Latest news with #LambdaLegal
The Hill
3 days ago
- Health
- The Hill
Federal court upholds Oklahoma law banning gender-affirming care for minors
A federal appeals court upheld an Oklahoma law banning gender-affirming care for minors Wednesday in a ruling hinging on a June Supreme Court decision to uphold a similar law in Tennessee. Oklahoma's Senate Bill 613, passed by the state's Republican-controlled Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) in 2023, makes it a felony for health care workers to provide treatments including puberty-blocking drugs and hormones to affirm a minor's 'perception of his or her gender or biological sex, if that perception is inconsistent with the minor's biological sex.' Five families of transgender children and an Oklahoma City physician specializing in adolescent medicine challenged the state's ban, arguing it violated their constitutional rights. The plaintiffs, represented by Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Oklahoma, claimed state lawmakers adopted S.B. 613 with discriminatory intent, citing a 2022 law that froze pandemic relief funding for OU Health, one of the state's largest hospital systems, unless Oklahoma Children's Hospital agreed to suspend gender-affirming care for minors. A federal judge in Tulsa declined to stop S.B. 613 from taking effect in 2023, writing in an order that transition-related care for young people is 'an area in which medical and policy debate is unfolding,' and the state 'can rationally take the side of caution before permitting irreversible medical treatments of its children.' An appeal before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was abated pending the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti. In that case, the justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care does not amount to sex discrimination, which would have triggered a higher level of constitutional scrutiny. The court's majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, agrees with arguments made by Tennessee officials that the law distinguishes based on a treatment's medical purpose, not sex, and the court should defer to the Legislature's judgment about regulating medicine for children. Relying on the high court's decision, a three-judge panel for the 10th Circuit ruled unanimously on Wednesday that Oklahoma's law is constitutional. Tennessee's Senate Bill 1 and Oklahoma's Senate Bill 613 'are functionally indistinguishable,' Circuit Judge Joel M. Carson, appointed during President Trump's first term, wrote in Wednesday's order. 'Here, like in Skrmetti, both groups include transgender minors, so there exists a 'lack of identity' between transgender status and the medical diagnosis excluded under SB 613. And like Tennessee's SB1, under SB 613, a minor's ability to receive medical treatment under SB 613 does not turn on the minor's transgender status—it turns on the minor's medical diagnosis,' Carson wrote for himself and Circuit Judges Harris L. Hartz, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, and Gregory A. Phillips, appointed by former President Obama. The order, citing Skrmetti, states Oklahoma's law neither violates the Constitution nor was intended to discriminate against transgender youth. 'We recognize the importance of this issue to all involved. But this remains a novel issue with disagreement on how to assure children's health and welfare. We will not usurp the legislature's judgment when it engages in 'earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality, and practicality' of gender transition procedures for minors,' Carson wrote. 'While we respect that Plaintiffs disagree with the legislature's assessment of such procedures' risks, that alone does not invalidate a democratically enacted law on rational-basis grounds.' Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond (R) celebrated the court's ruling Thursday in a post on the social platform X. 'For years, radical left activists pushed the lie of 'gender transition' procedures for minors. The truth is much simpler: there is no such thing,' he wrote. Attorneys for the plaintiffs called Wednesday's decision 'devastating' in a joint statement. 'Oklahoma's ban is openly discriminatory and provably harmful to the transgender youth of this state, putting political dogma above parents, their children, and their family doctors,' the statement said. 'While we and our clients consider our next steps, we want all transgender people and their families across Oklahoma to know we will never stop fighting for the future they deserve and their freedom to be themselves.'
Washington Post
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
History shows there is no ‘right time' for civil rights litigation
Kevin Jennings is the chief executive of Lambda Legal and co-counsel in U.S. v. Skrmetti. Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti upholding Tennessee's restrictions on transgender youths' access to health care, Monday morning quarterbacks have criticized our decision to litigate the matter. These critiques ignore our nation's history, which teaches a basic fact: It is never the right time for civil rights in America.
