Early July 2025* | Register
The Supreme Court will release multiple decisions this session that impact LGBTQ+ people and HIV justice. Sign up for our community briefing to learn from our attorneys what these decisions mean for our community.
*Exact date to be confirmed, but we expect outcomes in early July.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director
The battle for fundamental rights and protections has been waging for decades, and the United States Supreme Court has remained influential on the battlefield.
Supreme Court cases centered around LGBTQ+ rights are rare and typically focus on individual rights, due process, and equal protection. Over the past 40 years, the Supreme Court’s decisions on LGBTQ+ cases have shifted from upholding sweeping laws that criminalized “homosexual conduct” to maintaining that federal law protects LGBTQ+ employees from discrimination.
Each year, the Supreme Court receives thousands of requests to hear cases but usually takes fewer than 100. The justices vote on which ones to hear. If at least four justices agree, the case moves forward – this is known as the “rule of four.” But it’s a tradition, not a rule. The Constitution sets only limited guidelines for what kinds of cases the Court must hear, but it often takes cases that are of national significance or involve disagreements in lower federal courts.
This term, the Court is hearing many cases that will impact Americans’ daily lives and the future of our democracy. Three of the cases are particularly consequential for LGBTQ+ Americans’ ability to live freely and access life-saving care.
The opinions in these cases will have a lasting impact on the lives of LGBTQ+ people. They will shape public policy, establish good or bad precedents, impact whether we can access the health care we need, and determine if books featuring LGBTQ+ characters and stories could be banned in some schools based on the claim of religious freedom.
If the issues central to the cases give you déjà vu, it’s likely because these topics have been fought for decades. For nearly 50 years, we have fought to raise awareness, fight stigma, and remove barriers to health care. We demanded action by the federal government to address the AIDS epidemic and remove homosexuality from the international classification of diseases. And we continue the fight to maintain access to health care for transgender and gender nonconforming people and defeat and repeal “no promo homo” laws and “Don’t Say Gay or Trans” bills that remove or omit our stories from books and curriculum.
But it’s hard not to feel like this is an inflection point that will shape the fight for years to come. After years of recycling tactics from the Anita Bryant days in the 1970s, anti-LGBTQ+ lawmakers have zeroed in and coalesced around a social-political strategy that exploits knowledge gaps that people have about transgender Americans. Their goal is to challenge generally accepted values and norms of decency, liberty, and equality. By exploiting the knowledge gap about LGBTQ+ issues and filling it with disinformation, they are manufacturing outrage to then use as an excuse to attack us. The public discourse – reaching a fever pitch – has undoubtedly influenced the selection of these cases. And the decisions are in the hands of a Supreme Court with a conservative majority.
These cases – and many others now pending throughout the court system – test not only the limits of the law but also our collective commitment to equity and justice. This is an opportunity for the Supreme Court Justices to delegitimize efforts to eradicate LGBTQ+ people from public life and to signal that these attacks conflict with the Constitution.
Cases like these remind us of what’s at stake for our community. But they also emphasize that we are a community that refuses to be erased, silenced, or sidelined. We feel confident in the merits of these cases and how they should be decided, but no matter the outcomes, no court, public official, or politician can invalidate our identities. We will continue to fight for each other and for a future where we can all thrive, together.
Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director
The Resistance Brief: Choosing Uncommon Courage
The current administration’s intimidation campaign is in full effect. We are witnessing attacks on academic freedom, corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, state and local governments, courts and judges, and now lawyers and law firms.
This is a comprehensive strategy to neutralize legal opposition, obliterate the separation of government powers, and block any pushback from institutions with broad influence and the power to act as arbiters of justice. It is a deeply disturbing pattern that demands loyalty along partisan lines above all else.
Unfortunately, we have seen some of the very entities that should be working to uphold and fortify the rule of law – including a handful of major law firms – bend a knee to these tyrannical abuses of power instead.
As an organization committed to using the tools of the law to uphold human rights and dignity, watching powerful law firms commit millions of dollars in pro bono work to the Trump administration to avoid sanctions has been especially disheartening and alarming. We cannot allow the legal profession’s independence to be compromised, or we risk undermining the very mechanisms that guard against autocracy.
Such anticipatory obedience may be an attempt to emerge unscathed from a period of political turmoil – but the decision to roll over and submit is anchored in fear and delusion. As we’ve seen time and again from this administration, the goalposts are in a constant state of flux. And as history clearly shows us, the more these firms acquiesce to bullying and unconstitutional tactics now, the more will be demanded of them to stay in the regime’s “good graces” in the future.
Caving to power should not be the accepted standard – especially when there are other options.
