Summary: Following the issuance of EO 14168, the Trump Administration's Bureau of Prisons implemented a policy that seeks to override the Prison Rape Elimination Act and would terminate all necessary medical care for transgender incarcerated individuals. The plaintiffs, twelve transgender women in carceral housing, allege that the policy puts them at imminent risk of being transferred to a men’s facility and losing access to critical medical care. The plaintiffs argues that EO 14168 and its resulting policies violate the Administrative Procedure Act, violate the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Eighth Amendment.

Status:

On February 19, federal judge granted a preliminary injunction. On February 21, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding 9 additional plaintiffs. On February 24 and March 19, the court extended the preliminary injunction to included the additional plaintiffs.

Summary: Two transgender active-duty service members in the U.S. Air Force filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of portions of Executive Orders 14183 and 14168, which ban transgender people from serving in the military, and the Air Force's implementation of those orders. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' actions violate the Equal Protection Clause and Procedural Due Process.

Status:

On March 24th, the Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order to keep plaintiffs from being further impacted by the executive order while a case challenging the order in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia proceeds.

Summary: Following the issuance of EO 14168, the Trump Administration's Bureau of Prisons implemented a policy that seeks to override the Prison Rape Elimination Act and would terminate all necessary medical care for transgender incarcerated individuals. The plaintiff, a transgender woman in carceral housing who filed under a pseudonym to protect her safety, alleges that the policy puts her at imminent risk of being transferred to a men’s facility and losing access to critical medical care. The plaintiff argues that EO 14168 and its resulting policies violate the Administrative Procedure Act, directly conflict with the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Eighth Amendment.

Status:

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on March 4, 2025. On April 3, the defendants appealed the court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Summary: Following an order from President Trump that prohibits gender-affirming medical care for transgender people in federal prisons and immigration detention centers, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) implemented a new policy ceasing treatment for gender dysphoria, including hormone replacement therapy. The policy also prohibits gender-affirming clothing and commissary items for transgender people and requires that incorrect pronouns be used. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit, three transgender prisoners diagnosed with gender dysphoria by BOP medical providers, had their hormone therapy suspended or were told it will be suspended. They argue that this policy violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, the equal protection requirement of the 5th Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.

Status:

Filed

Summary: Following the issuance of EO 14168, the Trump Administration's Bureau of Prisons implemented a policy that seeks to override the Prison Rape Elimination Act and would terminate all necessary medical care for transgender incarcerated individuals. The plaintiff, a transgender woman in carceral housing who filed under a pseudonym to protect her safety, alleges that the policy puts her at imminent risk of being transferred to a men’s facility and losing access to critical medical care. The plaintiff argues that EO 14168 and its resulting policies violate the Administrative Procedure Act, directly conflict with the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Eighth Amendment.

Status:

On February 7, 2025, the court ordered that the case be transferred to the district in which the plaintiff is confined.

Summary: The plaintiffs, nonprofit advocacy organizations, are challenging three anti-equity executive orders issued by President Trump related to diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, and transgender people. The three executive orders terminate equity-related grants, forbid federally-funded entities from engaging in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs, and from recognizing the existence of transgender people. The organizations argue that these orders will severely limit their ability to provide essential social and health services, such as HIV treatment, fair housing, equal employment opportunities, affordable credit, and civil rights protections, to countless people across the United States, including people of color, women, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities, and people living with HIV. The plaintiffs also claim that the administration is violating the organizations' rights to free speech and due process and is engaging in intentional discrimination by issuing and enforcing these orders.

Status:

Filed

Summary: On January 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order that sought to mandate discrimination against transgender individuals across the federal government and government programs. The order directed the Departments of State and Homeland Security to require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards, reflect an individual's sex "at conception." Within 24 hours of the ensuing Passport Policy, the State Department began holding some passports and other documents (such as birth certificates and court orders) submitted by transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people who had applied to update the sex designation on their U.S. passports. The State Department also returned some applications with their newly-issued passports marked with their sex assigned at birth. In response, the plaintiffs, seven people who have not been able to obtain passports that accurately reflect their identity, filed a lawsuit alleging the State Department’s policy is arbitrary and capricious, violates the right to travel and right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and compels speech from transgender, nonbinary, and intersex passport holders in violation of their First Amendment rights.