CBS News
28-06-2025
- Entertainment
- CBS News
NYC Pride Weekend gets underway with festivities ahead of Sunday's March
New York City's Pride Weekend is in full swing with the final preps underway for Sunday's March through Greenwich Village. Over 1 million people are expected to line the streets, and heavy security and street closures will be in place. Thousands participate in annual NYRR Pride Run Racers were up early Saturday morning as the 44th Annual New York Road Runners Pride Run brought an estimated 8,000 runners to Central Park. Proceeds benefited Lambda Legal, a nonprofit working to secure rights for LGBTQ+ people and those living with HIV. "Running brings people together, and we love the fact that this event brings both allies and members of the community together to celebrate Pride, to let people know that they are seen and heard and part of the running community," NYRR CEO Rob Simmelkjaer said. Lifelong LGBTQ+ activist Mark Segal stops by visitor center Saturday afternoon in Greenwich Village, the Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center on Christopher Street celebrated its first anniversary with a special guest – Mark Segal. The lifelong LGBT activist was there the night of the Stonewall Inn riots in 1969, and in 1973, he became famous for interrupting a live broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite and holding up a sign reading, "Gays protest CBS prejudice." "It created visibility for us. Sixty million people saw that," Segal said. NYC Pride March steps off Sunday CBS News New York Saturday's events are all leading up to Sunday's massive Pride March. It kicks off at noon on Fifth Avenue near Madison Square Park before heading west, snaking its way through Greenwich Village and the Stonewall Inn on Christopher Street, then heading north up Seventh Avenue and ending around 15th Street. This year's theme is "Rise Up: Pride in Protest," marking 56 years since the Stonewall Riots. That is the reason Heritage of Pride calls it the Pride March, instead of a parade.
Yahoo
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
After 10 years of marriage equality, the fight continues for LGBTQ+ rights
A lot of queer people can tell you exactly where they were at 10 a.m. on Friday, June 26, 2015. That was the moment the Supreme Court handed down its 5-4 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision that grants same-sex couples marriage equality. For many – me included – it was a dream come true. Growing up gay in rural North Carolina in the sixties and seventies, when a large majority of states still made same-sex relationships a felony, the idea of same-sex couples marrying seemed so far-fetched as to be ridiculous. Today, thanks in part to the organization I now run, Lambda Legal (which was co-counsel in Obergefell), it is the law of the land. More than 600,000 married same-sex couples in the U.S. have tied the knot since then according to the Williams Institute, 'double the 390,000 who were married in June 2015 when Obergefell was decided.' Ten years later, the picture is much darker. Today, we are seeing a massive attack on the rights of LGBTQ+ people. Since 2022, an astounding 1,903 bills aimed at restricting the rights of LGBTQ+ people have been introduced – at least one in each of our 50 state legislatures. 220 have become law in 27 states. Obergefell and its protections are in danger of being rolled back. In 2023, Tennessee enacted a law that allows government officials to refuse to marry same-sex couples. In 2025, five state legislatures (Idaho, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota) considered bills calling upon the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell. (Idaho's resolution passed.) The Southern Baptist Convention (America's second-largest Christian denomination) recently voted to pursue a legal strategy to reverse Obergefell modeled on the successful effort to overturn Roe v. Wade. Related: If a challenge to Obergefell makes it to the Supreme Court, it will find at least two friendly faces there. Justice Samuel Alito has repeatedly called for its reversal. And in his concurring opinion in the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe in 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas went even further: 'In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [which gave us the right to birth control in 1965], Lawrence [which decriminalized same-sex relationships in 2003] and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous, the Court has a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents.' On the bench of the highest court in our land sits a man who wants to make us criminals again. How did we get here? It wasn't by accident: it's part of a well-funded effort to roll back LGBTQ+ rights nationwide. Led by right-wing extremist groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom ('ADF,' which the Southern Poverty Law Center has deemed a 'hate group'), a concerted effort to roll back the rights of LGBTQ+ people has been underway for many years. This network of right-wing extremist legal groups – including the ADF, the Pacific Legal Foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice, the First Liberty Institute, and the Becket Fund – had a combined budget of $231 million in 2023. By contrast, pro-LGBTQ+ legal groups – such as Lambda Legal, GLADLaw, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the ACLU LGBTQ+ Rights Project, the Transgender Law Center, and the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund – had a combined budget of $75 million in the same year. Anti-LGBTQ+ forces are outspending pro-LGBTQ+ forces by a factor of 3:1, so it's no surprise we are on the defensive. The LGBTQ+ movement finds itself at a conflicted moment on this tenth anniversary of marriage equality – feeling both celebratory and concerned about Obergefell, particularly in the wake of the recent ruling in in our Skrmetti case with the ACLU and ACLU of Tennessee. The decision upheld Tennessee's ban on the right of trans young people to access the health care they need. The world I was born into in 1963 – one where in all 50 states but one (Illinois), same-sex relations were a crime – was changed through litigation, including Lambda Legal's Lawrence v. Texas victory at the Supreme Court in 2003, which decriminalized same-sex relationships nationwide. Will the courts champion the cause of equality as they have done in some landmark cases like Lawrence and Obergefell or continue to bring setbacks to equality as they did in Skrmetti? We may be about to find is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ+ community and its allies. Visit to learn more about submission guidelines. Views expressed in Voices stories are those of the guest writers, columnists, and editors, and do not directly represent the views of The Advocate or our parent company, equalpride. - YouTube This article originally appeared on Advocate: After 10 years of marriage equality, the fight continues for LGBTQ+ rights
