Alabama Know Your Rights - Page 2 of 2 - GLAD Law
Skip Header to Content
GLAD Logo Skip Primary Navigation to Content

News

Parents and doctors express relief that transgender adolescents will be able to continue receiving necessary medical care while their challenge to SB 184 proceeds.

An Alabama federal district court judge has issued a ruling blocking enforcement of Alabama SB 184 while a legal challenge to the law proceeds.  SB 184 criminalizes parents who seek to get essential medical care for their transgender children’s needs. It provides up to 10 years in prison as penalty for anyone, including doctors and parents, who assists in getting the care these young people need.

The suit, Rev. Eknes-Tucker v. Marshall, is brought by four Alabama parents from across the state on the grounds that it strips them of the right to make important decisions about their children’s healthcare. They are joined by a private practice pediatrician in rural Southeast Alabama, a clinical psychologist with the UAB medical system, and Reverend Paul Eknes-Tucker, Senior Pastor at Pilgrim United Church of Christ in Birmingham, all of whom could face criminal penalties under the law. The U.S. Department of Justice has also joined the suit as plaintiff-intervenor challenging the constitutionality of the law which would deny established medical treatments to youth who are transgender but not to others.

The ruling follows a two-day evidentiary hearing May 5 and 6 at which doctors and medical experts described the well-established safety and efficacy of medical care for transgender youth who experience gender dysphoria and the damage to children’s health when such care is denied. The Court received evidence confirming that over 22 major medical organizations recognize the established course of care for transgender youth. The court also heard from plaintiff parents, in briefing and in closed-court testimony, about the profoundly positive impact access to appropriate medical care has had on their children’s health and wellbeing and the devastating harm that would come from having to stop treatment.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Alabama Chapter of the Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and other state and national medical organizations submitted a friend-of-the-court brief describing the consensus in the medical community supporting standards of care for transgender youth and opposing laws like SB 184 that criminalize and ban proven, necessary care.

Plaintiff Megan Poe, mother of 15-year-old Allison of Northern Alabama:
“Like any parent my biggest daily concern is that my child is healthy, happy and safe. It is a tremendous relief to know that my daughter will be able to continue receiving the support and care she needs and that has allowed her to become the confident, engaged teenager she is. While I know many people may not understand what it means to have a transgender child I am grateful the court listened to the experience of my family and other families like ours who have been terrified about what SB 184 will bring. Blocking the law means we can breathe just a little easier until we hopefully see it stopped for good.”

Reverend Paul Eknes-Tucker, who has served as Senior Pastor at historic Pilgrim Church UCC since 2015:
“I have spoken with many families who have seen their transgender children flourish with the right care and support. Those same families have shared their anguish with me over what would happen to their children if this law takes effect. I’m heartened by this ruling which will lessen their worry for the immediate future so they can focus on continuing to support their kids.”

Dr. Rachel Koe, pediatrician in private practice in rural Southeast Alabama:
“Parents want and need to be able to seek trusted medical advice and care to support their children’s health, and interrupting care mid-treatment can have devastating consequences. This ruling is a reprieve for transgender children who can continue to get the care they need and for parents who want to do what’s best for their kids.”

James Zoe, father of 13-year-old Zachary of Birmingham:
“This ruling means that we will be able to continue providing our child with the medical care he needs and nothing could be more important or more of a relief to our family. Alabama is our home and we hope this cruel law will not be allowed to force us from it. We are fighting for our child and will continue fighting so that he and all transgender youth in Alabama remain able to receive appropriate medical care.”

The families challenging the law come from across the state and are proceeding anonymously due to the risk of criminal prosecution under SB 184 as well as for their privacy and safety. They are Brianna Boe and her 12-year-old transgender son, Michael Boe of Montgomery; James Zoe and his 13-year-old transgender son Zachary Zoe of Birmingham; Megan Poe and her 15-year-old transgender daughter Allison Poe of Northern Alabama; and Kathy Noe and her 17-year-old-transgender son Christopher Noe of Eastern Alabama.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC, King & Spalding LLP, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).

“This ruling means that parents of transgender children in Alabama will continue to be able to make the healthcare decisions that are best for their families. It is an extraordinary relief. Parents should not be punished for wanting to do what’s best for their kids,” said Jennifer Levi, GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director.

“This ruling lessens the enormous stress families across Alabama have been under since SB 184 passed last month. A state should not criminalize parents and doctors for following medical guidelines and providing needed medical treatments,” said NCLR Senior Staff Attorney and Transgender Youth Project Director Asaf Orr.

