National/Federal Know Your Rights - Page 3 of 57 - GLAD Law
Skip Header to Content
GLAD Logo Skip Primary Navigation to Content

Search

News

Transgender Military Ban Attorneys and Plaintiffs in Talbott v. Trump React to Yesterday’s Hearing to Block the Ban

“The government presented no evidence to justify yanking qualified personnel from vital positions worldwide,” says GLAD Law

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes heard yesterday arguments in Talbott v. Trump to make a determination about whether to issue a preliminary injunction that would block implementation of the transgender military ban resulting from President Trump’s executive order. She is expected to issue her decision on this motion prior to March 25.

The Talbott case has 20 plaintiffs who are experiencing significant harms as the result of the ban, including paused deployments, forced administrative leave, delay or denial of essential medical care, and other significant harms including what would eventually result in the end of their military careers by being discharged through administrative separation, a process used to address instances of misconduct. 

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 secured a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the ban.

Lead attorneys GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi and NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter along with plaintiffs Major Erica Vandal and Second Lieutenant Nicolas Talbott, respond to yesterday’s hearing:

“The government presented no evidence to justify yanking qualified personnel from vital positions worldwide,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. ” We’ve seen plaintiffs abruptly removed from active combat deployments, specialized training operations, and critical leadership roles despite meeting all standards. These service members, and many others, now find their careers suspended, creating dangerous gaps in our military and threatening national security. The American public should be deeply troubled by an administration willing to compromise military readiness to advance its hostility toward transgender people. We remain hopeful the court will act swiftly to stop this senseless damage.”

“I wish every American could have been in court today to hear firsthand for themselves the government admit they have absolutely no evidence to justify this ban,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “For these servicemembers to be put into this situation, where they are being separated from not just jobs, but a lifelong commitment to military service and to our country—and at the pace at which the government has so aggressively moved to implement this ban—the harms that they have suffered and are continuing to suffer are so disturbing. I can’t stress enough the severity of the harms and the extraordinary pressure that these individuals and their families are currently under.”

“I have served with distinction in the United States Army for nearly 14 years. Before me, my father served for four decades. I grew up on military bases. The military was and continues to be my entire life,” said Major Erica Vandal. “I also have an incredible family. I am married with two children, and their support for me and my military career has required tremendous sacrifices on behalf of our country. I am grateful to have them in my life and for their support, as I know so many servicemembers are to their own families. It’s difficult to have a conversation with them about what’s happening. It’s hard to fully comprehend the full scope and impacts of a ban. The military that we know and love and that I have dedicated my life to is suddenly rushing to place on administrative leave and then purge every transgender servicemember for reasons unrelated to our ability to do our jobs or meet the standards. It is systematically dismantling our careers and seeking to place a stain upon our permanent records for nothing more than who we are.”

“From growing up and working on my grandmother’s family farm in Lisbon, Ohio to my pursuit of a graduate degree in criminology, I have been focused on one thing: training, studying, and meeting my goals to become a member of our military,” said Second Lieutenant Nicolas Talbott. “I am now a platoon leader for my military policing unit in the U.S. Army Reserve, and more than anything, I just want to continue to do the job that I have qualified for, trained for, and committed to in order to serve my country. The forced separation of dedicated, qualified servicemembers, the dismantling of careers, and the disrespect shown to families who have sacrificed so much is so counter to our military values. These policies disregard merit and achievement and unleash unfathomable harms upon the lives, families, and careers of transgender servicemembers.”

Learn more about Talbott v. Trump.

First 100 Days Community Briefing

First 100 Days Community Briefing

As the Trump administration’s second term reached its first 100 days, GLAD Law held a live community briefing to share updates on the urgent legal challenges we’ve brought to stop, delay, and reduce harm from the administration’s relentless attacks on LGBTQ+ people and other vulnerable communities.

