GLAD Law
Skip Header to Content

GLAD

GLAD Logo Skip Primary Navigation to Content

Search

News

Vermont’s New Confirmatory Adoption Law Boosts Security for LGBTQ+ Families

Vermont continues to lead on ensuring LGBTQ+ people and families are protected and treated equally with passage of a new law making it easier for parents who have had a child through assisted reproduction to confirm their parentage through adoption.

Yesterday, Republican Gov. Phil Scott signed into law An act relating to confirmatory adoptions. (H.98) Championed by state Reps. Martin LaLonde and Barbara Rachelson, the legislation makes the adoption process more efficient for parents seeking an adoption decree to confirm an existing parent-child relationship by removing cumbersome and costly barriers that non-genetic parents face when adopting their own children. Confirmation of an existing parent-child relationship through judgments like adoption decrees is vitally important to protect families formed through assisted reproduction, including LGBTQ+ families. The new law takes effect July 1.

“I’m proud to see this bill signed into law. This is what we should be prioritizing as legislators: ensuring that all Vermont families — no matter how they’re formed — are legally protected and more secure,” said Rep. Barbara Rachelson, the primary sponsor of H.98. “H.98 streamlines the adoption process for parents who planned for and built their families through assisted reproduction. Now, if an individual who is already considered a parent under Vermont law seeks an adoption decree to confirm their parent-child relationship, they won’t have to undergo an invasive home study, notify gamete donors, or complete a mandatory residency period before receiving an adoption decree.”

“Parents who use assisted reproduction, in Vermont and elsewhere, continue to face the reality that other states may discriminate against them and refuse to recognize their legal status as parents because of a lack of genetic connection — especially if the parents are LGBTQ,” said Rep. Martin LaLonde, who co-sponsored H.98. “Although Vermont recognizes parents who use assisted reproduction with donor gametes as legal parents, other states may not. With an adoption decree, if the family travels or moves to another state, that state must recognize the parents’ legal relationships to their children. Streamlining the adoption process enables families to more easily obtain this important layer of protection.”

Under the new law, parents of children born through assisted reproduction who are parents or presumed parents under the Vermont Parentage Act can petition for an  adoption decree by submitting a certified copy of the child’s birth certificate, a signed petition for adoption, a copy of their marriage certificate if applicable, and a signed declaration explaining that the child was born through assisted reproduction, attesting to their consent to assisted reproduction, and stating that there are no other persons with a claim to parentage of the child.

The law was passed as LGBTQ+ families grow more concerned about attacks on LGBTQ+ people at the federal level and in states that are less LGBTQ+-friendly than Vermont. 

“This is an important step toward ensuring that LGBTQ+ families in Vermont are able to protect themselves wherever they may travel. With extremists escalating their attacks on LGBTQ+ people across the country, parents are justifiably seeking paths to secure their legal parent-child relationship, including through adoption decrees, which are easily recognizable and must receive respect in all jurisdictions,” said Polly Crozier, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders Director of Family Advocacy. “Vermont joins nine other states with confirmatory adoption laws, and we expect others will follow their lead. We’re thankful to Representatives Rachelson and LaLonde for championing this bill and to Governor Scott for signing it into law.”

“This common-sense legislation is vital for LGBTQ+ families, and all families using assisted reproduction in Vermont, especially in the current political and social climate. It gives increased legal security to children born through assisted reproduction in an efficient and validating manner,” said Meg York, Senior Policy Counsel and Director of LGBTQ+ Family Law and Policy at Family Equality. “Parents seeking to protect their children in this way will no longer endure an onerous, lengthy, and expensive adoption process, making it accessible to more families. Thank you to Representatives Rachelson and LaLonde, and all of our allies and partners in Vermont for their leadership on H.98.”

“As a family law attorney specializing in the legalities of adoption and assisted reproduction, I’m profoundly pleased H.98 was signed into law. Even before the start of the second Trump administration, we heard from many LGBTQ+ families interested in confirmatory adoption for greater legal security,” said Kurt Hughes, Senior Partner at Tarnelli & Hughes Family Law. “This law will make a tangible difference for families across Vermont. Families are formed in many different ways and our laws must continue to reflect that reality. Thank you to Governor Scott, the Legislature, and Representatives Rachelson and LaLonde for upholding Vermont’s commitment to fairness and equality for all.”

Blog

The Resistance Brief: This week in the fight for justice

Really? Rainbow Flags? 

Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director

I was recently asked to take part in a flag raising ceremony to commemorate Pride Month. I’ve agreed to attend the event because showcasing a city’s commitment to the values of liberty and progress reminds me of the future we are co-creating right now. Raising the Pride flag is a celebration of the sacrifices made on behalf of equality and justice by those who came before me and a reminder that there is still much to be done to safeguard that progress – including fighting for the ability to display this symbol of hope, promise, and expression. 

I was not out and proud in high school. But classmates who were part of the Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) were, and the pins, flags, and t-shirt they wore made me feel that if I could muster up the courage to say the words, I’m gay, that I would have community who would welcome me.  

As an adult, I came to understand the power that visual signals have in communicating messages of hope, inclusion, respect, and belonging. As someone who has worked at various organizations that focus on school belonging, education equity, and post-secondary education attainment, I have learned that supportive adults, the existence of GSA clubs and inclusive curriculum help queer kids feel valued and respected. An ally educator displaying a pride flag can make the difference on whether a queer kid feels out of place and misunderstood or seen and validated.

Having a sense of belonging increases queer students’ class attendance, participation in extracurricular activities, and educational aspirations. This is why it’s so alarming that lawmakers from more than a dozen states across the country have prioritized trying to ban the display of Pride flags in schools. These attacks on symbols of affirmation and inclusion for queer and trans youth come on the heels of efforts to ban books, intimidate LGBTQ+ teachers to remain in the closet, and out queer kids to their parents. The result is schools that feel much less welcoming to LGBTQ+ young people.

The bans are especially tragic at this time when LGBTQ+ kids – especially transgender and nonbinary youth – are being scapegoated for political gain and need symbols of hope and affirmation more than ever.   

Moonlighting as an effort to achieve political neutrality – even as the very nature of these restrictions on free speech are politically motivated – lawmakers have escalated local efforts. So-called “parent’s rights” groups like Moms for Liberty are leading attempts to ban flags and symbols of inclusion in school districts across the country, and even in more progressive states like California and Massachusetts. Some have been adopted despite robust public debate, while others have been defeated.  

Utah was the first state to limit the display of flags at schools and government buildings. Only an approved list including the United States flag, military flag, college, and state flags can be displayed without consequence. The law imposes a $500 a day fine on government employees who choose to display any flag not on the approved list – including the Pride flag. The law also encourages school staff to act as informants to enforce the law – pitting school staff against each other and holding harmless the reporting party – further emboldening vigilante actors with animus against the community.

Cunning, clever, and vague language within legislation that avoids outright biased text but accomplishes discriminatory goals is a part of the strategy. But when you look at the witness list and recognize the organizations who are showing up in support of bills like this it’s easy to recognize the target: the LGBTQ+ community. The same organizations showing up to testify in support of anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ+ bills have shown up to testify in support of these flag ban bills. In Utah, 72% of testifiers were against the bill. In Arizona 88% of people opposed it. And in Texas 93% of witnesses disapproved of the bill.  

These are not popular policies and yet they are being championed and prioritized by far-right lawmakers who are looking to import and implement attacks on LGBTQ+ people and limits on free speech from Washington D.C. In Wisconsin, the bill was introduced shortly after Secretary of State Marco Rubio sent similar guidance to U.S. embassies – effectively banning the Pride flag in U.S. consulates abroad.

And while copy-cat flag ban bills continue to pop up in state legislatures, their success is not imminent. Florida’s HB 75/SB 100 which aimed to ban Pride flags from government buildings, schools and universities recently failed, thanks in part to Equality Florida’s effort to mobilize their largest advocacy week ever. It was people power that determined the fate of this bill.

Many folks are looking for a way to join the resistance against the myriad of attacks on our community right now. As local organizations and groups have proven, community engagement on this issue can create the pushback necessary to stall these poorly disguised attempts to reduce our visibility and demoralize us. In our town and cities, we have agency, and we have collective power to build the future we deserve.

Banning Pride flags does not achieve political neutrality – it infringes upon, sets a dangerous precedent, and undermines our civil rights and expression.

What to know, what to do: 

  • Read about how mayors in Boise and Salt Lake City have adopted official city flags with affirming symbols to allow their display in city buildings despite state laws designed to ban them.  
  • Find us at your local Pride in the coming months – come say hi or march with us at Boston Pride for the People!   
  • Check out our website to start, grow, or strengthen your GSA with youth-centered resources and rights info. 
  • Check out your town or city election calendar – many local elections are held “off-cycle,” including in May or June – and pay close attention to local races with big impact, including School Committee/Board and City Council.  
Donate Today

Read more editions of the Resistance Brief.