While some firms have made a “business decision” to cave to the demands of this administration for self-preservation – and ignored the historical consequences of this approach – others are resisting. WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, Williams & Connolly, Perkins Coie, and Keker, Van Nest & Peters are just some of the firms that have decided to fight back publicly and disrupt lawless power grabs. Williams & Connolly filed a lawsuit representing Perkins Coie in its challenge to the executive order targeting them, and was granted a temporary restraining order shortly after. And Keker, Van Nest & Peters penned a New York Times op-ed, Our Law Firm Won’t Cave to Trump. Who Will Join Us?
Theirs is not a rhetorical question. We’ve asked the same thing: Who will join us?
This is an all-hands-on-deck moment – where every institution and person in public service should think strategically about the role they will play in protecting our democracy.
Last month, I attended the Pro Bono Conference in Washington, D.C. and had several conversations with pro bono counsel who attended. Many of them confided in me that the Trump administration’s attacks on law firms have caused a chilling effect, and, as a result, their firms are apprehensive about publicly partnering with advocacy organizations. This is some of what we must contend with as we seek justice and work to uphold the rule of law and judicial review. Luckily, there were also organizations present who were boldly stepping up and eager to practice uncommon courage.
Fear is natural, but it cannot be what guides us. I have learned that on the other side of fear is a path forward, towards justice. We must ask ourselves the right questions to think and act courageously, even in the face of peril. If we have limited power now, the right first question might be: How do we build power?
In last week’s Resistance Brief, I wrote about some of the tangible steps we can take to prevent the proliferation of political violence: staying informed, contacting representatives, supporting local equality organizations, donating often and generously. What I didn’t mention explicitly was that all those suggested actions can foster an environment of agency, empowerment, community, and defiance – which, in turn, can help protect our democracy.
Compounding power by remaining coordinated, building coalitions, and uniting in a shared vision helps interrupt corruption and builds public confidence in our institutions, making us all feel braver. This is why Keker, Van Nest & Peters’s op-ed is a timely example of an effort to unite a profession known for its creativity, moxie, boldness, and independence.
Compounding power also creates layers of resistance, made up of groups and individuals coming together to develop a diverse and well-resourced coalition, ready to collectively challenge threats to our democracy whenever possible. This is the way we rebuild healthy political and societal norms. This is how we forge innovative partnerships that allow us to urgently and aggressively pursue justice for LGBTQ+ people. And GLAD Law is already forging those partnerships with courageous firms like Stapleton Segal Cochran LLC and Langer Grogan & Diver P.C., who have stepped up to join us on several of our 6 legal challenges to Trump’s executive orders.
History offers us many examples of times when communities have risen to meet the moment, despite the risk, because the long-term payoff was worth it. We are safeguarding the futures of generations to come – to have a shot at perfecting and living out the promise of freedom our constitution grants us.
Someday, future generations will look to us for guidance. Perhaps the next question to ask ourselves is: how will we define our legacy as ancestors today?
Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director
A few weeks back, the Department of Homeland Security eliminated an explicit ban on the surveillance of people based solely on sexual orientation and gender identity via an update to an Office of Intelligence and Analysis policy manual. It happened quietly and was quickly buried under a mounting stack of unconscionable presidential executive actions. But the change evoked a feeling of danger and fear that may be indicative of a broader shift in strategy to intensify political violence against the LGBTQ+ community.
The World Health Organization’s definition of political violence includes the deliberate denial of basic needs (food, health care, education) and human rights (freedom of speech, freedom of association). It’s hard not to brand the attack on our community with political violence when LGBTQ+ people are being removed from government websites and from policies meant to protect us from unlawful surveillance. All while investigations into anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination have all but stopped, nondiscrimination protections in K-12 schools, colleges, and universities are under attack, LGBTQ+ asylum-seekers are being deported without due process, and threats to HIV funding are looming.
The removal of sexual orientation and gender identity from the Office of Intelligence and Analysis policy manual was a rollback of the Biden administration’s efforts to implement the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision, which sought to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. While this inclusive manual’s language was only four years old, it provided a layer of protection that could prevent some of the unlawful surveillance LGBTQ+ people – disproportionately queer and trans people of color – have experienced throughout history.
This surveillance of queer people has taken many forms: the Lavender Scare in the ‘50s when federal employees were identified and removed from government service because of peddled disinformation that they posed a national security threat; the FBI investigation of one of the first queer rights organizations, the Mattachine Society, because of alleged communist ties; the police raids of gay bars that eventually led to the Stonewall riots; FBI surveillance of ACT UP and the Center for Constitutional Rights in the ‘90s; surveilling and purging gay servicemembers and then the intermediate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. More recent examples include federal law enforcement surveillance of Black Lives Matter protestors, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton trying to obtain data on the number of Texans who had updated their gender marker on their driver’s licenses, and the US Department of Agriculture asking for the names of LGBTQ+ employee resource group leaders.