Our Executive Director Ricardo Martinez and members of our legal team – Chris Erchull, Jennifer Levi, and Polly Crozier – discussed the lawsuits we’ve filed so far, five of which have already succeeded in blocking harmful policies, as well as the broader legal and political landscape we’re facing. The briefing also included key takeaways and ways each of us can take action to protect ourselves and support the fight for LGBTQ+ justice.

If you missed the event or want to revisit the conversation, add your email to watch the full recording.

Let’s keep moving forward—together.

Couldn’t join us on the call? Enter your email below to access the recording:

By submitting your email, you agree to receive updates from GLAD Law. You may unsubscribe at any time.

If you have any issues with this form or accessing the recording, please contact mouellette@glad.org.

Resources and links:

Blog

The Resistance Brief: This week in the fight for justice

Protecting a dream

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

If I’m being completely honest, I’d like to get married. In a couple of weeks, I’ll be turning 43. I’m the last of my siblings to get hitched and one of the last of my college friend group to have that experience.  

I’ve imagined my mom walking me down the aisle. I want my best friend and fiercest straight ally to be my best man. And, if I’m able, I want to eventually provide a loving home to children who need one or explore assisted reproduction to become a father. 

This dream, only fully available to me in the last ten years thanks to the long-term work of GLAD Law and other advocates, is one that I don’t usually share with many people. I’m grown enough to remember when marriage wasn’t an option for me, so I’ve always tempered my expectations. And while I shouldn’t have to, the reality is that there are times when that dream feels more fragile and less like a sure thing.  

Marriage equality, and thus my dream, should absolutely be safe and secure. It is protected nationwide by sturdy Supreme Court precedent and federal law, as well as by state law and state constitutional guarantees in several states. It also has strong public support because people across all walks of life understand how marriage and family life can be the grounding center of our lives, provide supports that create stability, and give us a sense of community and collective belonging. 

But as symbolic resolutions are introduced in state legislatures, asking the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell, I can’t help but feel uneasy. I know I’m not alone in feeling this way. Many people have expressed worry about what could happen in the future and asked for suggestions on how to protect their relationships. These worries are coming from many quarters – young people with LGBTQ+ parents, siblings, grandparents, other family members, and friends, and of course LGBTQ+ people themselves – because marriage equality touches and benefits entire communities across the country. 

Let me be crystal clear: No state can take your marriage away. These resolutions, should they pass, will not invalidate anyone’s current marriage or prevent same-sex couples from marrying in any state. Any effort to unravel the freedom to marry would be long and difficult. GLAD Law and our partners are committed day in and day out to defend that freedom. 

These brazen antics signal an attempt to pick a fight. Stunts happen in politics, and the media amplifies them, causing sensory overload. But the silver lining of these resolutions is that they remind people about something that deeply matters: families.  

Families are precious, whatever their makeup, and attempts to undermine them ignite our instinct to protect them. And we should – LGBTQ+ families are part of every community. In the end, many members of our community (but certainly not all) are getting married and raising kids, and LGBTQ+ families have hopes, dreams, successes, and struggles like any other. Threats to disrupt families are bad for everyone.  

While I work on creating my family and living out my dream, I feel honored to be able to help protect those families that have already been forged – including my kid brothers’. Six years ago, he got married to a wonderful man in Mystic, Connecticut. Being granted the opportunity to be part of the organization that helped pave that path for him makes me feel like I’ve come full circle in some way – and it also deepens my sense of responsibility.  

As we see so many things shaken up, it is hard not to worry about attempts to shake up marriage equality – symbolic or otherwise. But I know GLAD Law is preparing every day for any possibility. We will be there, with our allies, to defend against any attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s 2015 marriage equality decision and to protect the dreams of so many like me. 

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

Turning fear into action

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

Do you remember the energy back in 2017? The outrage, the immediate backlash, the knit pink hats, celebrities being vocally unafraid? The mass mobilizations everywhere ignited hope and kept folks from creeping into despair. That fever pitch of civic engagement peaked with the emergence of the national #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements.