Blog

The Resistance Brief: This week in the fight for justice

When the Supreme Court Fails Us

Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director

A roadblock versus a dead end. That is how I look at setbacks in this work. A roadblock is a temporary enclosure, and a dead end provides little to no opportunity for further forward movement.  Both are painful. We love this work, and we care deeply about our clients, so any time our movement is granted a less than favorable result it hurts profoundly.  

On May 6, the Supreme Court of the United States, in our partners’ case US v. Shilling, granted the Trump administration’s request to allow it to implement the transgender military ban. 

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is heartbreaking. We know the devastating and irreparable harm this will cause our 32 clients, and the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who are serving honorably and putting their lives on the line for our country  

Moreover, this sends a far reaching and dangerous signal to the American people about the permissible standard of how we treat transgender people. Transgender people deserve so much better. 

While this decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration, it’s not the end of the case. We are recognizing the roadblock and detouring to the next strategic move. The law is a fine art; we have ways to continue advocating for change even when doors appear to be closing. In moments like this, we acknowledge and experience the grief, and then set it aside to focus on the next right thing to do on behalf of our clients and our movement, and to uphold our democracy. In the short time I have been here, our staff has taught me that the practice of law requires creativity, innovation, and persuasion.  

Within 24 hours of the Supreme Court decision, our team filed a late-night letter brief informing the DC Circuit Court of Appeals – the court weighing the preliminary injunction in our case Talbott v. US – that the Supreme Court’s explanation-less order failed to consider animus. Therefore, the ruling does not control in Talbott, and the preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the ban should remain in effect.    

With our filing, we included the shameful public statements about transgender people made by the Secretary of Defense that debase both himself and all Americans through his rhetoric. We don’t know yet how the DC Court of Appeals will rule, but our challenge will continue in the courts no matter what. By continuing to fight, we embody our values and mission by embracing urgency and perseverance – building the collective will necessary to endure and effect meaningful change for LGBTQ+ people. 

Since the decision, our staff has had conversations with our plaintiffs and, while this is crushing news for them, they are clear that this is not the end of the road. They will continue fighting. Even while facing imminent upheaval and loss, these courageous clients are displaying consummate leadership, preparing to impart and transfer critical information to others in their unit. Always thinking about the mission first shows so much character, underscores their commitment to country, and exemplifies their high standard of professionalism. 

An unexpected rerouting can point us towards a path of least obstruction – towards a better tomorrow where the valor of service members is not questioned simply because of their gender. We remain committed to our strategy: stopping what we can, slowing what we can’t stop entirely, and working toward a future where everyone’s contributions are recognized and difference is valued for the vibrance it contributes to our communities and our country.  

When others fail to show up for us – whether it be the Supreme Court, elected officials, or even our own neighbors – it is all the more vital that we continue to show up for ourselves and for our community. And that’s something we’ll never stop doing.  

What to know, what to do: 

Donate Today

Read more editions of the Resistance Brief.

Blog

The Supreme Court Let the Ban Stand. Our Fight Continues. 

Blog by Joshua Rovenger, Legal Director (he/him) 

This week, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Shilling, a case brought by our partners challenging the administration’s ban, that paves the way for Trump’s purge of military service members while cases against the ban continue.  

I struggle to find the right words in moments like this. I know that there’s nothing to say to make the court’s decision easier, especially for the thousands of transgender servicemembers and their loved ones. So, I’ll just speak from the heart.

There’s been so much vitriol and chaos coming from the Executive Branch, that I often find it hard to focus on anything else, including the threat from this Court. I’m surprised to be surprised though; this Supreme Court has repeatedly told us who they are. They have been hostile to progressive values and overturned decades of long-standing law at break-neck pace.  

And yet, with so much coming at us from the President, my mind minimized that threat and even expected more from the Court. Today was a gut punch of a reminder. It can feel exhausting to swallow bad decision after bad decision from the Justices.   

My head and heart are also with our clients and community. As you know, the decision will have immediate impacts on them. It’s an almost unfathomable reality to accept that the President can simply target and harm trans service members in this way. It’s cruel for the sake of cruelty.   

At the same time, I’m also trying to focus on the gratitude I have for the GLAD Law team and our clients. Our clients are deeply courageous and patriotic. They are the best of this country. And we are committed to ensuring that others heard their story and will know the injustice of this outcome.  

The ruling, as awful as it is, is not the end of the case. Our litigation against the ban will continue. We will continue to ensure our plaintiffs’ stories are heard.  

