LGBTQ+ Health

Madeline Moe, et al., v. Dave Yost, et al. (Filed: 5/29/2025) 
In late 2023, the Ohio legislature passed House Bill 68, which prohibits the provision of gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy, to minors. Governor Mike DeWine vetoed the bill on the grounds that individuals and their parents have the right to make decisions regarding their healthcare, but the legislature overrode his veto and enacted the bill into law. The ACLU, on behalf of two transgender adolescents, filed a lawsuit challenging the law on grounds that it violated the state constitution's “health care freedom” amendment. A district court initially rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments and allowed the gender-affirming care ban to go into effect. In March 2025, a state appellate court blocked the ban and halted enforcement, but the state has appealed the case to the Ohio Supreme Court, which is where this brief will be filed on behalf of protecting access to gender-affirming care.

ACP has extensive policy on supporting antidiscrimination efforts in health care settings, supporting access to LGBTQ+-inclusive and gender-affirming care, and ensuring access to care for all individuals, regardless of personal characteristics. ACP’s policy calls on public and private payers to cover comprehensive transgender health services, as well as opposes discrimination on the basis of gender identity. ACP also has policy against medically unnecessary restrictions on care and services, as well as joint principles opposing political interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust, transparent, and scientifically rigorous process and include medical interventions for some adolescents following robust diagnostic assessment. They further argue that a ban on this care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them the treatment they need.

Madeline Moe, et al., v. Dave Yost, et al. (Filed: 12/9/2025) 
The Ohio Supreme Court granted the state’s appeal and will hear arguments in this case. In this amicus brief, the interested parties highlight the rigorous and transparent process used to develop medical guidelines for the treatment of gender dysphoria, which indicate the provision of gender-affirming care for some individuals following robust diagnostic assessment. They further argue that the implementation of House Bill 68 will cause irreparable harm to adolescents with gender dysphoria by effectively denying them access to treatment.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

PFLAG, INC., et al., v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al. (Filed: 2/21/2025) 
On January 28, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order seeking to functionally ban gender affirming care for individuals under the age of 19. The order seeks to halt federal funding to any institutions providing gender-affirming care to patients under the age of 19; end Medicaid, Medicare, and TRICARE coverage of gender-affirming care; and calls on federal agencies to rescind or amend any policies that rely on WPATH guidance. PFLAG, GLMA, and a number of adolescents and their parents have filed a Federal lawsuit in Maryland seeking to enjoin the Executive Order, which is where this brief was filed.

ACP has extensive policy on supporting antidiscrimination efforts in health care settings, supporting access to LGBTQ+-inclusive and gender-affirming care, and ensuring access to care for all individuals, regardless of personal characteristics. ACP’s policy calls on public and private payers to cover comprehensive transgender health services, as well as opposes discrimination on the basis of gender identity. ACP also has policy against medically unnecessary restrictions on care and services, as well as joint principles opposing political interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust, transparent, and scientifically rigorous process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that a ban on this care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them the treatment they need.

PFLAG, INC., et al., v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al. (Filed: 9/30/2025) 
On March 4, 2025, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the executive order while the case moves through the appeals process. The case will now be heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which is where this brief will be filed in support of preserving access to gender-affirming care.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

State of Washington, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al. (Filed: 2/25/2025)
On January 28, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order seeking to functionally ban gender affirming care for individuals under the age of 19. The order seeks to halt federal funding to any institutions providing gender-affirming care to patients under the age of 19; end Medicaid, Medicare, and TRICARE coverage of gender-affirming care; and calls on federal agencies to rescind or amend any policies that rely on WPATH guidance. Attorneys General in Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon, along with three physicians, have filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Washington State challenging the executive order.

ACP has extensive policy on supporting antidiscrimination efforts in health care settings, supporting access to LGBTQ+-inclusive and gender-affirming care, and ensuring access to care for all individuals, regardless of personal characteristics. ACP’s policy calls on public and private payers to cover comprehensive transgender health services, as well as opposes discrimination on the basis of gender identity. ACP also has policy against medically unnecessary restrictions on care and services, as well as joint principles opposing political interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust, transparent, and scientifically rigorous process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that a ban on this care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them the treatment they need.