On a local level, in Texas, I recall a similar moment of collective outrage that felt like an awakening when Governor Greg Abbott directed the Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate parents of trans kids. People uniformly felt their moral Spidey-Senses signaling the premonition of an impending threat and, as such, an urgency in action.

Once again, after the initial shock of this administration’s “flood the zone” with cruelty strategy, people are regaining their footing and finding their voice. I see glimpses of collective outrage and action, and I see it across issues, perhaps ushering in a collective cross-movement resistance. People are strategically agitating, thinking of workarounds to the mess created by DOGE and responding to this administration’s affront to American values of freedom, privacy, respect, and community.

  • Communities are leading Know Your Rights trainings on how to claim your rights if faced with ICE agents;
  • Consumers are engaging in boycotts to confront the staggering influence of billionaires on our lives and political system;
  • Outraged Americans are organizing protests in cities across the United States, showing up at town halls, and making calls to their federal and state senators and representatives;
  • Doctors are sharing vital information about infectious diseases on social media;
  • Organizations like GLAD Law are surging litigation efforts to stop, delay, and minimize the impact of these attacks on LGBTQ+ rights and our democracy.

At a time when the federal government is testing how much brutality Americans will tolerate against vulnerable people, this is the moment for action. It is the time to embrace our grief and fear, access our courage, and decide what our contributions to the resistance will be. 

There is a lot at stake. 

The Trump administration wants us to be numb to the complete expulsion of all transgender people from military service, shutting down global funding of HIV treatment access, the demonizing of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and the exploitation of our children’s health and wellbeing. So many things that should be absolutely safe and secure feel like they’re being shaken up, including marriage equality, which has been undeniably good for kids, families, and society.

The last six weeks have left no doubt that there is a broad plan at work to deny LGBTQ+ people, BIPOC, and all women their fundamental rights and to test and erode democratic institutions. We cannot forget our moral strength and obligation to recognize and resist authoritarianism in all its forms.

We cannot tell ourselves that attacks on the rights or freedoms of others don’t touch us directly – because distance from brutality offers no protection from its reach.

GLAD Law will continue to show up to work every day to protect those rights and freedoms. Thank you for being part of this resistance with us.​​​​​

What to know, what to do: 

Donate Today

Read more editions of the Resistance Brief.

News

On the Pentagon’s Complete Ban on Transgender Military Service

Last night, in keeping with President Trump’s January 27 Executive Order, the Pentagon released a policy that is a complete ban on transgender military service, forcing out current service members and banning transgender people from enlisting. 

The scope and severity of the ban are unprecedented. This is a complete purge of all transgender individuals from military service.

“This is a purge of unprecedented magnitude. There is nothing confusing or complicated about it. The military has 30 days to identify anyone it thinks is transgender, and the only way to avoid discharge is to prove you are not transgender. This is an unconscionable ban that forces the removal of talented service members who put their lives on the line for our nation and slams the door on qualified patriots who meet every standard and want nothing more than to serve their country.”

—Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender & Queer Rights

We are challenging this ban for 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.

News

Lambda Legal, GLAD Law, Mintz and Public Health Advocates Urge Supreme Court to Protect Access to HIV Prevention in Landmark Case

Experts Warn of Tens of Thousands of Potential New HIV Cases and Billions in Health Care Costs if No-cost Access to PrEP is Discontinued

Lambda Legal, GLAD Law and Mintz, alongside leading HIV, LGBTQ+, and healthcare organizations, have submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., urging the Court to uphold no-cost access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and other critical preventive healthcare services. The brief highlights the devastating public health consequences of undermining access to PrEP, a medication that reduces the risk of HIV transmission by 99% when taken as prescribed.

“The lower court ruling in Braidwood is rooted in stigma and bigotry towards the LGBTQ+ community and people vulnerable to HIV,” said Dr. Stephen Lee, NASTAD Executive Director. “It will cause incalculable harm to our efforts to end the HIV epidemic. We are pleased to file an amicus brief to help offer insight into why this decision is so detrimental to our HIV/AIDS public health system.”

