in a May 21 amendment by U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington, a Texas Republican who chairs the House budget committee. Arrington's office did not reply to a request for comment, though he has stressed the importance of withholding Medicaid from immigrants who are here illegally. '[Democrats] want to protect health care and welfare at any cost for illegal immigrants at the expense of hardworking taxpayers,' Arrington said in a May 22 floor speech urging passage of the bill. 'But by the results of this last election, it's abundantly clear: The people see through this too and they have totally rejected the Democrats' radical agenda.' Some states already are considering cutting Medicaid coverage for immigrants, though Democratic lawmakers and advocates are pushing back. Washington, D.C., Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser has proposed phasing out a program that provides Medicaid coverage to adults regardless of their immigration status, a move she says would save the District of Columbia $457 million. Minnesota advocates protested a state budget deal reached last month with Democratic Gov. Tim Walz to phase out health care coverage for adults who are here illegally, a condition Republican lawmakers insisted on to avoid a shutdown. Similarly, Illinois advocates are protesting new state rules that will end a program that has provided Medicaid coverage to immigrants aged 42-64 regardless of their legal status. The program cost $1.6 billion over three years, according to a state audit. The state will continue a separate program that provides coverage for older adults. 'Our position is that decision-makers in Illinois shouldn't be doing Trump's work for him,' said Kovach, of the Shriver Center on Poverty Law. 'Let's preserve health coverage for immigrants and stand up for Illinois immigrant residents who have been paying taxes into this state for years and need this coverage.' Illinois state Sen. Graciela Guzmán, a Democrat whose parents are refugees from El Salvador, said many of her constituents in Chicago may be forced to cancel chemotherapy or lifesaving surgery because of the changes. 'It was a state budget, but I think the federal reconciliation bill really set the tone for it,' Guzmán said. 'In a tough fiscal environment, it was really hard to set up a defense for this program.' Oregon Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek is among the governors holding firm, saying that letting immigrants stay uninsured imposes costs on local hospitals and ends up raising prices for everyone. 'The costs will go somewhere. When everyone is insured it is much more helpful to keep costs down and reasonable for everyone. That's why we've taken this approach to give care to everyone,' Kotek said at a news conference last month. Medicaid does pay for emergency care for low-income patients, regardless of their immigration status, and that would not change under the federal budget bill. Franny White, a spokesperson for the Oregon Health Authority, said her state's Medicaid program covers about 105,000 immigrants, some of whom are here illegally. She said the policy, established by a 2021 state law, can save money in the long run. 'Uninsured people are less likely to receive preventive care due to cost and often wait until a condition worsens to the point that it requires more advanced, expensive care at an emergency department or hospital,' she said. California was among the first states, along with Oregon, to offer health insurance to immigrants of all ages regardless of their legal status. But it now is considering cutting back, looking to save $5 billion as it seeks to close a $12 billion budget deficit. In May, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed freezing enrollment of immigrant adults who are here illegally, and charging them premiums to save money. 'It's possible that other states will decide to cut back these services because of budgetary concerns,' said Drishti Pillai, director of immigrant health policy at KFF, a health policy research organization. If the federal budget bill passes with the immigrant health care provision intact, states would have more than two years to adjust, since the changes would not take effect until October 2027. 'We have time to really understand what the landscape looks like and really create a legal argument to make sure folks are able to maintain their health care coverage,' said Enddy Almonord, director for Healthy Illinois, an advocacy group supporting universal health care coverage. Stateline, like the Capital Chronicle, is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Thune plows ahead to pass Trump's megabill as Musk continues to bash it
Senate Republican Leader John Thune reiterated that "failure is not an option" as he works to get GOP holdouts on the megabill advancing President Donald Trump's legislative agenda in line -- especially amid Elon Musk's efforts to tank the bill. "This is a team effort, and everybody is going to be rowing in the same direction to get this across the finish line. Failure is not an option, and we intend to deliver, along with the president for the American people on the things that he committed to do and that we committed to do in terms of the agenda," Thune told reporters after he left a meeting with Trump at the White House on Thursday. As things currently stand, Thune can afford to lose only three of his GOP members to pass the package, and right now, he has more members than that expressing serious doubts about the bill. MORE: Trump tries to shore up support for megabill among Senate GOP at White House meeting The House-passed legislation extends the Trump 2017 tax cuts, boosts spending for the military and border security -- while making some cuts to Medicaid, SNAP and other assistance programs. It could also add $3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, according to an analysis out Wednesday from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. As the Senate weighs possible changes to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap as part of the tax portion of the bill, House Republicans from blue states are already threatening to derail the bill's prospects. "Let's be clear — no SALT, no deal," New York Republican Mike Lawler said Wednesday in a post on X. New York Rep. Nick LaLota is on the same page, posting on X: "No SALT. No Deal. For Real." The House-passed bill raises the deduction limit of state and local taxes from federal income tax filing from $10,000 to $40,000 for joint filers making less than $500,000 per year. The cap increases then by 1% every year thereafter. MORE: What will Trump's megabill do to programs like Medicare and SNAP? Thune signaled changes could be coming to the SALT deal that was struck in the House, but the details are still unclear. "It would be very, very hard to get the Senate to vote for what the House did," Thune told reporters. "We've just got some people that feel really strongly on this." Speaker Mike Johnson said he spoke to the SALT caucus on the floor during House votes Wednesday and plans to "communicate" their red line with Senate leaders. The SALT deal is "a very delicate thing and we have to maintain the equilibrium point that we reached in the House, and it took us almost a year… so I don't think we can toss that," Johnson said. Not helping Thune's endeavor to sway the defectors are frequent posts from Musk targeting the bill -- and on Thursday targeting the president. Musk on Thursday quoted a 2013 post from Trump criticizing Republicans for extending the debt ceiling, with Musk writing, "Wise words." Earlier, Musk slammed the bill, calling it a "disgusting abomination" and later urged all members of Congress to "kill the bill." Trump touted the bill from the White House on Thursday -- brushing off the scathing criticism from Musk. "I'm very disappointed because Elon knew the inner-workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here better than you people. He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem," Trump said. MORE: 'KILL the BILL': Elon Musk continues to blast Trump's bill in barrage of social media posts Johnson said he plans to speak directly to Musk on Thursday, a day after the speaker said the billionaire was "flat wrong" in his criticism of the bill. Johnson said Musk "seems pretty dug in right now. and I can't quite understand the motivation behind it." "But I would tell you that what we're delivering in this bill is not only historic tax cuts, but historic savings as well. He seems to miss that," Johnson added. Thune said Wednesday that although he can't speak to Musk's motivations for his opposition, he will continue to push for the bill's success in the Senate. Musk's public bashing of the bill came up in senators' meeting with Trump on Thursday, said Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, describing it as a "laughing conversation for 30 seconds." "It was very much in jest and laughing, and I think he said something positive about Elon appreciating what he did for the country," Marshall said. ABC News' Will Steakin, Mary Bruce, Molly Nagle and Kelsey Walsh contributed to this report.