I can’t pretend to know the perfect answer for what comes next, or the exact strategy to navigate the lawlessness we’re facing. But amidst the sadness and frustration, I have hope and pride.  

Hope, because we’re following in the footsteps of like-minded folks who also faced oppressive regimes and regressive Courts. For sure, they faced setbacks; and yet, they pushed the world forward. Our collective past tells us that we can do the same.  

Pride, because even in five short weeks as GLAD Law’s Legal Director, I have seen so much passion and commitment from this team, that it’s hard to imagine being anywhere else at this moment.  

We are all carrying a lot right now and we’ll all experience setbacks differently. As we navigate this and other attacks on our community together, I hope we all give each other some grace. And some space to grieve. We have a lot of work to do and many more cases to come. I can’t promise it will get easier or that we’ll win them all. But I know we’ll do the critical work — spending the coming days, weeks, and months thinking creatively and strategically to continue to meet this moment.  

I’m deeply grateful to be in this with all of you. 

Support the fight for justice

News

New Filing Says Secretary Hegseth’s Public Statements and the Talbott Case Make Clear the DC Circuit Must Address Whether the Transgender Military Ban is Based on Hostility or ‘Animus’

Late-night letter brief argues the Supreme Court’s explanation-less order in a different case—that did not consider animus—does not impact Talbott, and the preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the ban should remain in effect

WASHINGTON, DC—Last night, the plaintiffs in Talbott filed a letter brief with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals responding to yesterday’s Supreme Court order in the related Shilling case and alerting the court to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s open disparagement of transgender troops.

The letter brief notes that the Supreme Court order in the Shilling case yesterday is not binding on the DC Circuit’s pending resolution of the government’s request for a stay in Talbott. The Supreme Court’s order in Shilling does not explain the basis for its decision, and the district court’s reasoning in Talbott is different than in Shilling. The Talbott court found that the military ban is based on anti-transgender animus, which is not a constitutionally permissible basis for a government policy. The Shilling court did not rule on the issue of animus.

Plaintiffs in Talbott v. USA (formerly Talbott v. Trump), are 32 transgender servicemembers and recruits. U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes in Talbott issued the first nationwide preliminary injunction on March 18 blocking implementation of the transgender military ban resulting from President Trump’s 2025 executive order. In a forceful order in which Reyes held that the ban undermines national security and is likely unconstitutional, she called it “soaked with animus and dripping with pretext.”

Talbott v. USA attorney GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi stated:

“The American people are sick of cowardly doublespeak coming out of this administration. Secretary Hegseth’s comments about transgender troops are a disgrace to the military and all those who serve.”

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals could issue its decision at any time in response to the government’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction halts implementation of the ban and protects transgender servicemembers and recruits from its significant harms while the future of the ban is being decided in court. These harms include servicemembers being removed from deployments, denied commissions and promotions, placed on administrative leave, denied medically needed care, and ultimately being placed in involuntary separation proceedings, and imminent discharge.

Talbott v. Trump was the first legal challenge filed against President Trump’s recent transgender military ban executive order. The case is on behalf of 32 plaintiffs and was brought by LGBTQ+ legal groups GLAD Law and NCLR along with legal counsel from Wardenski P.C., Kropf Moseley PLCC, and Zalkind, Duncan + Bernstein. GLAD Law’s Jennifer Levi and NCLR’s Shannon Minter, the lead attorneys in this case, are transgender themselves and each have more than three decades of experience litigating landmark and key LGBTQ+ cases. Together, Levi and Minter led the legal fight in 2017 against the transgender military ban in Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump, which also secured a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking that ban.

Learn more about Talbott v. USA.

News

Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Shilling Blocking the Preliminary Injunction Protections and Greenlighting Implementation of Trump’s Transgender Military Ban

Ruling paves the way for a purge of highly qualified transgender service members

The Supreme Court of the United States today granted the Trump administration’s April 24 motion for an emergency stay in United States v. Shilling. This motion asked the Supreme Court to block a preliminary injunction preventing the ban from being implemented while the case is being heard in the courts,  following the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ April 18 decision to reject the Trump administration’s motion to stay and uphold the preliminary injunction.

The lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi and NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States and responded to today’s decision:

“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”

“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”

U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Hale Settle’s issuance of a preliminary injunction in Shilling followed an earlier ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes in Talbott v. Trump, where Judge Reyes issued the first nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the ban. In a forceful order in which Judge Reyes held that the ban undermines national security and is likely unconstitutional she called it “soaked with animus and dripping with pretext.”

