Notícias

Lar » Imprensa

Lei GLAD elogia fortes proteções para saúde transgênero e reprodutiva aprovada pela Câmara de Massachusetts

Ontem, a Câmara dos Representantes de Massachusetts aprovou um projeto de lei para fortalecer as proteções estaduais para o acesso a cuidados de saúde reprodutiva e transgênero. O projeto foi aprovado pelo Senado em 26 de junho.

O projeto de lei, que se baseia na Lei de Proteção à Saúde de 2022, promulgada em 2022, salvaguarda o acesso a cuidados de saúde legalmente protegidos, proibindo agências estaduais e autoridades policiais de cooperarem com investigações de outros estados ou federais sobre cuidados reprodutivos e transgêneros prestados em Massachusetts, limitando o compartilhamento de dados de pacientes e o acesso de terceiros a registros médicos, e proibindo a vigilância desnecessária de medicamentos prescritos. O projeto de lei também aumenta a proteção para aqueles que prestam ou auxiliam na prestação de cuidados de saúde legalmente protegidos, por meio de proteções de licença aprimoradas e proteções contra discriminação por parte de seguradoras, e fornece orientação aos tribunais sobre como lidar com leis de outros estados que restringem a capacidade dos pais de buscar cuidados de saúde transgêneros para seus filhos.

“Este projeto de lei oferece proteções importantes em um momento em que o acesso aos cuidados reprodutivos e à saúde para pessoas transgênero está cada vez mais ameaçado”, disse Polly Crozier, Diretora de Defesa da Família, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. “Somos gratos pelo trabalho colaborativo entre os legisladores estaduais, o Procurador-Geral e os parceiros que trabalharam rapidamente para desenvolver a Lei Shield de 2022 para aumentar a proteção para pacientes e provedores e garantir que a política de assistência médica em Massachusetts seja orientada pela ciência e pela necessidade de assistência das pessoas, não pela política. Estamos ansiosos para continuar apoiando esse esforço legislativo e esperamos que o projeto de lei se torne lei em breve.”

Notícias

Lar » Imprensa

**A Lei GLAD responde a Braidwood Decisão da Suprema Corte**

“A decisão de hoje significa que o acesso à PrEP é seguro — por enquanto,” disse Bennett Klein, da GLAD Law

O Supremo Tribunal dos Estados Unidos emitiu hoje a sua decisão em Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. mantendo a autoridade da Força-Tarefa de Serviços Preventivos dos EUA para fazer recomendações de cobertura de seguro gratuita para serviços de saúde preventivos — incluindo PrEP, uma poderosa ferramenta de prevenção ao HIV.

A GLAD Law apresentou uma amigo do resumo do tribunal em Braidwood instando o Tribunal a manter o acesso gratuito à PrEP e a outros serviços essenciais de saúde preventiva. O memorando destaca as consequências devastadoras para a saúde pública da restrição do acesso à PrEP, um medicamento que reduz o risco de transmissão do HIV a praticamente zero quando tomado conforme a prescrição. O memorando foi apresentado em nome da Aliança Nacional de Diretores Estaduais e Territoriais de AIDS e de uma coalizão de defensores da saúde.

Diretor Sênior de Contencioso e Direito do HIV da GLAD Law Bennett Klein respondeu à decisão de hoje do Supremo Tribunal:

Hoje, a Suprema Corte confirmou um componente crucial da Lei de Assistência Médica Acessível: o acesso a cuidados de saúde preventivos que salvam vidas. A Corte confirmou a autoridade da Força-Tarefa de Serviços Preventivos dos EUA para fazer recomendações sobre a cobertura gratuita de serviços de saúde preventivos, como exames de câncer e diabetes, e prevenção do HIV, como a PrEP, que é quase 100% eficaz na prevenção da transmissão do HIV quando tomada conforme as instruções.

A possibilidade de contar com especialistas médicos para recomendar medidas preventivas essenciais é fundamental para a saúde individual e pública nos EUA. A decisão de hoje significa que o acesso à PrEP é seguro — por enquanto. Garantir que as pessoas possam acessar a PrEP sem barreiras financeiras é essencial para acabar com a epidemia de HIV, abordar as disparidades raciais na assistência à saúde e garantir que as pessoas tenham os cuidados necessários para viver vidas saudáveis e prosperar.

