吃瓜直播

WASHINGTON 鈥� A federal district court judge has granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a Trump Administration executive order prohibiting federal Bureau of Prisons (鈥淏OP鈥�) officials from providing gender-affirming hormone therapy and accommodations to transgender people. The injunction does not require BOP to provide gender-affirming surgical care. The court also granted the plaintiff鈥檚 motion for a class certification and extended injunctive relief to the full class, which encompasses all persons who are or will be incarcerated in BOP facilities and have a current medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria or who receive that diagnosis in the future. 鈥淭his is a critical ruling for our clients and all transgender people in Bureau of Prisons custody,鈥� said Corene Kendrick, Deputy Director of the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 National Prison Project. 鈥淭his administration鈥檚 cruelty towards transgender people disregards their rights under the Constitution. The denial of medically necessary health care, including gender-affirming health care, to people in prison is a violation of their fundamental constitutional rights. We will continue to advocate for the rights of all incarcerated people.鈥� 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling is made possible by the courageous plaintiffs who fought to protect their rights and the rights of transgender people everywhere,鈥� said Shawn Thomas Meerkamper, Managing Attorney at Transgender Law Center. 鈥淭his administration鈥檚 continued targeting of transgender people is cruel and threatens the lives of all people. No person鈥攊ncarcerated or not, transgender or not鈥攕hould have their rights to medically-necessary care denied. We are grateful the court understood that our clients deserve basic dignity and healthcare, and we will continue to fight alongside them.鈥� "Today's ruling is an important lifeline for trans people in federal custody," said Michael Perloff, Senior Staff Attorney at 吃瓜直播-D.C. 鈥淭he ruling is also a critical reminder to the Trump administration that trans people, like all people, have constitutional rights that don't simply disappear because the president has decided to wage an ideological battle." Following a January 20 executive order from President Trump that prohibited gender-affirming care for transgender people in federal prisons, the BOP issued a policy stating that "no Bureau of Prisons funds are to be expended for any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate鈥檚 appearance to that of the opposite sex.鈥� It also prohibits clothing and commissary items it deems inconsistent with a person鈥檚 assigned sex, and requires all BOP staff to misgender transgender people. In March, two transgender men and one transgender woman serving sentences in facilities in New Jersey, Minnesota, and Florida filed a class action lawsuit against the Trump Administration and BOP, challenging the Executive Order and new BOP policies prohibiting their access to gender-affirming care. The class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of approximately 2,000 transgender people incarcerated in federal prisons across the United States. All three plaintiffs were diagnosed with gender dysphoria by BOP medical providers and prescribed hormone therapy by health care staff, but either had their treatments suspended or were told they would be suspended soon. The filing argues this policy violates the Eighth Amendment鈥檚 prohibition on 鈥渃ruel and unusual punishment,鈥� which federal courts have long held includes the denial of medically necessary health care, including access to gender-affirming care. It also argues that the policy violates the equal protection requirement of the 5th Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The case was filed on behalf of the three plaintiffs and all other transgender people in federal prisons by the 吃瓜直播, the 吃瓜直播 of DC, and the Transgender Law Center. BOP also instructed officials to remove any transgender women held in women鈥檚 facilities and place them in men鈥檚 facilities, an issue under challenge in multiple separate lawsuits. Today鈥檚 order from the court can be found here.

LAWRENCE 鈥� Two transgender adolescents and their parents have filed a challenge in Kansas state court against SB 63, a law passed earlier this year prohibiting access to gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender people under 18. Filed by the 吃瓜直播 and the 吃瓜直播 of Kansas in District Court of Douglas County, Loe v. Kansas charges SB 63 with violating the Kansas Constitution鈥檚 guarantees of equal protection and fundamental rights. The case was filed pseudonymously on behalf of 16-year-old Ryan Roe and his mother Rebecca Roe as well as 13-year-old Lily Loe and her mother Lisa Loe. "Our clients and every Kansan should have the freedom to make their own private medical decisions and consult with their doctors without the intrusion of Kansas politicians," said D.C. Hiegert, Civil Liberties Legal Fellow for the 吃瓜直播 of Kansas. "SB 63 is a particularly harmful example of politicians' overreach and their efforts to target, politicize, and control the healthcare of already vulnerable Kansas families. We are honored to represent our clients in standing up for their constitutional rights and in fighting back against this threat to our communities." 鈥淏ans like SB 63 have already had catastrophic effects on the families of transgender youth across the country,鈥� said Harper Seldin, Senior Staff Attorney for the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 LGBTQ & HIV Project. 鈥淭hese bans have uprooted many families from the only homes they鈥檝e ever known while forcing many more to watch their young people suffer knowing a politician stands between them and their family doctor鈥檚 best medical judgment. We are determined for every state to be a safe place to raise every family, and that means fighting SB 63 until all transgender Kansans have the freedom to be themselves.鈥� SB 63 prohibits medical providers in the state of Kansas from providing gender-affirming medical treatments, such as hormone therapies and pubertal suppressants, to transgender youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The law allows these same treatments to be provided to cisgender youth for any other reason. SB 63 was passed by the Kansas state legislature in January then vetoed by Governor Laura Kelly, who said in her veto statement 鈥渋t is not the job of politicians to stand between a parent and a child who needs medical care of any kind.鈥� The legislature overrode her veto and SB 63 took effect on February 20. The complaint filed today can be found here.

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