Additionally, U.S. District Court Judge Christine P. O’Hearn issued a temporary restraining order in Ireland v. Hegseth, blocking the initiation of involuntary separation proceedings against plaintiffs Master Sergeant Logan Ireland and Staff Sergeant Nicholas Bear Bade—noting their “exemplary records” and deployments that included Afghanistan, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait. 

Department of Defense implementation of the ban to identify and separate transgender servicemembers had been slated to begin on March 28, a rapid timeframe former military leaders characterized as “rushed” and “alarming,” noting that the complexity of the military personnel system requires “months of careful planning and timelines.”

The preliminary injunctions in place had protected transgender servicemembers and recruits from significant harms by preventing the Department of Defense from initiating separation proceedings or otherwise enforcing the ban. These harms included servicemembers being removed from deployments, denied commissions and promotions, placed on administrative leave, denied medically needed care, and ultimately being placed in involuntary separation proceedings, a process used to address instances of misconduct.

Talbott v. Trump, the first legal challenge filed against President Trump’s transgender military ban executive order, is on behalf of 32 plaintiffs and brought by LGBTQ+ legal groups GLAD Law and NCLR with pro bono legal counsel from Wardenski P.C. and Kropf Moseley PLCC.

Ireland v. Hegseth was filed by GLAD Law, NCLR, and Stapleton Segal Cochran LLC and Langer Grogan & Diver P.C. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking immediate court action to prevent two longstanding, high-ranking Air Force servicemembers from being discharged from the military.GLAD Law’s Jennifer Levi and NCLR’s Shannon Minter, the lead attorneys in Talbott and Ireland, are transgender themselves and each have more than three decades of experience litigating landmark and key LGBTQ+ cases. Together, Levi and Minter led the legal fight in 2017 against the transgender military ban in Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump, which also secured a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking that ban.

Learn more about GLAD Law and NCLR’s case, Talbott v. USA.

Blog

The Resistance Brief: This week in the fight for justice

Day One. Day 100. Still Fighting.

Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director

On the 100th day of the second Trump administration, I had a chance to meet with a group of parents of LGBTQ+ children. Sitting in a circle, we went around the room introducing ourselves. Each introduction offered a window into the lives of people who have been directly impacted by the cruelty of executive actions targeting their families. At the close of the introductions, it was clear that the palpable feeling in the air wasn’t fear or desperation – it was love and defiance. The bold refusal to succumb to our circumstances was a testament to the power of unconditional love and the resilience of our community.

The following day, I joined GLAD Law staff, community partners, volunteers, and courageous attorneys at the National Law Day of Action event hosted by the Massachusetts Bar Association. The event, which takes place annually, took on a different significance this year as political pressure and threats to the profession and rule of law have grown.

Listening to hundreds of attorneys reaffirm their oaths of allegiance to the U.S. and Massachusetts constitutions was grounding. It was affirming to be in a sea of people who know the importance of using all aspects of the law to safeguard our families and protect our access to necessary health care and the ability to navigate life safely. Having them recommit to ensuring we remain a nation governed by law rather than one led by those who think they’re above it was beyond uplifting.

At a time when I know all of us are oscillating between fear, hope, sadness, frustration, and anger, these moments are welcome and cherished. This fuel – enriching my soul for whatever is to come – was serendipitous.

But before the fight continued, I thought the 100-day mark could be a good time to reflect on where we are and the results of our collective efforts. I hope you’ll join me and attorneys Jennifer Levi, Polly Crozier, and Chris Erchull on Wednesday’s community briefing to hear more about these efforts and thoughts on what lies ahead.

Day One:

On his first day in Office, President Trump issued a broad executive order that, among other things, required the Bureau of Prisons to transfer transgender women to men’s facilities and unlawfully withhold necessary medical care. The result: GLAD Law swiftly filed three different lawsuits and obtained preliminary injunctions in each, stopping transgender women from being transferred to men’s facilities where they face significantly increased risk of sexual assault.

The President’s day-one executive order also tries to deny individuals the ability to have their sex designation on their U.S. passport match their gender identity. Our coalition partners have filed suits on behalf of several individuals, and a federal court has blocked the order as applied to those individuals.

Transgender Military Ban:

Within a week of taking office, President Trump issued an order directing the discharge of all transgender individuals from the military. We fought back on behalf of the thousands of transgender service members and enlistees who meet and exceed the same rigorous military standards as others and who put their lives on the line to serve their country.