Na semana passada, a FDA aprovou o revolucionário medicamento injetável de longa ação para PrEP, o Lenacapavir. Esperamos que a Força-Tarefa e, em última instância, o Secretário de Saúde e Serviços Humanos, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., aprovem a cobertura gratuita de planos de saúde para este método verdadeiramente revolucionário de prevenção do HIV.

Neste ambiente político, estamos profundamente preocupados, contudo, com o facto de o Tribunal Braidwood A decisão destaca o poder extraordinário do Secretário de Saúde e Serviços Humanos de revisar e bloquear recomendações da Força-Tarefa, bem como demitir e nomear membros à vontade, o que poderia afetar a integridade de recomendações futuras. Diante da recente demissão em massa, pelo Secretário Kennedy, de um painel de especialistas em vacinas e sua substituição por vários céticos em relação à vacina, devemos estar vigilantes quanto à politização da Força-Tarefa no futuro. Incentivamos os estados a tomarem as medidas adequadas para proteger e expandir o acesso à PrEP, incluindo o mais novo injetável de seis meses, a ferramenta de prevenção ao HIV mais eficaz até o momento.

Saiba mais sobre o caso.

Saiba mais sobre o trabalho da GLAD Law para expandir e proteger o acesso à PrEP.

Notícias

Lar » Imprensa

A Lei GLAD responde a Mahmoud Decisão da Suprema Corte

“Hoje, o Tribunal perdeu a oportunidade de garantir que todos os jovens estejam preparados para interagir com pessoas diversas e prosperar num mundo em constante mudança,“disse Mary Bonauto, da GLAD Law

WASHINGTON, DC — A Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos considerou hoje que as famílias dos demandantes têm direito a uma liminar em Mahmoud v. Taylor, um caso que determinará se os pais têm o direito da Primeira Emenda de receber notificação e a oportunidade de optar por não participar do currículo envolvendo os cinco livros em questão que abordam pessoas LGBTQ+.

A GLAD Law apresentou uma amigo do resumo do tribunal em Mahmoud—junto com o Centro Nacional para os Direitos LGBTQ, Igualdade Familiar, COLAGEM, , Justiça do Estado Livre, Inc.., a Campanha pelos Direitos Humanos, GLSEN, e o Projeto Trevor—argumentando que parte do papel das escolas públicas é preparar os alunos para participar de uma democracia pluralista.

Diretor Sênior de Direitos Civis e Estratégias Legais da GLAD Law Maria L. Bonauto, respondeu à decisão de hoje do Supremo Tribunal:

A decisão de hoje não altera a obrigação das escolas de preparar os alunos para interagir e prosperar em um mundo diverso e em constante mudança. A liberdade religiosa é um valor que todos compartilhamos, mas hoje o Tribunal perdeu a oportunidade de garantir que todos os jovens estejam preparados para participar de uma sociedade pluralista. A abordagem de "janelas" e "espelhos" para o currículo de leitura, empregada pelas Escolas Públicas do Condado de Montgomery e distritos em todo o país, permite que os alunos aprendam sobre leitura e escrita, ao mesmo tempo em que se enxergam e compreendem melhor a si mesmos e ao mundo ao seu redor. Pessoas e famílias LGBTQ+ existem, alunos em nossas escolas públicas têm pais LGBTQ+ e livros que incluem pessoas LGBTQ+ não devem ser tratados de forma diferente daqueles sem pessoas LGBTQ+. A decisão do Tribunal não exige que nossas escolas abandonem esses esforços. Pais, alunos, educadores e vizinhos podem incentivar oportunidades de aprendizado sobre pessoas e famílias diversas, mantendo-se envolvidos com os distritos escolares, conselhos escolares e em nossas comunidades locais.

Saiba mais sobre o caso.

Notícias

Lar » Imprensa

**GLAD Law and NCLR Respond to the Skrmetti Decisão da Suprema Corte**

“The Court today failed to do its job. It chose to look away, abandoning both vulnerable children and the parents who love them. No parent should be forced to watch their child suffer while proven medical care sits beyond their reach because of politics.”

WASHINGTON, DC—The Supreme Court of the United States today issued its ruling em United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s ban on healthcare for transgender youth.

Today’s decision has no impact in states where health care for transgender youth is not currently banned.