The Hill
26-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court turns to backlog of transgender cases after Tennessee ban ruling
The Supreme Court on Thursday will confront the next frontiers of the legal battles surrounding transgender rights now that the justices have signed off on Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. After the justices announce opinions from the bench, they'll meet behind closed doors to discuss how to proceed with more than a half-dozen petitions concerning states' transgender athlete bans, bathroom restrictions and prohibitions on gender-affirming surgeries in Medicaid plans. Transgender rights advocates are holding out hope that the conservative majority's ruling last week upholding the Tennessee law is limited and they can still eke out victories as the cases press ahead. 'As frustrating an answer as it is, I don't actually think this tells us much at all of how those other contexts will proceed before this court,' said Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of Lambda Legal's constitutional law practice. 'In as much as I think we can try to read tea leaves and find doctrinal through-lines, this is one of those instances where the court made clear that they were just doing something different and specific here.' The Supreme Court issued its 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, marking one of their biggest cases implicating LGBTQ protections in recent years. Petitions asking the court to hear other transgender rights disputes piled up for months as the justices punted action to consider the Tennessee case, U.S. v. Skrmetti. With the decision now in, the freeze is thawing. At their weekly closed-door conference Thursday, the justices will return to nine petitions implicating transgender rights, case dockets show. Their usual practice is to send them back to lower courts to take another look in light of an intervening decision. But two Republican-controlled states are urging the court to forgo that exercise, warning it won't resolve their disputes, so the court should take them up now for their next term. In West Virginia, Attorney General JB McCuskey (R) asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to hear the state's defense of its transgender athlete ban. It is the third time the state has asked the justices to step in to allow it to enforce the 2021 law, which lower courts have blocked. In court filings, McCuskey, the Alliance Defending Freedom and attorneys for several West Virginia Board of Education members said the Tennessee case left constitutional questions relevant to the case unanswered. 'United States v. Skrmetti disclaims any guidance on the Title IX question presented here, and the decision's equal-protection analysis does not address critical questions unique to athletics,' they wrote. Public schools, they said, remain 'between a rock and a hard place,' citing President Trump's executive order to ban trans students from girls' and women's sports and the administration's statements that Title IX, the federal law against sex discrimination, prohibits trans athletes from competing. 'Should they follow an executive order that threatens all their funding — even funding unrelated to athletics? Or should they follow a court order that has not yet been applied to them?' McCuskey's office asked in court filings. 'The years of delay that would follow were the Court to grant, vacate, and remand here would not help.' In Idaho, Gov. Brad Little (R) similarly asked the court to take up his state's trans athletes law, saying that lower court proceedings would otherwise 'delay the inevitable.' 'Whether designating sports teams based on biological sex violates the Equal Protection Clause is a critically important issue that has been roiling the lower courts, frustrating female student athletes, and confounding every level of government for years,' the state wrote in court filings this week. Other cases are also waiting in the wings Thursday, though those parties haven't tried to sway the justices following the court's Skrmetti ruling. Arizona's Senate president is defending the state's transgender athlete ban. West Virginia and Idaho are defending their gender-affirming surgery bans in Medicaid plans. North Carolina is trying to vindicate its similar ban for a government employee health plan. And Oklahoma wants the court to uphold its law banning people from changing their sex designation on official documents to match their gender identity. Challengers to Tennessee's gender-affirming care ban for minors had hoped to convince the Supreme Court that the law, S.B. 1, classified based on sex and transgender status, which could require it to clear a more exacting constitutional standard known as heightened scrutiny. Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion said it did neither and instead drew lines based on age and the treatments' medical purpose. 'Rather, S.B. 1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers and hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor's sex,' Roberts wrote. But in some of the other cases set for the justices' consideration Thursday, Republican-led states directly admit their laws turn on sex, which could force the court to confront the issue. And because the justices deemed that Tennessee's law does not discriminate against transgender Americans either, the court has yet to decide whether they qualify as a 'suspect class' that would independently trigger a higher level of constitutional scrutiny. Only three conservative justices — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett — signed onto concurring opinions explicitly rejecting the idea. 'That important question has divided the Courts of Appeals, and if we do not confront it now, we will almost certainly be required to do so very soon,' Alito cautioned in a solo opinion.