GLAD Law immediately filed a suit to challenge the ban. We subsequently filed a second lawsuit on the issue, and our coalition partners filed a companion case. The result: Our first case, Talbott v. USA, secured a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the ban, and our second case, Ireland v. Hegseth, achieved a temporary restraining order to protect two Air Force servicemembers who were facing immediate expulsion. The Trump Administration has sought the Supreme Court’s intervention in the Shilling v. USA case filed by Lambda Legal and Human Rights Campaign, and that request is currently pending. Yesterday, we filed an amicus brief on behalf of the dedicated servicemembers in Talbott, urging the Supreme Court to continue blocking enforcement of the ban.

Health Care:

The President has also issued orders attempting to deny federal funding to institutions that promote “gender ideology,” including government-funded coverage for transgender health care and restricting medical care for individuals under 19 years old. Our coalition partners and several states and physicians filed two separate lawsuits. They obtained preliminary injunctions to block enforcement of these lawless edicts.

Schools:

The administration has tried to use federal funding as a weapon to get schools to drop all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs. Our coalition partners have challenged many of the orders that try to block such DEI efforts, and, most recently, a federal court in New Hampshire blocked a Department of Education threat to do so.

Sports Bans:

On February 5, President Trump issued an executive order banning transgender girls from playing in girls’ sports. GLAD Law and the ACLU of New Hampshire are representing Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, two transgender high schoolers challenging the ban that aims to keep them and other trans girls from playing the sports they love with their friends. We originally filed the case as a challenge to a New Hampshire state law, but we expanded it to include President Trump and his executive order to ban trans girls from sports nationwide. That case is pending.

Looking Forward:

While the fight continues, these early court victories are crucial – they have given us time to build stronger protections and help us educate the American public about what’s at stake. The stage is set for GLAD Law and our partners to build off this success and continue to delay and defeat this administration’s attempts to illegally strip LGBTQ+ Americans of their fundamental rights.

What to know, what to do: 

Donate Today

Read more editions of the Resistance Brief.

News

Transgender Servicemembers in Talbott Urge the Supreme Court to Continue to Prevent Implementation of the Transgender Military Ban

Brief calls out harm of “unprecedented” and “unAmerican” plan to target transgender servicemembers for immediate discharge; even Trump’s short-lived 2018 ban never resulted in more than a temporary pause in recruitment

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, the plaintiffs, 32 transgender servicemembers and recruits, in Talbott v. USA (formerly Talbott v. Trump) filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States, urging the Court to leave multiple preliminary injunctions in place preventing implementation of President Trump’s transgender military ban.

On April 18, the Trump administration filed an emergency motion with the Supreme Court in United States v. Shilling, requesting that it stay the preliminary injunction in that case, which was put in place by the courts to prevent irreparable harms associated with the ban while the case is being heard in court. Both the constitutionality and lack of any rational reason or data underpinning the ban have come under fire during this litigation. Past filings have indicated there are currently thousands of distinguished transgender servicemembers in critical roles who have deployed globally and earned numerous commendations.

On March 18, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia Ana Reyes issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the transgender military ban in Talbott. In a forceful order in which she held that the ban undermines national security and is likely unconstitutional, calling it “soaked with animus and dripping with pretext.” That injunction halted implementation of the ban and protected transgender servicemembers and recruits from its significant harms while the future of the ban is being decided in court. These harms include servicemembers being removed from deployments, denied commissions and promotions, placed on administrative leave, denied medically needed care, and ultimately being placed in involuntary separation proceedings, a process used to address instances of misconduct. On March 28, U.S. District Court Judge for the 9th Circuit Benjamin H. Settle issued a second nationwide preliminary injunction in Shilling v. Trump.

The lead attorneys in Talbott v. Trump, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi and NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter, issued the following statements:

“The government has not and cannot provide any rational reason to justify the systematic purge of transgender troops who are meeting all performance standards. In fact, the government has actually conceded that each active-duty plaintiff is honorable, disciplined, and fit to serve,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “In the absence of reason or data, the government has attempted to frame this insidious ban as a run-of-the-mill medical policy. But the naked animus within the language of the ban—and its focus on lobbing insults at the ‘honesty,’ ‘discipline,’ and ‘integrity’ of all transgender servicemembers makes clear that the ban is meant to describe people, not a medical condition. Existing policies do not describe a person with diabetes or a heart condition as dishonest or lacking integrity.”