State of Washington et al., v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al. (Filed 9/19/2025)
In February 2025, a district court issued an order granting in part a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to prevent the enforcement of the Executive Order while the case moves through the appeals process. The court ruled that the president does not have the unilateral authority to impose new conditions on congressionally approved funding. The Trump Administration appealed this judgement. This case will now be heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which is where this brief was filed.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

State of Florida; Florida Agency for Health Care Administration; Florida Department of Management Services; Catholic Medical Association, v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al. (Filed: 1/9/2025)
Under Section 1557 of the ACA, health programs or activities that receive federal funding are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. In 2016, HHS issued a final rule implementing Section 1557 that interpreted discrimination on the basis of sex as encompassing sex stereotyping, gender expression, gender identity, and termination of pregnancy. The first Trump administration reversed the 2016 rule’s expanded definition of sex discrimination, and then the Biden administration once again expanded the definition and added prohibitions of sex discrimination on the basis of an individual’s marital, parental, or family status. In May 2024, Florida and its Medicaid and other health agencies, along with the Catholic Medical Association, filed a lawsuit against HHS arguing that enforcing the Section 1557 antidiscrimination protections around gender-affirming care would require them to pay for services that are prohibited under state law. In July 2024, a district judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing the federal government from extending sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity in the state of Florida.

ACP has extensive policy on supporting antidiscrimination efforts in health care settings, supporting access to LGBTQ+-inclusive and gender-affirming care, and ensuring access to care for all individuals, regardless of personal characteristics. ACP has submitted comments in support of the exact Section 1557 rule that is currently being challenged. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that LGBTQ people with chronic diseases face distinct challenges accessing health care. They further argue that discrimination in health care harms many LGBTQ people in many different ways, and preventing discrimination is integral to improving health outcomes and providing better preventive care.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

State of Texas; State of Montana, v. Xavier Becerra, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Melanie Fontes Rainer, Director, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; United States Department of Health and Human Services (Filed: 12/04/2024)
Under Section 1557 of the ACA, health programs or activities that receive federal funding are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. In 2016, HHS issued a final rule implementing Section 1557 that interpreted discrimination on the basis of sex as encompassing sex stereotyping, gender expression, gender identity, and termination of pregnancy. The first Trump administration reversed the 2016 rule’s expanded definition of sex discrimination, and then the Biden administration once again expanded the definition. In 2024, Texas and Montana filed a lawsuit arguing that enforcing the Section 1557 antidiscrimination protections related to gender-affirming care would require them to cover such services under their state’s Medicaid programs despite their state law prohibiting it. A district judge postponed the effective date of the Biden Administration’s final rule in Texas and Montana as the case proceeds through the courts. The federal government appealed this ruling, and this brief will be filed on their behalf in support of expanded anti-discrimination protections and access to gender-affirming care.

ACP has extensive policy on supporting antidiscrimination efforts in health care settings, supporting access to LGBTQ+-inclusive and gender-affirming care, and ensuring access to care for all individuals, regardless of personal characteristics. ACP has submitted comments in support of the exact Section 1557 rule that is currently being challenged. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that LGBTQ people with chronic diseases face distinct challenges accessing health care. They further argue that discrimination in health care harms many LGBTQ people in many different ways, and preventing discrimination is integral to improving health outcomes and providing better preventive care.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

State of Tennessee, et al., v. Xavier Becerra, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Melanie Fontes Rainer, in her official capacity as Director of the Office for Civil Rights; Chiquita Brooks-Lasure, in her official capacity as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Filed: 11/26/2024)
Under Section 1557 of the ACA, health programs or activities that receive federal funding are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. In 2016, HHS issued a final rule implementing Section 1557 that interpreted discrimination on the basis of sex as encompassing sex stereotyping, gender expression, gender identity, and termination of pregnancy. The first Trump administration reversed the 2016 rule’s expanded definition of sex discrimination, and then the Biden administration once again expanded the definition. In 2024, Tennessee and fourteen other states filed a lawsuit against HHS and CMS administrators, arguing that enforcing the Section 1557 antidiscrimination protections around gender-affirming care would require them to cover such services under their state’s Medicaid programs. A district judge issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the federal government from extending sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity nationwide. The government appealed this ruling, and this brief was filed on their behalf in support of expanded anti-discrimination protections.