During my time in Texas, I became keyed into these types of attacks. It conditioned me to try to recognize patterns in government actions, policy-making, bill filings, and language used by anti-equality lawmakers. What I noticed was that their actions were attempts to create building blocks meant to stretch the permissible parameters of cruelty. Apathy paved the way for going further while community action and resistance moderated and delayed the execution of their anti-LGBTQ+ playbook. Resistance can topple their plans built upon a flimsy scaffolding of bias and fear. Together, we have the power to undermine these plans.
GLAD Law will continue to do our part with our surge-litigation strategy that aggressively pursues justice through swift, strategic action to use all aspects of the law to stop, delay, and reduce the harm of the Trump administration’s unconstitutional actions. Of the six challenges we have filed to date, five have succeeded with temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions blocking harmful policies, while one is pending.
To guard against further attacks on LGBTQ+ people, we must all be ready. We know there are proven tactics that can help prevent the proliferation of political violence. So this week, let’s focus on the actions that combat political violence: public condemnation of attacks on our community, building bridges where we can, empowering local communities, early warning and preparing not panicking.
You can also help GLAD Law continue to act swiftly and decisively to secure even more legal victories:
U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes today rejected a Trump administration motion to dissolve the nationwide preliminary injunction issued in Talbott v. Trump. Judge Reyes issued the injunction on March 18 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.” Defendants filed the motion to dissolve on March 21.
In her opinion today, Judge Reyes denied Defendants’ motion, holding that “Defendants cannot evade discriminating against transgender people simply by labeling the policy as addressing gender dysphoria.” Judge Reyes also denied Defendants’ request that she stay her preliminary injunction while the case proceeds.
As a result of today’s decision, Judge Reyes’ order blocking the government from enforcing the ban will take effect at 7 p.m. on Friday, March 28. That 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, a process used to address instances of misconduct.
The lead attorneys in Talbott v. Trump, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi and NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter, respond to Judge Reyes’ ruling:
“These efforts to stall the preliminary injunction from going into effect to protect our transgender troops burden military families with a crushing amount of pressure as they navigate a limbo with outcomes that will cause devastating harms to the military careers of these incredible soldiers,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “It is unthinkable that we would treat this way the brave individuals who sacrifice so much for our country.”
“This motion was nothing more than a last-ditch tactic to sow confusion and cause delay. There is no way to defend a policy that seeks to recklessly discard thousands of highly trained, skilled, and decorated transgender servicemembers, many of whom have deployed to critical locations across the globe. The government has conceded it has no evidence to support its position and no reason to discharge individuals who are serving capably and honorably,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter.
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.
Learn more about Talbott v. Trump.
Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director
The Resistance Brief: Faith, Justice, and Persistence
We are living through a time of escalating discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and violence. Our inability to provide immediate relief to so much suffering keeps us up at night. I know it weighs heavy on my spirit.
For me, those feelings are wrapped up in my Catholic upbringing. My relationship status with my faith remains “it’s complicated,” but there is an inextricable connection that binds my advocacy to the lessons I learned attending church as a child alongside my mother and grandmother. They taught me my highest purpose is to do the greatest good for people without compromising myself or my values.
Recently, I’ve prayed for collective decency, kindness, and mercy. And for the safety and well-being of all people. While systems of oppression are not new, and the fight for LGBTQ+ equality is ongoing, the current callous attacks on our community and disregard for our humanity (sometimes in the name of faith) feel unholy.
One of my favorite passages has always been, “Whatever you did for one of the least of these, you did it for me.” I always loved that lesson, which uplifts the innate dignity we all possess. It is a lesson that calls us to reflect on how we treat those with the least power: marginalized communities, people experiencing homelessness, and people who are sick or imprisoned. How we treat “the least of these” defines who we are and is a measure of the strength of our democracy.
The current landscape and its many horrors are aimed at creating insufferable conditions and coercing us to abandon those within our community who need us the most.
But I’m reminded of another lesson I learned in the church pew as a child: “Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.” The test we face is our ability to show up for each other.
Whether it’s immigrants being detained, deported, and disappeared with no due process, unaccompanied LGBTQ+ minors surrendering themselves at the border, trans women being brutalized by police, cutting off funding for humanitarian aid and HIV prevention, or transgender inmates experiencing unspeakable abuse in prisons – the realities of the toll this moment is having may consume and overwhelm us.
But it’s important to understand that we feel this way by design. The current federal administration is conducting a stress test on just how much indignation towards marginalized communities we will tolerate. But one thing I know about the queer community is that we are relentless in our pursuit of justice and equality. Regardless of how tired we are, of how scared we may be, we show up for those in need.
I’m really proud of the path GLAD Law has taken to provide relief and support to those who need us the most at this time.
Shortly after the inauguration, GLAD Law took immediate action challenging Trump’s Day One anti-transgender executive order. As a result of that order, the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began placing transgender women in solitary confinement, at imminent risk of being moved to men’s facilities and losing their necessary medical care.