Status:

Filed

Summary: In response to Executive Order 14168, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), a federal agency that awards grants to arts organizations across the country, implemented a new rule that all grant applicants must certify that they will not use federal funds to "promote gender ideology." Consequently, any application that is perceived to "promote" what the government defines as "gender ideology" is ineligible to receive funding. Additionally, any funded project is prohibited from "promoting" these ideas or messages. The plaintiffs, a number of arts organizations adversely affected by the NEA's "gender ideology" prohibition, argue that the prohibition has forced them to either modify the focus of their artistic projects or to be excluded from NEA funding entirely. They contend that the NEA's "gender ideology" prohibition is unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments and violates the NEA's governing statute.

Status:

Summary: The plaintiffs, multiple LGBTQ+, Health, and HIV organizations, are challenging three executive orders that aim to erase transgender people from public life, defund organizations that provide them with essential services, and terminate equity-related grants that are vital to underserved communities, including communities of color and people living with HIV. Specifically, the lawsuit argues that the executive orders violate the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment by limiting the organizations’ free speech, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Administrative Procedures Act.

Status:

Filed

Summary: This lawsuit began when two families of New Hampshire public high school students challenged a New Hampshire state law, HB 1205, which categorically bans all transgender girls in grades 5-12 from participating in school sports. Under HB 1205, transgender students are barred from their public school sports teams. The plaintiffs allege that HB 1205 denies students equal educational opportunities and singles them out for discrimination solely because they are transgender, in violation of federal law and constitutional guarantees of equal protection. On February 12, 2025, the organizations representing the families asked the court to expand their case to include a legal challenge to executive orders that ban transgender girls and women from sports nationwide.

Status:

Filed

Summary: The lawsuit contends that the Anti-DEIA Executive Orders are unconstitutionally vague and have caused chaos, fear, and confusion by suggesting that the President can prioritize certain viewpoints, terminate "equity-related" funding, and target those who support DEIA initiatives. Due to the chilling effect of these orders on free speech, Plaintiffs are afraid to carry out their lawful DEIA initiatives for fear of losing funding or facing enforcement actions. The suit argues that the President's disagreement with certain speech on matters of substantial political import does not give him the right to chill free speech or obstruct Congress' exclusive constitutional power of the purse.

Status:

The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction on February 21st, 2025. The defendants’ appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On March 14th, the Fourth Circuit granted the government’s petition for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal.

Summary: The plaintiffs, nonprofit advocacy organizations, are challenging three anti-equity executive orders issued by President Trump related to diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, and transgender people. The three executive orders terminate equity-related grants, forbid federally-funded entities from engaging in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs, and from recognizing the existence of transgender people. The organizations argue that these orders will severely limit their ability to provide essential social and health services, such as HIV treatment, fair housing, equal employment opportunities, affordable credit, and civil rights protections, to countless people across the United States, including people of color, women, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities, and people living with HIV. The plaintiffs also claim that the administration is violating the organizations' rights to free speech and due process and is engaging in intentional discrimination by issuing and enforcing these orders.

Status:

Filed

Summary: The plaintiffs, multiple LGBTQ+, Health, and HIV organizations, are challenging three executive orders that aim to erase transgender people from public life, defund organizations that provide them with essential services, and terminate equity-related grants that are vital to underserved communities, including communities of color and people living with HIV. Specifically, the lawsuit argues that the executive orders violate the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment by limiting the organizations’ free speech, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Administrative Procedures Act.

Status:

Filed

Summary: The lawsuit contends that the Anti-DEIA Executive Orders are unconstitutionally vague and have caused chaos, fear, and confusion by suggesting that the President can prioritize certain viewpoints, terminate "equity-related" funding, and target those who support DEIA initiatives. Due to the chilling effect of these orders on free speech, Plaintiffs are afraid to carry out their lawful DEIA initiatives for fear of losing funding or facing enforcement actions. The suit argues that the President's disagreement with certain speech on matters of substantial political import does not give him the right to chill free speech or obstruct Congress' exclusive constitutional power of the purse.

Status:

The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction on February 21st, 2025. The defendants’ appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On March 14th, the Fourth Circuit granted the government’s petition for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal.

Summary: The plaintiffs, nonprofit advocacy organizations, are challenging three anti-equity executive orders issued by President Trump related to diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, and transgender people. The three executive orders terminate equity-related grants, forbid federally-funded entities from engaging in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs, and from recognizing the existence of transgender people. The organizations argue that these orders will severely limit their ability to provide essential social and health services, such as HIV treatment, fair housing, equal employment opportunities, affordable credit, and civil rights protections, to countless people across the United States, including people of color, women, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities, and people living with HIV. The plaintiffs also claim that the administration is violating the organizations' rights to free speech and due process and is engaging in intentional discrimination by issuing and enforcing these orders.

