Suit Challenges Georgia Ban on Treatment of Minors for Gender Dysphoria

Suit was filed last week in a Georgia federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Georgia Senate Bill 140 which prohibits irreversible sex reassignment surgery and hormone replacement treatment of minors for gender dysphoria. The complaint (full text) in Koe v. Noggle, (ND GA, filed 6/29/2023), alleges in part:

The Health Care Ban violates the fundamental rights of parents to make medical decisions to ensure the health and well-being of their children. By prohibiting medical providers from treating minors with gender dysphoria—a rare condition often requiring medical and therapeutic treatment and care—in accordance with the standards of care and clinical practice guidelines, the Ban prohibits Georgia parents from seeking and obtaining appropriate medical treatment for their children.

... [It] also violates the guarantees of equal protection by denying transgender youth essential, and often lifesaving, medical treatment based on their sex and on their transgender status.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Preliminary Injunction Issued Against Tennessee's Ban on Gender-Affirming Treatment for Minors

In L.W. v. Skrmetti,(MD TN, June 28, 2023), a Tennessee federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of SB1 insofar as it bans health care personnel from providing or offering minors puberty blockers or hormone treatments for gender dysphoria. (Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the law's ban on gender-affirming surgery.) The court concluded that plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their due process claim, saying in part:

The Court ... agrees with Plaintiffs that under binding Sixth Circuit precedent, parents have a fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children, which naturally includes the right of parents to request certain medical treatments on behalf of their children....

It similarly found that plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their equal protection claim, saying in part:

Defendants’ argument that SB1 does not discriminate based on transgender status is unpersuasive....

The Court is satisfied that current precedent supports the finding that transgender individuals constitute a quasi-suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause....

[T]he Court finds that SB1 discriminates on the basis of sex, which in turn provides an alternative basis for the application of intermediate scrutiny.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision. [Posting updated to clarify scope of holding.]

Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Kentucky Ban on Puberty Blockers and Hormonal Treatment for Minors

 In Doe v. Thornbury, (WD KY, June 28, 2023), a Kentucky federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the state from enforcing the portions of SB150 that prohibit health care providers from prescribing puberty blockers or testosterone, estrogen, or progesterone to minors suffering from gender dysphoria. The court held that the ban violates the equal protection rights of minors as well as parents' due process rights to make medical decisions for their children. CNN reports on the decision.

High School's Failure to Supervise Student Did Not Violate Parents' Free Exercise Rights

In Doe v. Alpine School District, (D UT, June 21, 2023), a Utah federal district court rejected claims by the parents of a high school student that the school's practice of giving students long periods of unsupervised time during the last week of the school year violated their religious free exercise rights.  According to the court:

The Does are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have raised their son under its doctrines and to follow its practices, one of which prohibits premarital sex. The Does had previously discovered that JD had begun having sex with his girlfriend and had placed restrictions on JD’s activity to prevent him from having premarital sex thereafter, such as requiring him to be accompanied by other persons when he was with his girlfriend.... The Does learned that JD had had sex with his girlfriend in the parking lot next to the school during school hours three times during the final week of school....

The Does’ claim under the Free Exercise Clause fails because they have not alleged that the Alpine School District coerced them to abandon a religious tenet or belief. First, the school district did not coerce JD into acting against his religious beliefs. He freely chose to have premarital sex with his girlfriend, even though this was against the teachings of his religion. 

Second, the Alpine School District did not coerce the Does to act contrary to their religious principles. The Does allege that they have a religious duty to encourage JD to abstain from premarital sex. The district did nothing to pressure or force the Does to refrain from passing on those teachings to her son. The Does instead argue that the district’s policies allowed JD a window of opportunity to have sex, thwarting their attempts to prevent him from doing so. In essence, the Does assert that the Alpine School District did not do enough to help them perform their religious obligations. But the Free Exercise Clause does not impose such a duty on government entities....

The court also rejected plaintiffs' 14th Amendment parental rights claim.

Maine Sued Over New Limits On Religious Schools In Tuition Payment Program

 On Tuesday, a Catholic school in Maine and parents who would like to send their children to that school under Maine's tuition payment program for students from districts without public high schools filed suit in a Maine federal district court challenging new restrictions which the Maine legislature imposed on schools participating in the tuition payment program. The complaint (full text) in St. Dominic Academy v. Makin, (D ME, filed 6/13/2023), contends that the legislature enacted the new provisions to exclude religious schools after the U.S. Supreme Court in Carson v. Makin invalidated a requirement that participating schools be nonsectarian. The complaint explains: 

Among other things, Maine:

• Imposed a new religious neutrality requirement on schools, stating that “to the extent that an educational institution permits religious expression, it cannot discriminate between religions in so doing”;

• Imposed a new religious nondiscrimination requirement on schools; and

• Removed the religious exemption that had previously allowed religious (but “nonsectarian”) schools to handle sensitive issues relating to sexual orientation and gender identity in a way that reflected their faith commitments....

Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Reaffirms Refusal to Dismiss Case Challenging 1st-Grade Teacher's Gender Identity Instruction

In Tatel v. Mt. Lebanon School District (II), (WD PA, May 31, 2023), a Pennsylvania federal district court reaffirmed its prior decision and concluded that parents of first-grade students have asserted plausible claims that their due process and free exercise rights, as well as their rights to familial privacy and equal protection, were violated by a teacher who pursued her own agenda in discussing gender identity with young students.  The court said in part:

This case ... involves not merely instruction to influence tolerance of other children or families, but efforts to inculcate a teacher’s beliefs about transgender topics in Plaintiffs’ own children. ... [T]he allegations in this case go beyond mere reading of a few books. Here, the teacher allegedly pursued her agenda throughout the school year, including teaching first-graders that their parents may be wrong about their gender, telling one boy could dress like his mother, and telling the children to keep the teacher’s discussions about gender topics secret from their parents.... [I]t was the children’s own family and their own gender identity that Williams targeted. Plaintiffs allege that Williams targeted one child for repeated approaches about gender dysphoria despite, or because of, the parents’ beliefs.... It is reasonable to infer that Williams intended to influence the children’s own gender identity and to have at least one child become like the teacher’s transgender child.

In assessing plaintiffs' free exercise claim, the court said in part: 

Plaintiffs allege that Williams’ agenda about gender dysphoria and transgender transitioning conflicts with their sincerely held religious and moral beliefs that “human beings are created male or female and that the natural created order regarding human sexuality cannot be changed regardless of individual feelings, beliefs, or discomfort with one’s identity, and biological reality, as either male or female.”... Plaintiffs contend that Defendants deliberately supplanted the parents’ role to control the instruction of their young children about their gender identity in accordance with their religious values ... and adopted a de facto policy that Williams could continue to advocate her agenda to first-graders in the future without notice or opt out rights for the parents.... As noted, this case is not about teaching kindness or tolerance, but about a teacher’s agenda to instruct first-graders that their parents’ religious beliefs about their own children’s gender are or may be wrong.....

Volokh Conspiracy has additional discussion of the case.

New Iowa Law Addresses Sexual Materials In School Curriculum; Parental Rights

Last Friday, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed SF 496 (full text) which prohibits public schools from providing "any program, curriculum, test, survey, questionnaire, promotion, or instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation to students in kindergarten through grade six. It adds the requirement that various programs and educational materials be "age-appropriate", which is defined in the law as:

topics, messages and teaching methods suitable to particular ages or age groups of children and adolescents, based on developing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral capacity typical for the age or age group. “Age-appropriate” does not include any material with descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act....

School libraries can only contain "age-appropriate" material, except (pursuant to a pre-existing section of Iowa law (Sec. 280.6)):

religious books such as the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran shall not be excluded from any public school or institution in the state, nor shall any child be required to read such religious books contrary to the wishes of the child’s parent or guardian.

The new law amends the statutory health education requirement to eliminate the required teaching about "HPV and the availability of a vaccine to prevent HPV, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome."

The law prohibits schools from giving parents false or misleading information about a student's gender transition intent and requires school districts to inform parents of their student's request for gender-affirming care from a licensed practitioner employed by the school district.

The new law also provides:

[A] parent or guardian bears the ultimate responsibility, and has the fundamental, constitutionally protected right, to make decisions affecting the parent’s or guardian’s minor child, including decisions related to the minor child’s medical care, moral upbringing, religious upbringing, residence, education, and extracurricular activities. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

The law also requires school districts to publish policies relating to parents' requests for removal of materials from school libraries or classrooms and policies for requesting a student not be provided with certain materials.

CNN reports on the new law.

Teachers Sue Over School District's Policy on Transgender Students

Suit was filed last month in a California federal district court by two middle school teachers who claim that their school district's policy on dealing with transgender students violates their free speech and free exercise rights, as well as the rights of parents.  The complaint (full text) in Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, filed 4/27/2023), alleges in part:

According to EUSD’s policies, all elementary and middle school teachers must unhesitatingly accept a child’s assertion of a transgender or gender diverse identity, and must “begin to treat the student immediately” according to their asserted gender identity. “There’s no requirement for parent or caretaker agreement or even for knowledge.”... There is absolutely no room for discussion, polite disagreement, or even questioning whether the child is sincere or acting on a whim. 