“For decades, bipartisan public health efforts have helped turn the tide on the HIV epidemic. This case threatens to unravel that progress by making PrEP unaffordable for many of the communities most at risk,” said Jose Abrigo, Lambda Legal HIV Project Director. “No-cost access to PrEP is not only a medical necessity, it is a moral and legal imperative in the fight to end HIV. If we want to achieve the goal of eradicating HIV we should be expanding access to this medication, not limiting it.”

The brief, submitted on behalf of the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors and a coalition of HIV and healthcare advocates, details the indisputable medical evidence supporting PrEP and the catastrophic consequences of restricting access. Since its FDA approval in 2012, PrEP has been a game-changer in HIV prevention, particularly for Black and Latine communities as well as youth, which continue to face disproportionate rates of new infections.

“Copays and deductibles deter people from accessing healthcare,” said Ben Klein, Senior Director of Litigation and HIV Law at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law). “PrEP is nearly 100% effective at preventing transmission of HIV but it is already underutilized, particularly among Black and Latino communities. As the brief filed today by NASTAD and other HIV experts demonstrates, allowing the lower court’s ruling in Braidwood to stand will exacerbate racial health disparities, increase new HIV diagnoses by the tens of thousands, and have devastating consequences on our efforts to end the epidemic.”

At its core, this case is about more than just PrEP, it is a direct attack on the foundation of preventive healthcare in the United States and a key pillar of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The preventive services mandate ensures that millions of Americans have access to critical screenings, vaccines, and treatments without financial barriers, dramatically improving public health outcomes. From HIV prevention to cancer screenings, from childhood immunizations to maternal health care, these services save lives, reduce long-term healthcare costs, and prevent the spread of disease. This case is a referendum on whether the United States will continue investing in evidence-based, cost-effective public health strategies.

Lambda Legal, GLAD Law, and Mintz remain steadfast in their commitment to advocating for the rights of LGBTQ+ people and individuals living with or at risk of HIV. The organizations urge the Court to recognize the critical role of preventive healthcare in protecting public health and to reject efforts that seek to dismantle these life-saving protections. 

Learn more about the case.

Blog

From the Front Lines: The Urgency of Our Work

Blog by Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Queer and Transgender Rights

Jennifer Levi in a light blue button-down shirt in front of a blurred green outdoor background
Jennifer Levi

Sunday brought another slew of late-night filings because this administration is refusing to follow basic rule of law principles, following two court orders that temporarily block them from moving transgender women to men’s prisons. It caused me to think even more deeply about the urgency of GLAD Law’s work. I am grateful for GLAD Law digging in so deeply in this moment and, in so doing, spurring our colleague organizations and the local communities of which we are all a part to stand up to injustice. 

Here’s why my current legal work feels so urgent. 

While the Trump administration’s policies are based on their belief that transgender people don’t exist (we, of course, exist, have through the generations, and are not going to stop), what’s happening right now is especially alarming: they’re testing how much brutality Americans will tolerate against vulnerable people. 

Right out of the gate, I knew we had to challenge the Day 1 “Gender Ideology Order” directing the transfer of transgender women to men’s prisons. This brutal order isn’t just about transgender women – though the government’s own data shows they face 10 times the risk of violence in men’s prisons than others. It’s testing how we, as Americans, respond to cruelty and brutality being carried out in our name. It’s no coincidence that the part of the Executive Order directing the transfer of women to men’s facilities was the most concrete and the most quickly acted upon by the new administration – that’s why we had to move so quickly, why I found myself flying to DC on a minute’s notice.

What’s at stake in this moment goes far beyond any single policy – it’s about whether we’ll maintain the moral strength to recognize and resist authoritarianism.

I learned crucial lessons as a kid raised on a visual diet of Holocaust documentaries (and what Jewish kid in the 70s wasn’t that kid), but I understand them differently now. Do you know Martin Niemöller’s famous poem? The one that begins, ‘First they came for the communists‘? I used to think it was simply warning us to stick up for others because we might be next. But now I see its deeper truth. When a regime with no moral values—or whose only value is the pursuit of absolute power—targets its first group for brutalization, that moment is crucial. What I understood when I learned it was the child’s lesson: defend others because you might be next. That’s true and important. But the adult understanding cuts deeper: if you don’t act when that first group is targeted, you become complicit in a fundamental shift in governance. You become part of the machinery that attacks and degrades others. 