Transgender women face incredibly high rates of harassment and assault, including sexual assault, when housed with men, and withdrawal of medical care causes devastating health impacts. GLAD Law acted quickly, filing three cases, Moe v. Trump, Doe v. Bondi, and Jones v. Bondi, securing rulings for our clients to remain in women’s facilities and ensuring their continued medical care. We’ve continued to add plaintiffs to our cases as we hear from more transgender women at risk, and this week, the federal judge granted an order directing BOP to return two women from men’s facilities where they’d been transferred.
Many stories underscoring the direct harm of this administration’s actions have come to our attention through GLAD Law Answers, our free, confidential legal infoline that provides people with information, referrals, and, if possible, pro bono legal assistance. Over the last three months, our GLAD Law Answers line has received 827 new intakes, compared to 322 intakes by this time last year. The requests for support include questions from incarcerated individuals, people experiencing challenges accessing medical care, servicemembers impacted by the trans military ban, and people experiencing employment discrimination, bullying at school, harassment, and violence.
I know it feels like fights that were settled and secure are being fought again. It’s not fair that our community is in the crosshairs once more and being scapegoated for political gains. And while we can and should be frustrated that we’re fighting the same, tired playbook, that also means GLAD Law has the blueprint to fight back. Our cases against BOP show how the law and the courts can play their rightful role in stopping unthinkable harm. The Reagan-appointed federal judge saw how Trump’s BOP policy violates the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act and the 8th Amendment, acted quickly, and to date, BOP has complied with those orders.
That blueprint to get us out of this moment includes showing up for community – all of it. And when I need some reassurance, I call in my mom’s prayer circle, who have been praying every Tuesday and Thursday for a just and merciful outcome.
Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director
I was in Palm Springs last week when I started hearing about California Governor Gavin Newsom’s podcast and his comments on how he believed that transgender girls and women participating in sports is “deeply unfair.”
I had heard about the launch of his podcast and was excited about the premise: having honest, nuanced, and curious conversations about issues people feel strongly about.
But what transpired did not seem curious, nuanced, or honest – it felt like a political calculation at the expense of a small, vulnerable community who are already under significant threat.
I’ve spent a large part of my career working with lawmakers – educating them on issues that impact our community, answering tough questions, and sharing constituent stories that illustrate how policy and laws affect real lives. I’ve been in rooms where lawmakers have told me that they can’t support specific LGBTQ+ issues because polling is not on their side. And I’ve been in meetings with lawmakers who express empathy and understanding but, when it comes time to cast their vote, have been unwilling to show uncommon political courage.
I’m no longer surprised by politicians who determine their support based on political calculations. But what I struggle to understand about Governor Newsom’s comments is the answer to the questions why now, and why with a right-wing media personality like Charlie Kirk?
Here was an opportunity for conversation. Rather than cowering to pressure or prioritizing politics over principles, I thought – as I know many others did – that Governor Newsom would lead a nuanced discussion. He didn’t. Instead, he disregarded constituents he once celebrated and to whose struggle for recognition and survival he once drew awareness – noting the importance of protecting transgender people because they deserved no less.
I’m most flabbergasted by the timing. The Governor’s remarks seem especially reckless, given the relentless attacks transgender Americans are currently under – attacks that go far beyond sports and are driven in no small part by anti-LGBTQ influencers like Kirk.
There is room to have conversations about people’s genuine concerns and questions about fairness and safety in girls’ and women’s sports. GLAD Law and others in our movement and community have been engaging in those conversations, with the public and with policymakers, to understand why people feel conflicted, and to propose workable policies that ensure fairness and opportunity for all girls, including transgender girls.
This approach is reminiscent of what worked nearly 15 years ago when I worked with GLSEN. I often heard stories from our chapter network about administrators, parents, and coaches coming together to figure out how all students could experience the joy of physical education, sports, and play in an environment where they feel safe, valued, and included.
Yes, these conversations were happening in 2010, and schools were figuring it out on their own. That’s what our public schools and educators do on a whole range of issues, because of their deep commitment to making sure every student is supported and has an opportunity to learn. It wasn’t until anti-equality lawmakers began pushing “bathroom bill” copycat legislation and spreading disinformation about trans folks to create fear and manufacture outrage that schools became epicenters for conflict rather than collaborative solutions.
If Governor Newsom was reaching for dialogue and collaboration with the premiere of his podcast, he fell far short of that mark. At a time when LGBTQ+ people are facing a full-scale attack – from being banished from federal websites, to having our lives and families deleted from school libraries and classrooms, to encountering threats to essential healthcare, to being branded dishonest, lacking in integrity, and unfit to serve in the military, to having our basic right to exist and function in society questioned – our community needs and deserves better than fair-weather allies.
Español de México