Filed May 25, 2021

Fighting For The Rights Of Trans Youth in Arkansas

Brandt et al v. Rutledge et al

Dylan Brandt and his mother.

Several doctors and families are challenging a discriminatory Arkansas law that would prohibit healthcare professionals from providing or even referring transgender youth for medically necessary health care. Their case is being heard this week in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Read more about this case
Dylan Brandt and his mother.

What you can do

A child wearing a trans flag.
Take the Pledge: Support Trans Youth Now
Take the Pledge: Support Trans Youth Now
Take the pledge

Featured

U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2023
United States v. Rahimi
Women's Rights

Racial Justice

United States v. Rahimi

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2023
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
Racial Justice

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

Do employees claiming that they have been denied a transfer because of their race have to demonstrate in addition that the transfer caused a significant material disadvantage?
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2023
Molina v. Book
Free Speech

Molina v. Book

Whether police officers violated clearly established First Amendment rights when they tear-gassed plaintiffs for serving as legal observers in a public protest.
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2023
McElrath v. Georgia
Criminal Law Reform

McElrath v. Georgia

Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar an appellate court from reviewing and setting aside a jury’s verdicts of acquittal on the ground that the verdict is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict on other charges?
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2023
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
Free Speech

O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed

The ACLU, the ACLU of Northern California, and the ACLU of Southern California filed amicus briefs in support of everyday people fighting for government transparency and accountability in two cases set for review by the U.S. Supreme Court this Term: O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2023
Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Deborah Laufer
Disability Rights

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Deborah Laufer

Whether a “tester” has standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s illegal failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she does not intend to visit that place of public accommodation.
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2023
Pulsifer v. United States
Criminal Law Reform

Pulsifer v. United States

This case involves the interpretation of a federal law that allows defendants to avoid mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent drug crimes, allowing judges to impose sentences tailored to their individual circumstances.
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2023
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
Voting Rights

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

South Carolina unlawfully assigned voters to congressional districts based on their race and intentionally discriminated against Black voters in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Arizona
May 2023
Fund for Empowerment v. Phoenix, City of
Criminal Law Reform

Racial Justice

Fund for Empowerment v. Phoenix, City of

Fund for Empowerment is a challenge to the City of Phoenix’s practice of conducting sweeps of encampments without notice, issuing citations to unsheltered people for camping and sleeping on public property when they have no place else to go, and confiscating and destroying their property without notice or process.
Status: Ongoing
View case

All Cases

1,335 Court Cases

Indiana
Sep 2023
K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana
LGBTQ Rights

K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana

Four Hoosier families, joined by medical providers, are challenging an Indiana law passed in April 2023 barring access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Indiana is home to over 4,000 transgender adolescents and the health care targeted by this law is supported by the entire mainstream of the medical community.
Status: Ongoing
View case
K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana
Indiana
LGBTQ Rights

K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana

Four Hoosier families, joined by medical providers, are challenging an Indiana law passed in April 2023 barring access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Indiana is home to over 4,000 transgender adolescents and the health care targeted by this law is supported by the entire mainstream of the medical community.
Sep 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Arkansas
Sep 2023
Dylan, a white boy in a black tshirt with blonde hair, and his mom, Joanna, a white women with gray hair and a pink tshirt sitting on a poarch with a peach-painted wood and green stained glass windows.
LGBTQ Rights

Brandt et al v. Rutledge et al

Four families of transgender youth and two doctors have challenged an Arkansas law that would prohibit healthcare professionals from providing or even referring transgender young people for medically necessary health care. The law would also bar any state funds or insurance coverage for gender-affirming health care for transgender people under 18, and it would allow private insurers to refuse to cover gender-affirming care for people of any age. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleges that House Bill 1570 is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Dylan, a white boy in a black tshirt with blonde hair, and his mom, Joanna, a white women with gray hair and a pink tshirt sitting on a poarch with a peach-painted wood and green stained glass windows.
Arkansas
LGBTQ Rights

Brandt et al v. Rutledge et al

Four families of transgender youth and two doctors have challenged an Arkansas law that would prohibit healthcare professionals from providing or even referring transgender young people for medically necessary health care. The law would also bar any state funds or insurance coverage for gender-affirming health care for transgender people under 18, and it would allow private insurers to refuse to cover gender-affirming care for people of any age. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleges that House Bill 1570 is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Sep 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Tennessee
Sep 2023
L.W. v. Skrmetti
LGBTQ Rights

L.W. v. Skrmetti

Samantha and Brian Williams of Nashville, TN and their 15-year-old transgender daughter are challenging a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for transgender people under 18. Tennessee is home to over 3,000 transgender adolescents and the health care banned by this law is supported by the entire mainstream of the medical community.
Status: Ongoing
View case
L.W. v. Skrmetti
Tennessee
LGBTQ Rights

L.W. v. Skrmetti

Samantha and Brian Williams of Nashville, TN and their 15-year-old transgender daughter are challenging a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for transgender people under 18. Tennessee is home to over 3,000 transgender adolescents and the health care banned by this law is supported by the entire mainstream of the medical community.
Sep 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Idaho
Sep 2023
Photo of Lindsay Hexoc, a white woman with blonde hair in exercise clothing standing on a track
LGBTQ Rights

Hecox v. Little

Lindsay is a college student at Boise State University. She wants to run on the track team so she can form friendships with other girls. A new law in Idaho would ban her from doing so because she is transgender.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Photo of Lindsay Hexoc, a white woman with blonde hair in exercise clothing standing on a track
Idaho
LGBTQ Rights

Hecox v. Little

Lindsay is a college student at Boise State University. She wants to run on the track team so she can form friendships with other girls. A new law in Idaho would ban her from doing so because she is transgender.
Sep 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Montana
Sep 2023
Woman with short red hair, wearing a red dress and blue glasses, looks at the camera in a grey room.
LGBTQ Rights

Marquez v. State of Montana

Amelia Marquez is transgender woman and life-long Montanan. John Doe is a transgender man who was born in Montana, but currently lives out of state. Both wish to correct the sex marker on their birth certificates to reflect who they are. However, a law enacted in 2021, Montana Senate Bill 280, sought to prohibit transgender individuals born in Montana from correcting the sex marker listed on their birth certificate without obtaining a court order indicating that their “sex . . . has been changed by surgical procedure.” The ACLU, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP have sued, claiming that SB 280 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Montana State Constitution.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Woman with short red hair, wearing a red dress and blue glasses, looks at the camera in a grey room.
Montana
LGBTQ Rights

Marquez v. State of Montana

Amelia Marquez is transgender woman and life-long Montanan. John Doe is a transgender man who was born in Montana, but currently lives out of state. Both wish to correct the sex marker on their birth certificates to reflect who they are. However, a law enacted in 2021, Montana Senate Bill 280, sought to prohibit transgender individuals born in Montana from correcting the sex marker listed on their birth certificate without obtaining a court order indicating that their “sex . . . has been changed by surgical procedure.” The ACLU, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP have sued, claiming that SB 280 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Montana State Constitution.
Sep 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
1
23...