By staying silent, you slowly and incrementally abandon your own values and lose track of your moral compass. So by the time the government turns on you, it hardly matters – you’ve already become part of their machinery of control, another instrument in a regime that devalues human life to maintain its grip on power. When you accept the brutalization of the weakest and most rejected corners of your society, what’s happening is that you are actively becoming a participant in a terrible experiment. Your government is testing just how much brutalization and torture you can tolerate. They do it openly because that’s the only real test – seeing what you’ll accept when you can’t pretend you don’t see it, which is also why we are seeing it escalate. More brutality and more open displays of it.

That is what is happening right now. The administration is testing those of us not bearing the most significant weight of their brutality, even as transgender women in prison, transgender homeless people being turned away from shelters, and transgender adolescents losing medical care face the most immediate and severe impacts. They are testing the rest of us to see how much we can and will live with and tolerate in a country that brutalizes people. How much will we step in, or how much do we even think we can step in to protect others? Like, right now. 

This isn’t about policy or governance. It’s about a regime marching towards total control and understanding that such control requires not just brutalizing vulnerable people, but making the rest of us either actively complicit in or numb to that brutalization. When we accept their rewriting of reality at home – their lying claims that transgender people don’t exist or aren’t worthy of protection or even humanity – we’re being cultivated to accept bigger lies.

This isn’t just about how this country will treat a small, vulnerable group – though transgender rights have become an alarming measure of our democracy’s health – it’s about what kind of country we’re willing to be. 

We can see it rolling out on the global stage as well with Ukraine: Trump calling Zelenskyy a dictator and criticizing him for supposedly not holding elections, completely reversing his earlier statements about Ukraine’s right to exist. This isn’t random: It’s the same cold, calculated strategy of moral erosion. He’s testing how much reality-bending the American public will accept, because each time we let these lies stand and allow ourselves to become desensitized to the brutalization they enable, we move closer to accepting autocratic control both at home and abroad. What’s at stake in this moment goes far beyond any single policy – it’s about whether we’ll maintain the moral strength to recognize and resist authoritarianism. 

I’ve spent years fighting state transgender health care bans and helping create new legal roadmaps, like in Florida, where we got a landmark decision recognizing the DeSantis administration’s targeted effort to deny transgender people’s existence and right to thrive. That experience has led me to focus now on challenging the federal government’s brutalization of transgender women in prisons and defending some of the most courageous plaintiffs you’d ever want to know – transgender service members who put their lives on the line for their country every day. 

I’m fighting for the America I thought I knew growing up – the one that, for me at least, fostered a love of country and the Constitution that forms its backbone. It’s the one that taught me a fundamental truth: everyone deserves to live with dignity and have their worth seen and recognized by others – whether they hold power or have been stigmatized and pushed to society’s dark recesses. The stakes couldn’t be higher. This isn’t just about how this country will treat a small, vulnerable group – though transgender rights have become an alarming measure of our democracy’s health – it’s about what kind of country we’re willing to be. 

And our response to the treatment of vulnerable people here isn’t just about domestic policy – it’s about whether we’ll maintain the moral strength to recognize and resist authoritarianism in all its forms. This beautiful, brilliant experiment in democracy that I have loved and revered throughout my life has always been flawed. But it has allowed many people to thrive – and has immense potential for so many more. Now, it may be approaching some kind of ending – but I’m not there yet. Work remains to uphold its values, principles, and the practical ways it makes life better for people. We all have to do our part – and for many of us, far more than our part – to challenge, call out, and oppose the brutalization happening in our midst. 

We must act even when we think it doesn’t touch us directly, or we tell ourselves it doesn’t. Because distance from brutality offers no protection from its reach.