Every major medical association including the American Medical Association e o American Psychological Association support this care, backed by decades of research and relying upon the same safe and effective medications used to treat a range of other health issues for children and adults. Last month, in the most comprehensive review to date, a new 1,000+ report commissioned by the Utah Legislature found that this care is supported by substantial evidence, is safe and effective, and reduces risk of suicidality.

GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi e National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter, both of whom have more than 30 years each of LGBTQ+ impact litigation experience, including on transgender health care cases, and are themselves transgender, responded to today’s Supreme Court ruling:

“The Court today failed to do its job,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “When the political system breaks down and legislatures bow to popular hostility, the judiciary must be the Constitution’s backbone. Instead, it chose to look away, abandoning both vulnerable children and the parents who love them. No parent should be forced to watch their child suffer while proven medical care sits beyond their reach because of politics.”

“The Court’s ruling abandons transgender youth and their families to political attacks. It ignored clear discrimination and disregarded its own legal precedent by letting lawmakers target young people for being transgender,” said National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter. “Healthcare decisions belong with families, not politicians. This decision will cause real harm.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling sends a dangerous message that even laws causing immediate harm to transgender youth can stay in effect while legal challenges work their way through the courts, often a process that takes months or years. This allows states to enforce discriminatory policies that disrupt lives, restrict medical care, and create fear and instability, even before their constitutionality has been fully decided. As of June 2025, similar laws have passed or been proposed in over 20 states, creating a patchwork of legality that leaves many families uncertain whether their child will be able to receive proper care.

This ruling paves the way for a broader wave of anti-transgender legislation under the Trump administration, bolstered by President Trump’s return to office and multiple executive orders targeting transgender people, including efforts to eliminate federal recognition of gender identity, restrict access to healthcare for transgender people of all ages, and the banning of transgender students from sports and public school inclusion.

Anti-transgender legislation like Tennessee’s law is part of a growing national campaign to strip transgender people of their rights, dignity, and access to lifesaving care. These laws are not based on medical evidence or concern for children, but on fear, misinformation, and a desire to erase trans people from public life. The harm they cause is real, immediate, and profound. At GLAD Law, we are committed to challenging these attacks in the courts, supporting affected families, and working toward a future where all transgender people can live openly, safely, and with full equality.

Make a donation today to support our legal advocacy and ensure every young person can grow up with the freedom to be themselves.

You Can Help Power This Fight

Notícias

Lar » Imprensa

GLAD Law Condemns Committees of Conference Approval of Legislation Banning Access to Health Care for Transgender Adolescents

Today, Committees of Conference reported a bill to ban access to health care for transgender youth. HB 377 prohibits medical professionals in New Hampshire from providing medically-necessary puberty-blocking medications and hormone replacement therapy for transgender patients under age 18 and denies parents of transgender youth the ability to seek expert medical care for their child.

Chris Erchull, Senior Staff Attorney, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) shared the following response:

“The legislature can still reverse its extreme overreach into the private lives of New Hampshire families by rejecting this bill. Parents and families, not the government, know what’s best for their children. All New Hampshire families must retain the ability to make healthcare decisions for themselves without government interference. This legislation takes that right away from parents, who want nothing more than to care for their child.

“The best way to protect the health and well-being of transgender young people is to ensure that they can continue to access essential, age-appropriate medical care from licensed clinicians practicing according to the well-established medical standards of care. Banning necessary medical care puts young people at increased risk of serious harms, including depression, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts or behavior. When transgender youth, like all youth, receive the medical care and support they need, they are able to thrive and have healthy, happy childhoods that set them up for success in life.

“Furthermore, this ban punishes medical providers who follow expert medical standards of care for transgender patients—standards that are endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and every other leading U.S. medical professional association.

“It can be hard to understand what it’s like to have a transgender child. The parents of transgender adolescents need information and advice from professionals they trust, but this bill would cut off access to that guidance, leaving families without hope for supporting their children as they suffer.

“This effort to prevent young people from receiving necessary health care is just the latest in a years-long campaign by extremist politicians to roll back rights and protections for transgender Granite Staters, especially transgender youth, and to insert government between them and their families. GLAD Law will continue to work with our allies and use every legal tool at our disposal to ensure that all New Hampshire residents—including transgender Granite Staters—can live authentically and without needless government intrusion.”