“We’re grateful the court heard the powerful pleas from the families and providers who would be so harmed by this law. Parents should never be put in the unimaginable position of choosing between denying their transgender children needed healthcare or facing prison,” said Sarah Warbelow, HRC Legal Director.

“Blocking enforcement of SB 184 supports the well-being of transgender youth in Alabama and the rights of parents who under the law would be prohibited from seeking the best possible care for their children,” said Scott McCoy, SPLC Interim Deputy Legal Director LGBTQ Rights & Special Litigation.

Learn more about the case.

Boe v. Marshall

Jump to Documents

This case is also known as Eknes-Tucker v. Ivey.

Summary

Facing criminal penalties and a devastating loss of essential medical care for their children, Alabama parents, medical providers, and Rev. Eknes-Tucker of Pilgrim UCC Church in Birmingham are asking a federal court to block a law criminalizing well-established medical care for transgender youth from taking effect.

The law, SB 184, punishes parents and their children’s doctors for providing – or even suggesting – well-established essential medical care for their transgender children. The punishment can include up to 10 years in prison.

The plaintiffs are represented by GLAD, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Human Rights Campaign, Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC, and King & Spalding LLP.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

The filing in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama – Northern Division is on behalf of four Alabama parents, a private practice pediatrician, a clinical psychologist with the UAB medical system, and Reverend Paul Eknes-Tucker, Senior Pastor at Pilgrim United Church of Christ in Birmingham. The court filing explains that the law strips them of the right to make important decisions about their children’s healthcare.

A hearing on plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction took place on May 5, 2022 in Montgomery. Days later, a federal judge halted the law from being enforced while the lawsuit continued.

On July 1, 2024, plaintiff families challenging Alabama’s ban on health care for transgender adolescents asked the court to deny the State’s request to rule on the lawfulness of the ban before a full trial.

The Plaintiffs’ filing meticulously refutes false claims made in the State’s motion for summary judgment about the established standards of medical care for transgender adolescents. The Plaintiffs’ brief cites expert evidence about the rigorous development of those standards, the careful assessment and multidisciplinary approach involved in the delivery of care to transgender adolescents in Alabama, and the well-established benefits of care for transgender adolescents suffering from gender dysphoria.

The families challenging the ban argue that rather than short-circuit the process as the State requests, the case must be allowed to proceed to trial to ensure full consideration of the factual record on the safety and efficacy of transgender health care, the harm suffered by transgender adolescents when they are denied necessary care, and the purposeful discrimination against transgender people that motivated the sweeping ban.

11th Circuit Court of Appeals

In August 2022, the State of Alabama appealed the district court’s May 13 order blocking the law from being enforced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The plaintiffs filed a response brief urging the Court of Appeals to keep the injunction against SB 184 in place, citing the district court’s reliance on well-established, evidence-based medical standards and parents’ fundamental right to obtain medical care for their children.

Later that month, families, medical experts, faith groups, and 21 states filed amicus (friend-of-the-court) briefs urging the court not to reinstate the law criminalizing healthcare for transgender youth. You can find those filings below.

On August 21, 2023, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision ending the freeze on the ban. Alabama parents have since requested a hearing by the full 11th Circuit to reinstate the pause so their children can continue accessing essential medical care.

In January 2024 the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order allowing Alabama’s ban on medical care for transgender adolescents to take effect. This order grants a request by the state of Alabama to stay the trial court’s 2022 decision blocking the law from being enforced while the challenge against it proceeds.

Latest filings:

New Report:

A new report by legal and medical experts from Yale Law School, the Yale School of Medicine’s Child Study Center and Departments of Psychiatry and Pediatrics, and the University of Texas Southwestern gives an in-depth analysis of misleading scientific claims that informed Alabama’s move to criminalize medical treatment for transgender youth.

News

Alabama Parents, Joined by Minister and Medical Providers, Seek Emergency Court Order Blocking Law that Will Criminalize their Transgender Children’s Ongoing Medical Care

Facing criminal penalties and a devastating loss of essential medical care for their children, four Alabama parents from across the state, joined by two medical providers and Rev. Eknes-Tucker of Pilgrim UCC Church in Birmingham will ask a federal court to block SB 184 from taking effect

Four Alabama parents are asking a federal court to stop SB 184 from taking effect on May 8, saying the law strips them of the right to make important decisions about their children’s healthcare. SB 184 punishes parents and their children’s doctors for providing – or even suggesting – well-established essential medical care for their transgender children. The punishment can include up to 10 years in prison.