ACP has extensive policy on supporting antidiscrimination efforts in health care settings, supporting access to LGBTQ+-inclusive and gender-affirming care, and ensuring access to care for all individuals, regardless of personal characteristics. ACP has submitted comments in support of the exact Section 1557 rule that is currently being challenged. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that LGBTQ people with chronic diseases face distinct challenges accessing health care. They further argue that discrimination in health care harms many LGBTQ people in many different ways, and preventing discrimination is integral to improving health outcomes and providing better preventive care.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Increasing Health Equity sections.

Scarlet Van Garderen, et al., v. State of Montana, et al. (Filed: 4/11/2024)
This case involves a Montana law prohibiting the provision of gender-affirming surgery, hormone therapy, and puberty blockers to individuals under the age of 18. Medical professionals found to have violated this prohibition would face professional licensure penalties. The law was challenged, and a district judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing the law from going into effect. This case will be filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and access to gender-affirming care in a challenge of the preliminary injunction by Montana. ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that a ban on this care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them the treatment they need.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Increasing Health Equity sections.

Jaime Masters; Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, v. PFLAG, Inc; Mirabel Voe and Antonio Voe, a minor; Wanda Roe and Tommy Roe, a minor; Adam Briggle and Amber Briggle and M.B., a minor (Filed: 1/24/2024) 
Following the 2022 release of an official memo by the Texas attorney general finding that gender-affirming care provided to minors constituted child abuse, Texas governor Gregg Abbott issued a directive instructing the Texas Department of Family Protective Services to begin investigating instances of gender-affirming care provision to minors as child abuse. The agency complied with this order and at least nine investigations were opened into families who have permitted their transgender child to receive gender-affirming care. Several families with transgender children filed for a temporary injunction against the enforcement of this order and the district court granted the injunction for three families and PFLAG, therefore extending the injunction to all members of a PFLAG chapter. This brief will be filed on behalf of PFLAG and the families in an appeal of the injunction by the Texas Department of Family Protective Services. ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that enforcement of this order would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them the treatment they need.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Increasing Health Equity sections.

Dylan Brandt, et al., v. Tim Griffin, et al. (Filed: 12/18/2023) 
This case involves an Arkansas law prohibiting physicians from proving gender-affirming care to individuals under 18 and prohibits the state Medicaid program and private insurance from reimbursing gender-affirming care for minors. The Arkansas governor vetoed the legislation, but the state legislature voted to overturn the veto and the law went into effect. The law was challenged in district court and struck down, but this decision was appealed by Arkansas. ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that a ban on this care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them the treatment they need.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Increasing Health Equity sections.

Jane Doe 1, et al., v. Commonwealth of Kentucky ex rel. Daniel Cameron, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky (Filed: 12/11/2023)
This case involves a Kentucky law under which physicians are prohibited from providing any form of gender-affirming care to transgender patients under the age of 18. Physicians who are found to have violated this prohibition face the revocation of their medical license, as well as be subject to civil damages. In addition to restrictions on gender-affirming care, the law also has provisions prohibiting the teaching or discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity for students of any age at schools and the use of bathrooms and other facilities that align with the gender identity of transgender students. ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that a ban on this care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them the treatment they need.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Increasing Health Equity sections.

T.D., et al., v. Drew H Wrigley, Attorney General for the State of North Dakota, et al. (Filed: 10/31/2023) 
This case involves a North Dakota law prohibiting the provision of gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents in the state. Health professionals who violate the prohibition on gender-affirming surgery are guilty of a class B felony and subject to up to ten years in prison. This amicus brief was filed on behalf of three families who contend the law interferes with their ability to make health care decisions for their children, as well as a physician who cares for transgender adolescents. ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of LGBTQ+ populations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that a ban on gender affirming care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them necessary medical treatment.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Increasing Health Equity sections.

K.C., et al., v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana (Filed 9/27/2023)
This case involves an Indiana law under which physicians are prohibited from providing, aiding, or abetting gender-affirming surgery, hormone replacement therapy, puberty blockers, and gender-affirming mental health care and social services support to transgender patients under the age of 18. The law also creates a private right to action that allows an adolescent or their parent to pursue civil charges against a health provider, with an exception for cases in which the parent consented to the care. As a result of an ACLU lawsuit, a district court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from implementing most of the provisions of the law. This brief was filed on behalf of the preliminary injunction in an appeal by the Indiana Medical Licensing Board of Indiana.

ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that a ban on gender affirming care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them necessary medical treatment.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Increasing Health Equity sections.

Lazaro Loe, et al., v. Texas, et al. (Filed: 8/11/2023)
This case involves a Texas law that prohibits physicians from providing gender-affirming surgery, hormone replacement therapy, and puberty blockers to transgender patients under the age of 18. The law also prohibits state Medicaid and CHIP programs from covering these services and prohibits the distribution of public funds to individuals or institutions that provide or facilitate the provision of prohibited gender-affirming care for adolescents. This amicus brief was filed on behalf of five families in Texas who contend the law interferes with their ability to make health care decisions for their children.

ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that Texas’ ban is based on factually inaccurate information and would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them necessary medical treatment.

The State of Texas, et al. v. Lazaro Loe, et al. (Filed: 1/5/2024) 
In August 2023, the Travis County District Court entered an order blocking the gender-affirming care ban from being implemented. The Texas Attorney General appealed that decision and the plaintiffs sought emergency relief from the Texas Supreme Court to reinstate the district court’s ruling and to stop the ban from going into effect. The Texas Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for emergency relief, which allowed the ban to take effect on September 1. While the request for emergency relief was denied, the Texas Supreme Court will continue to hear arguments in this case and this amicus brief was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and protecting access to gender-affirming care in Texas.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Increasing Health Equity sections.

American Academy of Pediatrics, v. Federal Trade Commission; World Professional Association for Transgender Health, v. Federal Trade Commission; Endocrine Society, v. Federal Trade Commission (Filed: 3/11/2026 and 3/10/2026)
In February 2026, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The Endocrine Society, and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health filed separate federal lawsuits against the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) seeking to quash civil investigative demands related to their clinical guideline development and support for access to evidence-based and clinically indicated pediatric gender-affirming care. The organizations are seeking to enjoin the FTC’s investigations on First Amendment grounds and argue that the investigations are retaliatory.

ACP strongly opposes political considerations in determining medical standards of care. ACP further opposes medically unnecessary restrictions on care and services and political interference in the patient-physician relationship. ACP also has extensive policy supporting access to evidence-based gender-affirming care as clinically indicated. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the FTC’s actions threaten the development of sound medical practices and the progress of scientific inquiry and reiterates that gender-affirming medical care as clinically indicated is evidence-based and an important component of comprehensive health care.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

L.W., et al., v. Jonathan Skrmetti, et al. (Filed: 8/10/2023)
This case involves a Tennessee law banning gender affirming care for adolescents and implementing financial and licensure penalties for physicians who violate the law. The law was challenged on behalf of three families who contend that the law interferes with their ability to make health care decisions for their children, as well as a physician who cares for transgender adolescents. A preliminary injunction was issued blocking the state from enforcing its prohibition on hormone treatment, but on appeal, the district court’s preliminary injunction was stayed, allowing the law to go into effect as the case proceeds through the legal system. This brief was filed in support of a motion to appeal the stay.

ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that scientific evidence indicates the effectiveness of treating gender dysphoria according to these guidelines and that a ban on gender affirming care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them necessary medical treatment.

L.W., et al., v. Jonathan Skrmetti, et al. (Filed: 12/4/2023)
In September 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s request to block enforcement of the state’s restrictions on gender-affirming care. As such, the law prohibiting access to gender-affirming care for minors remains in effect. The plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States, and this brief will be filed with the Supreme Court in support of the plaintiff’s request to hear this case.

United States of America v. Jonathan Skrmetti, et al. (Filed: 9/3/2024)
In June 2024, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and will be hearing arguments in this case. This brief will be filed on behalf of the U.S. and protecting access to medically appropriate gender-affirming care.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Increasing Health Equity sections.

Pam Poe, et al., v. Raúl Labrador, et al. (Filed: 7/25/2023)
This case challenges an Idaho law that amends state code regarding genital mutilation of a child to prohibit physicians from providing gender-affirming surgery, puberty blockers, and other hormone therapy to transgender patients under the age of 18. While a general exception has historically been provided to permit medical interventions necessary for the health of a patient, this law amends the exception to exclude gender-affirming treatment for gender dysphoria. Medical professionals who are found to have violated this prohibition would face criminal penalties, including a felony charge carrying up to ten years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that the Idaho legislature makes factually inaccurate claims to support the ban, a ban which would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them necessary medical treatment.