Notícias

Lar » Imprensa

Legislatura do Maine rejeita projetos de lei que visam atletas estudantes transgêneros

AUGUSTA – A Assembleia Legislativa do Maine rejeitou oito projetos de lei na segunda-feira que visavam atletas estudantes transgêneros, a comunidade transgênero e a Lei de Direitos Humanos do Maine. Uma ampla coalizão se uniu para responder, incluindo organizações de igualdade, profissionais de saúde, grupos de defesa jurídica e cidadãos comuns do Maine de todas as idades e origens.

“Milhares de pessoas do Maine compareceram à Assembleia Legislativa, ligaram e enviaram e-mails aos seus legisladores e se posicionaram firmemente contra oito projetos de lei diferentes que visavam nossa comunidade”, disse Gia Drew, Diretora Executiva da EqualityMaine. “Somos gratos aos membros da Assembleia Legislativa do Maine que nos ouviram e ajudaram a derrotar esses projetos de lei prejudiciais. Nossa comunidade é resiliente e queremos que cada pessoa transgênero no Maine saiba que é amada, que não está sozinha e que estaremos ao seu lado.”

A Assembleia Legislativa considerou e rejeitou oito projetos de lei:

LD 233, Uma lei para proibir homens biológicos de participar de programas e atividades esportivas escolares projetados para mulheres quando o financiamento estadual for fornecido à escola;
LD 868, Uma Lei para Garantir Equidade e Segurança em Esportes, Banheiros, Vestiários e Moradias em Escolas de Ensino Fundamental, Médio e Pós-Secundário;
LD 1002, Uma lei para proteger a identificação de crianças exigindo que as escolas públicas usem o nome e o gênero especificados na certidão de nascimento da criança;
LD 1134, Uma lei para proibir homens de participarem de esportes femininos ou usarem instalações femininas;
LD 1704, Uma lei que proíbe uma unidade administrativa escolar de adotar uma política que permita que um aluno use um banheiro designado para uso pelo sexo oposto.
LD 1337, Uma lei para alterar a Lei de Direitos Humanos do Maine em relação a atletas femininas e segurança em abrigos femininos separados por sexo;
LD 1432, Uma Lei para Remover a Consideração da Identidade de Gênero da Lei de Direitos Humanos do Maine; e
LD 380, Uma Lei para Alterar Certas Leis Relativas a Serviços de Saúde que Afirmam o Género

“Os eleitores do Maine deixaram claro há 20 anos que é errado discriminar alguém por ser transgênero, e o Tribunal de Justiça do Maine decidiu em 2014 afirmar que as escolas devem tratar os alunos transgêneros igualmente, incluindo o acesso aos banheiros ou vestiários da escola”, disse Mary Bonauto, Diretora Sênior de Direitos Civis e Estratégias Legais, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law).

“Vamos ser claros: esses projetos de lei foram um ataque direto aos nossos direitos, à nossa dignidade e às nossas vidas”, disse Bre Danvers Kidman, codiretora da MaineTransNet. “Nossa comunidade se levantou, apoiou aliados em todo o estado e os silenciou. Pessoas transgênero não existem para serem usadas como uma questão política. Nossos direitos civis não estão em debate. Não vamos desaparecer. Sabemos quem somos, sabemos o que merecemos e nunca deixaremos de lutar para viver em segurança, liberdade e visibilidade em todas as partes deste estado.”

Mais de 900 pessoas do Maine testemunharam contra as tentativas de negar a estudantes transgênero acesso a cuidados de saúde e proibi-los de participar de esportes escolares durante uma audiência pública em maio. A audiência reuniu uma amostra representativa extraordinária do nosso estado — pais, educadores, colegas estudantes, atletas atuais e antigos, líderes religiosos e muitos outros — todos unidos em defesa da dignidade, da justiça e da inclusão. Seus depoimentos refletiram um claro consenso: esses ataques não refletem os valores do Maine e não têm lugar em nossas leis.

“Atletas estudantes transgêneros estão sendo alvo de alguns dos homens mais ricos e poderosos do mundo. Somos gratos pelo tremendo trabalho de nossos aliados na Assembleia Legislativa, que defenderam o que é certo, e pelos membros da comunidade trans que contaram suas histórias e demonstraram os danos que esses projetos de lei terríveis teriam causado”, disse Destie Hohman Sprague, Diretora Executiva do Lobby Feminino do Maine.