The new legal challenge, Rev. Eknes-Tucker v. Ivey was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama – Northern Division. Because the plaintiffs face criminal penalties and a dangerous loss of necessary medical care for their children under SB 184 they will ask the court to block the law from going into effect while their case against it proceeds.

Joining four Alabama parents in their challenge to SB 184 are a private practice pediatrician in rural Southeast Alabama, a clinical psychologist with the UAB medical system, and Reverend Paul Eknes-Tucker, Senior Pastor at Pilgrim United Church of Christ in Birmingham.

The families asking the court to block the law come from across the state and are proceeding anonymously due to the risk of criminal prosecution under SB 184. They are Brianna Boe and her 12-year-old transgender son, Michael Boe of Montgomery; James Zoe and his 13-year-old transgender son Zachary Zoe of Birmingham; Megan Poe and her 15-year-old transgender daughter Allison Poe of Northern Alabama; and Kathy Noe and her 17-year-old-transgender son Christopher Noe of Eastern Alabama.

The two medical providers are also proceeding anonymously due to the risk of criminal prosecution.

“As a minister I counsel parents with transgender children about how best to love and support their children. Under SB 184, those conversations now come with a risk of criminal prosecution,” said Reverend Paul Eknes-Tucker, who has served as Senior Pastor at historic Pilgrim Church UCC since 2015. “This dangerous law is an unthinkable infringement on parental rights and the freedom of pastors and other faith leaders to counsel their own parishioners. This law is destructive not only to families in Alabama, but to the freedoms and values Alabamians hold dear.”

“I know people who don’t have a transgender child may not understand my experience. I have done everything I can to learn about what my daughter is going through, and being able to seek guidance from our pediatrician and medical specialists was a turning point for our family,” said Megan Poe, mother of 15-year-old Allison of Northern Alabama. “With that support and care Allison has become a confident and social teenager who is thriving in school. Without it, I’m terrified she will again become withdrawn, depressed, or even worse. I only want what’s best for my daughter, like any parent. For the state to take away my ability to provide that essential care and support is unthinkable.”

“Our family is challenging this cruel law because it infringes on our ability as parents to ensure our child receives appropriate medical care, and targets transgender youth simply for being transgender,” said James Zoe, father of 13-year-old Zachary of Birmingham. “We have the choice to leave our home state of Alabama, or stay and fight. We have chosen to fight for our child and for all transgender children in Alabama. In the end, we believe this unfair law will be overturned and we will be able to continue providing our child with the medical care he needs.”

“Parents come to me seeking trusted medical advice but under SB 184 both I and the parents consulting me are subject to a prison sentence for even discussing the best recommendations for supporting their children’s health,” said Dr. Rachel Koe, pediatrician in private practice in rural Southeast Alabama. “SB 184 criminalizes effective, established medical treatment that is recognized as the standard of care in the medical field, including by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association.”

The plaintiffs in Rev. Eknes-Tucker v. Ivey are represented by Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC, King & Spalding LLP, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).

“The parents challenging this law, like all parents, want what’s best for their kids, but SB 184 punishes them for that. This is a dangerous law that undermines the ability of Alabama parents to make the best healthcare decisions for their families,” said Jennifer Levi, GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director. 

“Allowing SB 184 to go into effect will cause enormous stress and harm to families across Alabama. A state should not criminalize parents and doctors for following medical guidelines and providing needed medical treatments,” said NCLR Senior Staff Attorney and Transgender Youth Project Director Asaf Orr.

“SB 184 disregards the well-being of transgender youth in Alabama and disrespects the rights of parents who under this law are prohibited from seeking the best possible care for their children,” said Scott McCoy, SPLC Interim Deputy Legal Director LGBTQ Rights & Special Litigation.

“These care providers and families want nothing more than to do what’s best for their children, yet SB 184 threatens them with criminal penalties for providing critically important care that is often life-saving for transgender youth,” said Sarah Warbelow, HRC Legal Director.

Follow the case page for the latest updates.


The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a catalyst for racial justice in the South and beyond, working in partnership with communities to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance the human rights of all people.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) is a national legal organization committed to advancing the human and civil rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education. Since its founding, NCLR has maintained a longstanding commitment to racial and economic justice and the LGBTQ community’s most vulnerable.

Through strategic litigation, public policy advocacy, and education, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders works in New England and nationally to create a just society free of discrimination based on gender identity and expression, HIV status, and sexual orientation.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. HRC envisions a world where LGBTQ+ people are embraced as full members of society at home, at work and in every community.