Pam Poe, et al., v. Raúl Labrador, et al. (Filed: 3/12/2024)
In December 2023, the district court issued an order enjoining Idaho from enforcing this law as the case proceeds through the court system and denied the state’s request to stay the preliminary injunction. In January 2024, Idaho appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is where this brief will be filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and access to gender-affirming care.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Increasing Health Equity sections.

Emma Koe, et al., v. Caylee Noggle, et al. (Filed: 7/3/2023)
This case challenges a Georgia law that prohibits physicians from providing gender-affirming surgery and hormone replacement therapy to transgender patients under the age of 18. Medical professionals who are found to have violated this prohibition face unspecified licensure penalties. ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations and calls on public and private payers to cover comprehensive transgender health services. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that Georgia’s legislative findings are factually inaccurate, and a ban on this care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them necessary medical treatment.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Increasing Health Equity sections.

Peter Poe, et al., v. Gentner Drummond, et al. (Filed: 6/9/2023)
This case challenges an Oklahoma law that prohibits physicians from providing gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy to transgender patients under the age of 18. Medical professionals who are found to have violated this prohibition face the revocation of their medical license, as well as be subject to civil suits that could be brought by parents, guardians, and next friend of the impacted adolescent up until age 45.

ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations and calls on public and private payers to cover comprehensive transgender health services. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that a ban on this care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them necessary medical treatment.

Peter Poe, et al., v. Gentner Drummond, et al. (Filed: 11/16/2023)
In October 2023, a district court judge denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the law which allowed the ban on gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy to go into effect immediately. This brief was filed in support of the plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s decision.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Increasing Health Equity sections.

Jane Doe, et al., v. Joseph A. Ladapo, et al. (Filed: 4/24/23)
This case challenges a November 2022 Florida Board of Medicine decision to adopt new standards of care that prohibit the provision of gender-affirming care—including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgery—to transgender adolescents. ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations and calls on public and private payers to cover comprehensive transgender health services.

In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. Further, the parties argue that the material supporting the Board’s healthcare ban is factually inaccurate and ignores the recommendations of the medical community.

Jane Doe, et al., v. Surgeon General, State of Florida, et al. (Filed: 10/13/2023)
On June 6, 2023, District Judge Robert Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction preventing the state from enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care while the case moves through the courts. The state of Florida appealed the preliminary injunction order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which is where this updated brief was filed in support of affirming the preliminary injunction.

Jane Doe, et al., v. Surgeon General, State of Florida, et al. (Filed: 10/9/2024)
On August 26, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled 2-1 to grant the state’s request for a stay of the injunction pending appeal. This decision means that the lower district court’s injunction blocking enforcement of the ban on gender affirming care is overturned as the case proceeds through the courts. This brief will be filed in support of the plaintiff's challenge of the state’s policies at the merit stage with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Increasing Health Equity sections.

August Dekker, et al., v. Jason Weida, et al. (Filed: 4/28/23)
This case challenges a rule finalized by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), the state agency that administers Florida’s Medicaid program, that prohibits the coverage of certain types of gender-affirming care for transgender Medicaid beneficiaries. ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations and calls on public and private payers to cover comprehensive transgender health services.

In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that widely accepted guidelines support the provision of gender-affirming care for treating individuals experiencing gender dysphoria, that these guidelines were developed under a rigorous and transparent process based on scientific evidence, and that prohibiting the coverage of gender-affirming care would cause irreparable harm to Medicaid recipients experiencing gender dysphoria in Florida. Further, the parties argue that the underlying “Generally Accepted Professional Medical Standards Determination on the Treatment of Gender Dysphoria” report issued by AHCA that the finalized rule is based upon is factually inaccurate and ignores the recommendations of the medical community.

August Dekker, et al., v. Secretary, Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, et al. (Filed 12/01/23)
In June 2023, a U.S. district judge found Florida’s prohibition of Medicaid coverage of gender-affirming care to be unconstitutional and blocked the policy from being enforced. This brief will be filed in support of the district court ruling in an appeal by the state of Florida.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Increasing Health Equity sections.