“The government falsely claims its request for a stay would only require the Supreme Court to do what has been done before, when in reality, it is asking for a shocking, unprecedented purge of thousands of current servicemembers for a reason unrelated to their ability to serve,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “This type of mass purge has never before happened in our nation’s history. It would cause an avalanche of irreparable harms that would stain the records of thousands of our nation’s heroes who have been deployed and served around the globe in critical missions. There is no precedent for such a devastating and wholly un-American betrayal of dedicated troops.”

Talbott v. Trump was the first legal challenge filed against President Trump’s recent transgender military ban executive order. The case is on behalf of 32 plaintiffs and was brought by LGBTQ+ legal groups GLAD Law and NCLR with pro bono legal counsel from Wardenski P.C. and Kropf Moseley PLCC.

GLAD Law’s Jennifer Levi and NCLR’s Shannon Minter, the lead attorneys in this case, are transgender themselves and each have more than three decades of experience litigating landmark and key LGBTQ+ cases. Together, Levi and Minter led the legal fight in 2017 against the transgender military ban in Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump, which also secured a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking that ban.

A link to the full amicus brief is available here.

Blog

The Resistance Brief: This week in the fight for justice

Radical Joy

Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director

On Monday, I spent my first Patriots’ Day – a holiday in Massachusetts and a few other states marking the start of the American Revolution – moderating a conversation with author Nico Lang about his new book, American Teenager, in Manchester, New Hampshire. The book features stories of transgender adolescents across the country and how they are “surviving hate and finding joy in a turbulent era.”

The event was hosted at the Bookery, an independent bookstore and “hub for local art, political discussion, and community events.” Upon arriving, I noticed two protestors with signs hanging around their necks. The unkind, mean-spirited messages they carried were meant to invalidate the existence of trans people and intimidate attendees. I’m no stranger to protesters showing up at LGBTQ+ spaces – Pride events, advocacy rallies, community meetups. But this was the first time I can recall feeling a profound sadness for them.

I imagined them scrolling through the internet, searching for just the right inflammatory image and slogan for their signs. The money they spent printing them. The effort it took to travel to the Bookery with the sole intention of intimidating and invalidating people.

Inside the Bookery, the vibe was completely different. Smiling faces greeted us upon arrival. The well-lit space gave the illusion of a sunny day. Attendees patiently waited for the conversation to begin, seated near the floor-to-ceiling windows that barely separated us from the protestors outside. Very little was said about them. People were there to connect, to be in community.

During the conversation with Nico, I asked about a passage in the book that described moments of joy as “coasting on bliss,” and what that meant to them. They explained that the phrase refers to those fleeting moments of joy we create – despite the stress and agony that may surround us – that we don’t want to end. Looking back, it felt like an important question to ask given the vitriolic signs attendees had to confront upon entry.

And there is no shortage of animosity and hostility – what lawyers and the courts refer to as animus – around us right now. Whether it’s the federal government issuing executive orders seemingly designed to harm a particular group, lawmakers introducing bills that deliberately and systematically push marginalized people further into the margins, or emboldened vigilantes showing up to LGBTQ+ affirming spaces – we are experiencing a dangerous void of empathy and compassion.

Maybe this is why the presence of the protestors left such an impression. They were the personification of the erosion of the golden rule.

So much of what we’re fighting for is the basic human right to be treated with dignity and respect. When people show up to a book talk just to broadcast their hostility – or the government adopts policies born out of animus – it stands in stark contrast to the unalienable right we all deserve: the right to pursue happiness.

And yet, at a time when kindness and sympathy can be hard to find – when people grow so despondent they abandon hope – we must endure. This is where queer joy becomes essential – as a form of resistance. Navigating and overcoming hardship can only happen when fueled by something of the heart – something joyful.

Queer joy is subversive. It is resistance in the form of authenticity – an affront to societal demands to shrink, to hide, to conform. It stands boldly against the discrimination and hostility facing our community.

Joy, in this context, isn’t frivolous or naive. It’s radical. It’s intentional. It’s a refusal to be consumed by the wave of hatred from this administration that we have been faced with. Where there is joy, there is life – and where there is life, there is resistance.

On Monday at the Bookery, the protestors’ signs stayed outside, but our joy stayed with us. We talked, we laughed, we connected. The kids in Nico’s book aren’t just surviving – they’re building futures, finding friends, and laughing in the face of cruelty. That’s the story the protestors can’t touch. That’s the spark laws and executive orders can’t extinguish.

Because animus can’t fill a heart with love, but joy can.

So make space for your own moments of joy – on the dance floor, in the pages of a book, rewatching your favorite movie, or gathering together in community. Let those moments recharge you and remind you why we continue to fight.