Status:

Filed

Summary: The plaintiffs, multiple LGBTQ+, Health, and HIV organizations, are challenging three executive orders that aim to erase transgender people from public life, defund organizations that provide them with essential services, and terminate equity-related grants that are vital to underserved communities, including communities of color and people living with HIV. Specifically, the lawsuit argues that the executive orders violate the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment by limiting the organizations’ free speech, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Administrative Procedures Act.

Status:

Filed

Summary: This lawsuit began when two families of New Hampshire public high school students challenged a New Hampshire state law, HB 1205, which categorically bans all transgender girls in grades 5-12 from participating in school sports. Under HB 1205, transgender students are barred from their public school sports teams. The plaintiffs allege that HB 1205 denies students equal educational opportunities and singles them out for discrimination solely because they are transgender, in violation of federal law and constitutional guarantees of equal protection. On February 12, 2025, the organizations representing the families asked the court to expand their case to include a legal challenge to executive orders that ban transgender girls and women from sports nationwide.

Status:

Filed

Summary: Two transgender active-duty service members in the U.S. Air Force filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of portions of Executive Orders 14183 and 14168, which ban transgender people from serving in the military, and the Air Force's implementation of those orders. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' actions violate the Equal Protection Clause and Procedural Due Process.

Status:

On March 24th, the Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order to keep plaintiffs from being further impacted by the executive order while a case challenging the order in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia proceeds.

Summary: Six actively serving transgender service members, a transgender person seeking to enlist in the military, and the Seattle-based civil and human rights organization Gender Justice League filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump's executive order banning transgender people from serving in the U.S. military and the Pentagon’s subsequent policy. The lawsuit was filed on equal protection grounds and argues that categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.

Status:

On March 27th, 2025, the court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the Trump administration’s transgender military ban. In response, the defendants appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 31st, the Ninth Circuit denied the defendant’s request for an emergency stay on the district court’s nationwide preliminary injunction, preventing the Administration from implementing its’ anti-transgender military ban.

Summary: Twenty active service members and individuals seeking enlistment are challenging President Trump's executive order banning transgender people from serving in the U.S. military and the Pentagon’s subsequent policy that forces current transgender service members out of the armed forces and bans transgender people from enlisting. The lawsuit was filed on equal protection grounds. The plaintiffs represent all branches of the military and are contributing among the highest levels, including a Major, a Captain, a Sergeant, and a Navy Pilot. They bring decades of experience, training, and education, including a West Point education and several master’s degrees.

Status:

The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction on March 18th, 2025. Notably, the judge held that the order and ensuing policy violate the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection by discriminating based on a person’s transgender status and sex. Further, the judge stated that the executive order “is soaked in animus” and that “[the order’s] language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact.” Following the district court’s decision, the defendants appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. On March 26th, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction and request for a stay pending appeal.

Summary: Following executive orders targeting the healthcare of transgender youth by threatening the federal funding of youth gender-affirming care providers, some providers cancelled appointments and stopped providing care, cutting off access to essential healthcare for many transgender youth. Transgender young adults, adolescents, and their families whose healthcare has been disrupted by the order are challenging the lawfulness and constitutionality of these orders. They are joined by PFLAG National and GLMA, two leading LGBTQ+ advocacy and support organizations. The lawsuit aims to restore access to vital healthcare for transgender youth.

Status:

The court granted plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order on February 14th, 2025. Weeks later, on March 4th, the court granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.  On March 7th, the plaintiffs’ asked the court to enforce its nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from restricting funding for providers of gender-affirming medical care to people under 19. On March 28th, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion. The Administration appealed the courts decision to grant a preliminary injunction to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 21st.

Summary: The plaintiffs contend that the executive order violates the 5th Amendment's equal protection guarantee by discriminating against transgender individuals. They also argue that the president cannot unilaterally overrule congressional intent, as Congress has already authorized funding for medical institutions in Washington state. Additionally, the states maintain that the president cannot unilaterally regulate or criminalize medical practices in Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon, as they are protected by the 10th Amendment.

Status:

On March 17, the Court denied Washington’s request to hold the Trump administration in contempt after the administration cancelled a grant to Seattle Children’s Hospital despite the Court’s order blocking the freeze of federal funding for institutions that provide gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Previously, the Court granted the plaintiff’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order (2/14/25) and a Preliminary Injunction (2/28/25).