Ladinsky v. Ivey

Update: This case was dismissed in 2022. Check out the Boe v. Marshall case page to learn more about our pending litigation against SB184.

Gender-affirming care is necessary, lifesaving care. We’re suing to stop Alabama’s criminalization of healthcare for transgender youth.

On April 8, 2022, Governor Kay Ivey signed SB 184 into law. The bill punishes parents for making important decisions about their children’s healthcare and doctors for providing – or even suggesting – well-established medically necessary care. The punishment can include up to 10 years in prison.

The same day, GLAD, along with the National Center for Transgender Rights, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Human Rights Campaign filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of two Alabama families and two medical providers.

SB 184 is an appalling attack on transgender youth, their families, and medical providers. It will not hold up in court.

Learn more about the case.

Read the filing.

Corbitt v. Taylor

GLAD co-authored an amicus (friend of the court) brief in the 11th Circuit case Corbitt v. Taylor about Alabama’s needless and unjust requirement for transgender people to undergo surgery to update their driver’s license. As the brief explains,

“The Amici Curiae write to highlight the arbitrary and irrational nature of Alabama’s policy to require transgender people to undergo genital surgery to obtain an accurate driver’s license. Requiring surgery contradicts the medical consensus and standards of care and presents an insurmountable barrier for many transgender people to obtain state-issued identification that reflects who they are. This policy inflicts concrete harms on transgender people and undermines social stability by impeding their ability to engage in a wide range of important activities, from voting to obtaining housing and employment. A majority of states and the federal government, understanding the need to track contemporary medical standards and adopt policies that promote economic and social stability and positive health outcomes, have aligned their policies to enable transgender people to obtain identification that matches who they are. In contrast, Alabama’s policy denies transgender people equal protection and serves no legitimate government interests.”

Read the amicus brief.

Amici include the following state, regional, and national organizations:

  • Equality Federation
  • Equality Florida
  • Equality Maine
  • Equality Ohio Education Fund
  • Equality South Dakota
  • Equality Texas
  • Family Equality
  • Fairness Campaign
  • FreeState Justice
  • Maryland’s LGBTQ Advocates
  • Garden State Equality
  • Georgia Equality
  • GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD)
  • Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
  • MassEquality
  • Mass. Trans Political Coalition
  • National Center for Lesbian Rights
  • One Colorado
  • PROMO
  • Southern Legal Counsel, Inc.
  • TransOhio, Inc.
  • Wyoming Equality

V.L. v. E.L.

March 7, 2016: Victory! The U.S. Supreme Court today reversed the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision in which it refused to recognize a lesbian mother’s Georgia adoption of her three children. GLAD congratulates the adoptive mother, V.L. and her children, as well our friends at NCLR on this important victory for all families. Many thanks to Foley Hoag LLP who joined GLAD in submitting an amicus brief to the Court on behalf of Equality Alabama Foundation, Equality Federation, Georgia Equality, the Human Rights Campaign, Immigration Equality, the National Black Justice Coalition, the National Center for Transgender Equality, the National LGBTQ Task Force, PFLAG, the Stonewall Bar of Georgia, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Background:

GLAD and Foley Hoag LLP have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to grant review in the Alabama second-parent adoption case, V.L. v. E.L., No. 15-648.

V.L. and E.L. are former lesbian partners who agreed to have and raise three children together but are now separated. Before their separation, the two had obtained an adoption judgment in Georgia making V.L. a legal parent. After their separation, the birth mother, E.L., took the position that the Alabama courts could disregard Georgia’s judgment of adoption. The Alabama Supreme Court agreed, holding that E.L. was the children’s only legal parent.

The brief urges the Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that Alabama cannot disregard the Georgia adoption judgment simply because Alabama believes the Georgia court’s adoption order should not have issued in the first place. If states disregard each other’s adoptions, it will severely undermine the security, stability, and predictability of parent-child relations secured by adoption and parentage judgments across the nation.

The amicus brief was filed on behalf of GLAD, Equality Alabama Foundation, Equality Federation, Georgia Equality, the Human Rights Campaign, Immigration Equality, the National Black Justice Coalition, the National Center for Transgender Equality, the National LGBTQ Task Force, PFLAG, the Stonewall Bar of Georgia, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The Foley Hoag team on the brief included Marco J. Quina, Claire Laporte, Catherine Deneke, Jenevieve Maerker, and Kevin J. Conroy, with assistance from paralegal Margaret McKane.

en_USEnglish
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.