Support GLAD Law’s Work
Sign Up for Updates

Blog

The Resistance Brief: This week in the fight for justice 

For the record 

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

Earlier in the week, I attended a federal court hearing in our case challenging the Trump administration’s ban on transgender service members (Talbott v. Trump). At the hearing, we argued for a Preliminary Injunction to block the Order’s enforcement, allow transgender people to continue to enlist and serve on the same terms as all people who want to serve their country and meet the rigorous standards to do so, and resume transgender service members’ access to medical care.

During day two of the hearing, the judge asked U.S. Attorney Jason Lynch if he agreed that transgender people have been discriminated against. U.S. Attorney Jason Lynch concurred that trans people have experienced discrimination, but he did not believe the discrimination proves trans people are a quasi-suspect class subject to protection under the Constitution.

Five plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Talbott v. Trump, stand in formalwear after a court hearing.
Talbott v. Trump plaintiffs

What followed reminded me of a couple of things I forgot to note in last week’s Resistance Brief: Why the Courts Still Matter: the importance of the public record and the courage of plaintiffs.

Courts keep permanent records of their proceedings which means that as cases are litigated, history is being recorded. 

Forever, it will be noted that the court responded to Lynch’s assertion by stating all the ways transgender people have been harmed by their country over the last three weeks. She spoke about how the president has tried to block schools from using federals funds to discuss transgender people, stop the State Department from allowing transgender people to obtain passports with correct gender markers, change the references to LGBTQ on government websites – including the Stonewall Monument website – to remove the T and Q, ban trans girls and women from participating in sports, direct trans people in prison be denied correct housing and withheld necessary healthcare, and stop trans people from accessing homeless shelters.

By the end of her enumeration, she had half the attendees at the hearing in tears, including me. The pronouncement of facts, antithetical to a political landscape anchored in disinformation and cognitive dissonance, was profoundly moving and validating. In that moment it was hard to not think about all trans and nonbinary people who I love and how they have been harmed.

As a matter of record, it will forever be recorded that upon judicial review, someone with power voiced the totality of the systematic targeting of transgender people across American institutions and mirrored it back to the world and our courageous plaintiffs who sat quietly in the court room.

Those brave service members who bore witness to a hearing where people weighed their humanity, minimized the harm of presidential decrees, and debated their rights left the court room with their heads held high. I think that is because they are clear about who they are and the role they play in protecting a country they love, even when that country is not protecting them back. Nicolas Talbott, one of our plaintiffs, said leaving the court room on Tuesday, “The fact that I am transgender has no bearing on my dedication to the mission, my commitment to my unit, or my ability to perform my duties in accordance with the high standards expected of me. Every individual must meet the same objective and rigorous qualifications to serve. When you put on the uniform, differences fall away, and what matters is your ability to do the job.” 

Hear, hear, Second Lieutenant Talbott, hear, hear.

Four recent wins:

  • On February 20, the Vermont House unanimously passed, with bipartisan support, a bill that will streamline the process for LGBTQ+ parents to confirm their legal relationship to their children. The bill now moves to the state Senate.
  • On February 12, a federal judge granted our request to expand our case on behalf of New Hampshire transgender high school students Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle to challenge President Trump’s executive orders banning transgender girls from participating in school sports.
  • On Tuesday February 19, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction in our case representing three incarcerated transgender women at risk of being transferred to a men’s facility and having their necessary medical care stopped. This blocks the Bureau of Prisons from enforcing against our clients President Trump’s first Executive Order attempting to deny the existence of transgender people, while our case against it continues. We are moving to protect as many of the transgender women in the women’s facilities as we can, and are adding anyone we hear from in the same circumstances.
  • Also on February 19, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Massachusetts public school’s policy supporting transgender students. GLAD Law submitted a friend-of-the-court brief with the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents describing how a positive school climate is crucial to educational success for all students.