Vasquez & Covington v. Iowa Department of Human Services (Filed: 6/23/22)
This case challenges a 2019 amendment to Iowa’s Civil Rights Act which would allow state and local governments to decline to cover “sex reassignment surgery” or “any other cosmetic reconstructive or plastic surgery procedure related to transsexualism, hermaphroditism, gender identity disorder, or body dysmorphic disorder." In November 2021, a district court ruled that the denial of gender affirming surgery violated the Iowa state constitution and ordered the Iowa Department of Human Services to cover such surgeries. The state appealed the district court’s ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court, which is where this brief was filed. ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports LGBT-inclusive policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of these populations and opposes legislation with discriminatory intent upon individuals based on gender identity.

ACP’s policy calls on public and private payers to cover/ comprehensive transgender health services, as well as opposes discrimination on the basis of gender identity. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that individuals with gender dysphoria living without gender affirming care may experience debilitating distress, depression, impairment of function, self-injurious behaviors, and suicide; and that treatments for gender dysphoria are medically necessary and may be urgent.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Increasing Health Equity sections.

A.C. v. Metropolitan School District of Martinsville and Principal, John R. Martin Middle School (Filed: 8/2/2022)
This case involves a 13-year-old transgender student (A.C.) of John R. Martin Middle school who was not permitted to use the restroom aligned with his gender identity. This policy made the student feel singled out, resulting in anxiety, depression, and stigmatization. A.C. and his mother filed a lawsuit against the district and a district judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering the school district to allow A.C. to use facilities aligned with his gender identity. This brief was filed in support of A.C. in an appeal by the Metropolitan School District against the preliminary injunction.

ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports LGBT-inclusive policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of these populations. We believe the spirit of this policy extends to the issue of “bathroom bills” and the ability of transgender individuals, including youth, to have access to facilities that are in line with their gender identity. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that exclusionary policies such as this expose transgender individuals to harassment and abuse, exacerbate stigma and discrimination, harm social and emotional development, and are contrary to widely accepted, evidence-based treatment protocols.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Increasing Health Equity section.

Jane Doe 1, et al., v. William C. Thornbury, Jr. et al. (Filed: 5/22/2022)
This case challenges Kentucky Senate Bill 150, which seeks to ban gender affirming care for minors. The bill was vetoed by the governor, but the legislature voted to override this veto. This brief was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, several minors who are transgender, who argue that this ban violates their constitutional rights and, if it goes into effect, will cause serious harm.

ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations and calls on public and private payers to cover comprehensive transgender health services. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender dysphoria treatment guidelines were developed through a robust and transparent process and include medical interventions for some adolescents. They further argue that a ban on this care would irreparably harm many adolescents by denying them the treatment they need.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Increasing Health Equity sections.

Dee Fulcher, Guiliano Silva, and the Transgender American Veterans Association, v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Filed: 6/28/2017)
In June 2016, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced it would undergo rulemaking to remove a ban on coverage of gender-affirming surgeries for veterans. The Office of Management and Budget denied this proposal, and the VA withdrew consideration of rulemaking. The petitioners in this case, two veterans seeking gender affirming surgery, filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit requesting a review of the VA’s denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery and to direct the VA to undertake rulemaking to amend or repeal the ban. ACP’s overall policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) disparities supports policies that benefit the overall health and well-being of the LGBTQ+ populations. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that gender-affirming surgery is a clinically effective, medically necessary treatment for certain patients diagnosed with gender dysphoria. They further argue that appropriate treatment of patients with gender-dysphoria is necessary to prevent physical and emotional harm.

In Re Transgender American Veterans Association (Filed: 1/29/2024)
In response to legal pressure, the VA sought public comment on the above rulemaking petition in 2018. Despite obtaining public comment and making numerous announcements regarding a rule change over the years, no further action was taken on the petition. This brief will be filed in support of a petition for mandamus that will be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that seeks to initiate VA action. The plaintiffs allege that in stalling for more than seven years, the VA is violating statutory requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act and other law to "not engage in unreasonable delay" and to "resolve matters presented to it within a reasonable time."

Transgender American Veterans Association, v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Filed: 9/3/2024) 
In February 2024, the VA formally denied the Transgender American Veteran Association’s (TAVA) 2016 petition and the court dismissed the petition for mandamus, forcing the VA to act. This brief was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on behalf of TAVA’s appeal of the VA’s denial of coverage for gender-affirming care.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care and Increasing Health Equity sections.