“Todos os alunos devem ser tratados com gentileza e respeito, e devem poder frequentar a escola e praticar esportes sem medo. Esses projetos de lei não prejudicariam apenas as meninas transgênero, mas também a todos, submetendo todas as meninas do Maine a procedimentos invasivos que violam a privacidade pessoal”, disse Sue Campbell, Diretora Executiva da OUT Maine.

A coalizão permanece unida e preparada para responder a futuras ameaças à igualdade e aos direitos humanos no Maine. À medida que esforços para reverter proteções ou atingir comunidades vulneráveis continuam a surgir em todo o país, defensores, organizações e membros da comunidade em todo o estado estão prontos para defender os valores de compaixão, coragem e humanidade do Maine.

Notícias

Lar » Imprensa

Militares transgêneros são informados de que devem decidir até hoje como serão expurgados do Exército: "voluntariamente" ou involuntariamente

“There is nothing voluntary about forced separation,” says GLAD Law’s Jennifer Levi

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has instructed transgender servicemembers to self-identify for separation by today, June 6—July 7 for reservists—or face “involuntary separation.” GLAD Law e NCLR report that transgender servicemembers are struggling with an impossible choice. Many say that “voluntary” separation is misleading. Yet they fear the unknown consequences of the involuntary separation process for themselves and their families. Former military leaders have also spoken out, calling the rushed nature of this ban “alarming” and noting that “military policy changes typically involve months of careful planning and timelines that account for the complexity of the military personnel system.”

GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi e NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter, the lead attorneys in Talbott v. EUA (anteriormente Talbott x Trump), are transgender themselves and each have more than three decades of experience litigating landmark LGBTQ+ cases. Together, Levi and Minter also led the 2017 legal fight against the transgender military ban in Doe v. Trump e Stockman x Trump, which secured a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the ban. Levi and Minter responded to today’s deadline:

“There’s nothing voluntary about forced separation,” said Jennifer Levi, Diretora Sênior de Direitos Transgêneros e Queer da GLAD Law. “Honorable and committed transgender servicemembers are being coerced into choreographing their own dismissal under a presidential edict that maligns their character with falsehoods, characterizations the government itself admitted in court are untrue. These are decorated veterans who served for decades and forcing them out simply for being transgender is a shameful betrayal of American values.”

“The military has invested millions of dollars in training thousands of transgender servicemembers, such as Talbott plaintiff Major Erica Vandal, who was born into a military family on a base overseas, graduated from West Point, served with distinction for 14 years, deployed to Afghanistan, and has been awarded a Bronze Star,” said Diretora Jurídica da NCLR, Shannon Minter. “Major Vandal and others are now being forced out through a humiliating process typically reserved for misconduct that will leave a stain on their records. This mistreatment of servicemembers who have put their lives on the line for our country is needlessly cruel and a shocking betrayal of our commitment to all those who serve.”

Talbott v. EUA, and a second legal challenge to the ban, Shilling v. EUA, are continuing through the courts. Talbott v. EUA is awaiting the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision on the government’s motion for emergency stay. The recent Supreme Court order in Shilling does not apply to Talbott.

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

Notícias

Lar » Imprensa

There is No Legal Basis for Threats to Providers of Transgender Youth Care

Statement from Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights, in response to the FBI’s tweet about investigating health care providers of transgender youth:

There are no federal laws that support threats to providers of health care for transgender adolescents. This is part of an ongoing effort to intimidate doctors who are providing essential medical care. As a comprehensive, systematic review recently commissioned by the Utah legislature concluded, a strong body of medical evidence supports the safety and efficacy of this care. These efforts make it more difficult for parents to secure the health care their children need to thrive.

Read the FBI’s tweet about investigating providers.

Learn about the Utah legislature’s report.

Notícias

Lar » Imprensa

Nova Lei de Adoção Confirmatória de Vermont Aumenta a Segurança de Famílias LGBTQ+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notícias

Lar » Imprensa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talbott x Trump was the first legal challenge filed against President Trump’s recent transgender military ban executive order. The case is on behalf of 32 plaintiffs and was brought by LGBTQ+ legal groups GLAD Law and NCLR along with legal counsel from Wardenski P.C., Kropf Moseley PLCC, and Zalkind, Duncan + Bernstein. GLAD Law’s Jennifer Levi and NCLR’s Shannon Minter, the advogados principais neste caso, 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 e Stockman x Trump, que também garantiu uma liminar nacional bloqueando essa proibição.

Saiba mais sobre Talbott v. EUA.