What to know, what to do: 

  • Read this ABC News coverage of the hearing on a Preliminary Injunction in Talbott v. Trump.
  • Watch plaintiff Nicolas Talbot’s interview segment on Fox News Digital (yes, you read that right).
  • Check out this page tracking GLAD Law’s challenges to Executive Orders, as well as challenges from other movement organizations.
  • Sign up to receive updates on GLAD Law’s work for LGBTQ+ justice.
Donate Today

Read more editions of the Resistance Brief.

News

GLAD Law, with ACLU of NH, is currently challenging the New Hampshire state law banning transgender girls from participation. The federal court issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of that law against our plaintiffs, two transgender high school students, while the litigation continues. Last week amended our case to include a challenge to the Executive Order.

GLAD Law Senior Director of Litigation Ben Klein made the following comment on the NHIAA announcement:

“This is an unfortunate reversal of what had been a well-working NHIAA policy that allowed transgender girls to participate on school teams with their peers. It’s important to note, however, that the NHIAA has not prohibited schools from allowing transgender girls to play sports. They have essentially decided to have no policy in light of the chaos and confusion caused by the executive order and are looking to the Court to address the issue. It’s further evidence of why we need the Court to weigh in so that transgender students are not denied the educational benefits that come from the opportunity to play school sports.”

Blog

The Resistance Brief: This week in the fight for justice 

Why the courts still matter

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

I know we are all feeling the weight of the strain that our democracy is currently under. In these moments, I try to remember what I learned about our government’s system of checks and balances. Our three-branch government is supposed to divide power amongst each part to prevent tyranny.   

And while the current administration may have gone into an Executive Order-issuing frenzy causing confusion, panic, and disorder, there remain built-in limits to what the president can do through executive action alone. This is certainly the case when politics are working business as usual. JD Vance’s most recent comments about the courts not being able to tell the executive branch what to do signal a concerning willingness to defy judicial review. But the courts must remain a backstop against unconstitutional actions. And we, the people, have a role to play in ensuring the courts exercise their rightful role – and enforce executive compliance. It is paramount we do not succumb to apathy; lives are at stake.  

Court decisions can impact our everyday lives. In the case of Maria Moe, an incarcerated transgender woman and client of GLAD Law, it was court intervention that prevented her from facing the imminent danger that would have come from being moved to a men’s facility and having her necessary medical care taken away. 

Court decisions can delay the implementation of discriminatory laws that pass at the state or federal level. In the case of Parker Tirrell, a district court judge blocked the enforcement of a recently passed New Hampshire state law, HB 1205, which prevented Parker from playing soccer with her friends. Earlier this week, GLAD Law and our partners at ACLU of New Hampshire expanded our case to include a legal challenge to President Trump’s executive orders that ban transgender girls and women from sports nationwide. 

Using the courts to delay dangerous policies is harm-reduction. It’s also strategically advantageous – it buys us time to allow the community to develop contingency plans and mutual aid networks, allows us and other advocacy organizations to educate targeted communities about their rights, and provides more time for state-level protections to be enacted where possible. And it can allow time for the democratic process, and those charged with safeguarding it, to reassert a commitment to civil rights. 

Ultimately, courts can stop unconstitutional policies and reaffirm that equal protection applies to everyone, without exception. 

This doesn’t mean that the courts are our only avenue for resistance. It is critical for advocacy organizations and individuals to use every channel we have to disrupt and reject the abject treatment of fellow Americans we are experiencing under this presidency – whether it be through acts of peaceful protest, calls to elected representatives, or engaging in the deeply important local battles being fought in towns big and small throughout this country.   

It’s going to take uncommon courage: faith leaders asking the President to show mercy for those in harm’s way, women in STEM preserving their stories and achievements, a Super Bowl halftime show strategically agitating the masses. We need outspoken lawmakers stepping outside of their calculus for reelection and leaning into values of equality and justice, and more unapologetic corporate tenacity the likes of Costco.  

If we are going to protect our civil rights and democracy, and turn away from tyranny, we need the courts, and we need all of us. We must swing big; it’s the only way to shift our collective consciousness. 

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.