³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ Comment on Settlement of Arleneās Flowers v. Ingersoll and Freed
WASHINGTON ā A settlement has been reached in Arleneās Flowers v. Ingersoll and Freed, the case where a flower shop refused to provide Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed flowers for their wedding.
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in July 2021, and the flower shop filed a petition for rehearing. Under the settlement, the parties agreed that the flower shop would withdraw the petition for rehearing. The settlement leaves in place the two unanimous decisions from the Washington Supreme Court that the Constitution does not grant a license to discriminate against LGBTQ people. The couple will donate a settlement payment by Arleneās Flowers of $5,000 to a local PFLAG chapter, and the couple plans to personally match the donation.
The following statement is from Freed and Ingersoll:
āWe took on this case because we were worried about the harm being turned away would cause LGBTQ people. We are glad the Washington Supreme Court rulings will stay in place to ensure that same-sex couples are protected from discrimination and should be served by businesses like anyone else. We are also pleased to support our local PFLAGās work to support LGBTQ people in the Tri-Cities area. It was painful to be turned away and we are thankful that this long journey for us is finally over.ā

LGBTQ Rights
Religious Liberty
Arlene's Flowers et al v. Washington et al

LGBTQ Rights
Religious Liberty
Arlene's Flowers et al v. Washington et al
Learn More ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ the Issues in This Press Release
Related Content
-
PodcastMay 2025
Civil Liberties
+3 Issues
Weāre Still Ready: Trumpās First 100 Days with Cecillia Wang
By: ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ -
Press ReleaseMay 2025
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
Military Families Seek Preliminary Injunction Against Censorship in Department of Defense Schools
ALEXANDRIA, Va. ā On behalf of six military families with students enrolled in Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) schools, the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ today filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to declare DoDEAās enforcement of executive orders resulting in classroom censorship unconstitutional. DoDEA, whose students lead the United States in math and reading proficiency scores, operates 161 schools across 11 countries, seven states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The demand for an injunction was filed on behalf of 12 students and their families, ranging from pre-K to 11th grade, who attend DoDEA schools as children of active duty servicemembers stationed in Virginia, Kentucky, Italy, and Japan. Since January, the plaintiffsā schools have removed books, altered curricula, and canceled events that the current administration has accused of promoting āgender ideologyā or ādivisive equity ideology.ā Censored items include materials about slavery, Native American history, womenās history, LGBTQ identities and history, and preventing sexual harassment and abuse, as well as portions of the Advanced Placement (AP) Psychology curriculum. āWe make sacrifices as a military family so that my husband can defend the Constitution and the rights and freedoms of all Americans,ā said Jessica Henninger, a plaintiff on behalf of her children in DoDEA schools. āIf our own rights and the rights of our children are at risk, we have a responsibility to speak out. Despite the anxiety and uncertainty among DoDEA parents and students right now, we know that our children have a right to an education free from censorship, and we won't stand by silently and watch that right be taken away.ā The new motion includes a list of 233 books alleged to have been quarantined or removed from shelves, including: āTo Kill a Mockingbirdā by Harper Lee; ā#MeToo: Women Speak Out Against Sexual Assault,ā edited by the New York Times; āLooking for Alaskaā by John Green; āCan't Stop Won't Stop: A Hip-Hop Historyā by Jeff Chang; āGeneration Brave: The Gen Z Kids Who Are Changing the Worldā by Kate Alexander; and āJuliĆ”n is a Mermaidā by Jessica Love. It includes further titles by acclaimed authors including Margaret Atwood, Toni Morrison, Kurt Vonnegut, and Ta-Nehisi Coates. The vast majority of titles appear to be by or about women, people of color, or LGBTQ people. āThese are American students in American schools, and they have the same First Amendment rights as their peers,ā said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ās Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. āFamilies in DoDEA schools have the right to access books about race and gender and the right to learn about the vibrantly diverse world around them. We owe it to these students to help them learn and grow, not stifle their age-appropriate exposure to ideas this administration happens to deem politically incorrect.ā One DoDEA school canceled events honoring Juneteenth and Holocaust Remembrance Day, and another removed posters featuring Malala Yousafzai and Frida Kahlo. Families allege in the filings that their requests for information from DoDEA about what information has been removed or why have gone unanswered. āClassroom censorship has impacted our clientsā ability to prepare for AP exams, to learn about their neighbors and peers, and to see themselves in their curriculum,ā said Corey Shapiro, legal director for the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ of Kentucky. āAnd in DoDEA schools, which are some of the most diverse and high performing schools in the nation, the impact is magnified. This kind of political meddling is antithetical to the First Amendment.ā āThe Trump administration cannot violate the First Amendment by removing books and curricula it doesnāt like,ā said Matt Callahan, senior supervising attorney at the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ of Virginia. āStudents have a right to see themselves reflected in their libraries and classrooms, and they also have a right to learn from the perspectives of people who arenāt like them. Thatās no less true for military families than for anyone else.ā The ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„, the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ of Kentucky, and the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ of Virginia filed suit last month, arguing that DoDEA enforcement of three executive orders signed by President Donald Trump in January 2025 led to widespread violations of studentsā First Amendment rights. The suit, and the motion for preliminary injunction, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The motion can be viewed online here.Court Case: E.K. v. Department of Defense Education ActivityAffiliates: Kentucky, Virginia -
Press ReleaseMay 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Transgender Federal Worker Challenges Trumpās Federal Bathroom Ban