What to know, what to do: 

Donate Today

Read more editions of the Resistance Brief.

Blog

The Resistance Brief: This week in the fight for justice

Contempt of Court

Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director

Because I work with some of the best legal minds out there, many friends, community members – even strangers – often turn to me for answers. After learning what I do for a living, they turn to me to give them hope and reassure them that our legal system will make certain justice and order prevail. Sometimes, they ask the impossible.

Now, we are nearly 100 days into Trump’s second presidency, and I’m noticing many more people expressing the fear that we are inching closer – or have already crossed – into constitutional crisis. I am also witnessing them process their grief in real-time as they reconcile feelings related to the current state of affairs – the weight of what someone recently described as the “eroding norms of our former democracy” displayed on their face.

One of the questions I am asked most often is related to our checks and balances: What happens if the President defies the courts? In other words, what if two branches of government are at a standstill because the executive is deliberately unwilling to respect the role of the judicial?

The Constitution has checks and balances to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. Article Three establishes the judicial branch and the courts. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have reaffirmed the courts’ power to interpret the law and declare actions as unlawful or unconstitutional. Yet the process of ensuring compliance with a court’s decision remains more nebulous.

Historically, the executive branch’s deference to the courts has helped uphold their role as arbiters of justice and judicial review. When things are working how they should, the executive and legislative branches of government comply with a court’s decision – even if they disagree. It’s why President Biden couldn’t implement his student loan plan or why, despite his personal opinion, President Eisenhower honored his duty to desegregate schools after Brown v. Board of Education and subsequent federal court orders. While they may have vehemently disagreed with the court’s decisions, they respected its authority. Upholding the judiciary’s legitimacy has been a longstanding norm – it’s a presidential tradition.

But today, that tradition is unraveling, placing us in a precarious moment. The current President has publicly questioned the credibility of judges and framed their decisions only as legitimate when they support his plans and fall along partisan lines. Most concerning are recent cases in which the Administration appears to be ignoring court orders. So, what are the courts to do in cases like these?

Judges have the power to hold parties in contempt of court. Contempt is an act of defiance or disrespect towards a court ruling. When someone is found in contempt, a judge can enforce stricter orders, like court oversight, monetary fines, and even jail. They can also sanction attorneys who mislead the court or assist in defying court orders. Recently, the District Court for the District of Columbia found probable cause to hold Administration officials in criminal contempt for violating its order to turn around a plane flying immigrants to an El Salvador prison.

If the courts exhaust those options, they can call on U.S. Marshals to help enforce court orders. However, the Marshals operate under the direction of the U.S. Attorney General, who may be unwilling to participate in enforcing a court order not favorable to the Administration.

While all of this is undoubtedly alarming, there is a sliver of hope. The Administration’s recent defiance is not outright – not yet. Their responses often come in the form of cleverly manipulated interpretations of court orders, designed to twist the truth and allow for optical control. While their view of the orders may reek of bad faith, it still suggests that they see some line the American people won’t allow them to cross – that they can’t just assert the blatantly unconstitutional power to ignore the courts.

So, what other guardrails exist to prevent us from succumbing to fascism?

Congress, the third branch of government, has the power to pass laws and monitor and investigate the executive branch’s activities. But, out of fear or unquestioning loyalty to the President, and with the convenient excuse of a narrow margin in both the House and Senate, some members of Congress are refusing their responsibility to the Constitution and their constituents and giving up their power to scrutinize the Administration’s actions.

The short answer is we don’t know exactly how this will play out. But that doesn’t mean we can’t get creative and innovative about the ways we push back.

At a time when we have limited institutional power, GLAD Law has embraced a strategy that exposes the cracks in a broken system, delays harmful policies from going into effect, counters efforts to further divide us, and uses all aspects of law to uphold liberty, equality, and democracy.

Ultimately, the government’s power comes from the people. And we have already seen this Administration back down and accept limits when public outcry demands it. The people may ultimately be the ones who adjudicate justice with their voices and actions. We just need to continue showing up – protesting peacefully, with our wallets, through the power of our votes, and protecting our neighbors. Already, people are thinking creatively. The hands-off nationwide protests, the upcoming Law Day of Action, and the economic boycotts earlier this year are just a few reminders that, despite the hostile landscape, we are not powerless.

What to know, what to do: 

Donate Today

Read more editions of the Resistance Brief.

en_USEnglish
es_MXEspañol de México en_USEnglish
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

To learn more, visit our privacy policy.