WASHINGTON - A civilian employee of the Illinois National Guard has filed a class action complaint to the Army National Guard Bureau Equal Opportunity Office (NGB-EO) challenging a Trump administration policy prohibiting transgender federal employees from using restrooms and other accommodations aligned with their gender. LeAnne Withrow of Springfield, Illinois, is a lead military and family readiness specialist and civilian employee for the Illinois National Guard. Previously, she served as a staff sergeant for the National Guard and is the recipient of multiple commendations and awards, including the Illinois National Guard Abraham Lincoln Medal of Freedom. Following a January 20 executive order signed by President Trump, officials with the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Defense, and the federal National Guard Bureau issued notices to all employees requiring use of designated restrooms strictly based upon their sex assigned at birth. Soon after, Withrow was instructed by supervisors within her chain of command that she may not use restrooms and other facilities designated for women. That order violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment. In a 2020 ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States held 6-3 that Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender workers on the basis of their sex. Todayās class action filing challenges the executive order and ensuing implementation actions with violating Title VII as well as the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the federal Administrative Procedures Act. The complaint was filed on behalf of Ms. Withrow by the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„, the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ of DC, the Roger Baldwin Foundation of the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„, and Democracy Forward. āSince coming out nearly a decade ago, the fact that Iām transgender has had no negative impact on my abilities as a worker and has caused no disruption or disturbance among my colleagues or supervisors,ā said LeAnne Withrow, a civilian federal employee for the Illinois National Guard. āThis policy would put a needless barrier between my work on behalf of military families, forcing me to choose between my service to this country and my own dignity. I love my work and want nothing to come between me and the people I serve. Iām hopeful the courts will see through this blatant effort to push people like me out of the federal workforce.ā āLetās be clearāif you cannot use the bathroom at work, you cannot go to work,ā said Shana Knizhnik, Senior Staff Attorney for the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ās LGBTQ & HIV Project. āTransgender federal workers across the federal government are facing an intentional effort to drive them out of the workforce and out of public life by an administration with no shortage of hostility towards them and their identities. We look forward to making this case to the agency and will do everything we can to ensure all federal workers are treated equally and fairly regardless of who they love or who they are.ā āThis case is about people. Targeting transgender people is both unlawful and a dangerous example by our federal government. Democracy Forward is honored to work with LeAnne and our partners in this case to defend transgender people from hateful and harmful bigotry,ā said Democracy Forward Legal Director Audrey Wiggins. āThis policy is part of a national campaign to push transgender people out of public life,ā said Michael Perloff, Senior Staff Attorney at the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„-D.C. āItās discrimination pure and simple and it has no place in our law or our society.ā āIllinois has rejected the senseless, reckless discrimination against transgender people that is the hallmark of the Trump Administration,ā said Michelle Garcia, Deputy Legal Director at the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ of Illinois. āAs a proud, vital member of the Illinois National Guard, who has served our state and this country honorably and proudly, neither LeAnne nor any other federal employee should be forced to use a restroom that is inconsistent with their gender identity.ā Todayās complaint filed to the National Guard Bureau Equal Opportunity Office can be found here.Affiliates: Illinois, Washington, D.C. -
Press ReleaseApr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ Asks Court to Expand Temporary Relief to All Trans, Intersex, and Nonbinary People Seeking Passports
BOSTON ā The ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„, the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ of Massachusetts, and Covington & Burling LLC filed motions for class certification and preliminary classwide relief today in their lawsuit challenging the State Departmentās refusal to issue passports with accurate sex designations for trans, intersex, and nonbinary American citizens. The new filing follows a federal court ruling finding that an executive order by President Trump and the passport policy implementing that order are likely unconstitutional and unlawful. The courtās preliminary injunction requires the State Department to issue updated passports to six transgender and nonbinary people who are named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The new filings ask the court to certify a class of people adversely affected by the State Department policy and to extend this relief nationwide to the entire class so that other transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people can receive accurate passports. āThe courtās finding that this policy is likely unconstitutional and unlawful holds just as true for our class members as it does for our plaintiffs, and we are asking the court to expand its preliminary injunction to protect the rights of all transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people,ā said Li Nowlin-Sohl, Senior Staff Attorney at the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ LGBTQ & HIV Project. āBy forcing people to carry documents that directly contradict their identities, the Trump administration is attacking the very foundations of the right to privacy and the freedom to be ourselves,ā said Jessie Rossman, Legal Director at ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ of Massachusetts. āIt is important that every person has the ability to live and travel safely, and we will continue to fight to rescind this unlawful policy to make sure that this relief extends to everyone.ā On his first day in office in January 2025, Trump signed an executive order attempting to mandate discrimination against transgender people across the federal government and government programs. This included a directive to the Departments of State and Homeland Security āto require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cardsā reflect their sex āat conception.ā Under the ensuing passport policy, the State Department began refusing to issue new, renewed, or changed passports with a sex designation other than what the State Department believed to be their sex assigned at birth regardless of the sex designation applied for. Over 214,000 public comments in opposition to the State Departmentās new policy were collected by the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ and Advocates for Transgender Equality. In February 2025, the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„, the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ of Massachusetts, and Covington and Burling LLP filed the Orr v. Trump class action complaint on behalf of seven people who have not been able to obtain passports that match who they are because of the State Departmentās new passport policy or who are likely to be impacted by the new policy upon their next renewal. The complaint was filed in the federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts. An amended complaint was filed on April 25, adding five named plaintiffs seeking to represent the class along with the seven plaintiffs named in the original complaint.Court Case: Orr v. TrumpAffiliate: Massachusetts