... Once a child’s social transitioning has begun, EUSD elementary and middle school teachers must ensure that parents do not find out. EUSD’s policies state that “revealing a student’s transgender status to individuals who do not have a legitimate need for the information, without the student’s consent” is prohibited, and “parents or caretakers” are, according to EUSD, individuals who “do not have a legitimate need for the information,” irrespective of the age of the student or the specific facts of the situation....

Faced with EUSD’s immoral policies deceiving parents, both Mrs. Mirabelli and Mrs. West sought an accommodation that would allow them to act in the best interests of the children in their care—as required by their moral and religious convictions....

Mrs. Mirabelli’s and Mrs. West’s request was flatly denied.

The two plaintiffs devised a "joint statement of faith" for purposes of the lawsuit, even though they come from different religious traditions. One is Roman Catholic and the other a "devout Christian."  They alleged:

Plaintiffs’ faith teaches that God immutably creates each person as male or female; these two distinct, complementary sexes reflect the image of God; and rejection of one’s biological sex is a rejection of the image of God within that person.

... Plaintiffs also believe that they cannot affirm as true those ideas and concepts that they believe are not true, nor can they aid and abet the deception of others. Doing so, they believe, would violate biblical commands against dishonesty and lying.

Fox News reports on the lawsuit.

Ex-Husband Brings Wrongful Death Suit Against Wife's Friends Who Supplied Abortion Pills

 A novel wrongful death lawsuit was filed last month in a Texas state trial court by the ex-husband of a woman whose two friends assisted her in obtaining abortion medication.  The complaint (full text) in Silva v. Noyola, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 3/10/2023), alleges in part:

Under the law of Texas, a person who assists a pregnant woman in obtaining a self-managed abortion has committed the crime of murder and can be sued for wrongful death.... In defiance of these laws, defendants Jackie Noyola and Amy Carpenter  assisted Brittni Silva in murdering Ms. Silva’s unborn child with illegally obtained abortion pills. Ms. Noyola and Ms. Carpenter also instructed Ms. Silva to conceal their criminal and murderous actions from plaintiff Marcus A. Silva, the father of the child and the husband of Brittni Silva. Ms. Noyola arranged for the delivery of the illegal drugs from Aracely Garcia, which were used to murder baby Silva in July of 2022. 

Marcus Silva recently learned of the defendants’ involvement in the murder of his child, and he brings suit against them for wrongful death and conspiracy....

The manufacturer of the abortion pills that Brittni used is jointly and severally liable for the wrongful death of baby Silva, and it will be added as a defendant once identified in discovery. The manufacturer of the pills caused the death of baby Silva through a “wrongful act” because it violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1461–1462, which imposes federal criminal liability on anyone who knowingly sends abortion pills through the mail or through any express company, common carrier, or interactive computer service.

The Intercept reports on the lawsuit.

British Court Rejects Parents' Challenge To School's LGBT Curriculum

In Montague v. Governing Body of Heavers Farm Primary School, (UK Cty. Ct., April 24, 2023), a British County Court, in an 89-page opinion, dismissed a suit by Christian parents who objected to a primary school's activities relating to LGBT equality. The court described the claims:

This is a claim for compensation, damages, declarations and recommendations pursuant to alleged violations of the Equality Act 2010, the Human Rights Act 1998 and for breach of Statutory duty....

The Claimants are black Christians whose 4 year old son Izaiyah Montague attended the school between 11th September 2017 and 19th October 2018....

In broad terms, the focus of this case is on the events from mid 2018 when the school decided to arrange a number of activities which would coincide with ‘Pride Month’ in June. It is the school’s position that these events were part of broader teaching throughout the year. This was directed towards supporting tolerance, challenging stereotypes and to prevent bullying....

The parents’ case is that the teaching at the school caused a conflict between their religious household and the approach adopted by the school, exposing their young and vulnerable child to the possibility of conflict and confusion. They further assert that the treatment of the complaints, the detention of Izaiyah and the barring of the Second Claimant were the direct result of their adherence to Christian beliefs and prosecution of a well founded complaint to the school....

In rejecting the parents' claims, the court said in part:

I do not accept that, as formulated, the curriculum the teaching I have outlined, was designed to promote LGBT beliefs over others. The difficulty that the Claimants face is that they have focussed on one aspect of a year long SMSC curriculum. There was very little examination of and criticism of the other five elements of the teaching. By throwing an intense concentration on one sixth of the teaching they have lost sight of, and distorted, the overall SMSC curriculum.... [T]he school were under a duty to meet the requirements of the Education Act....  Indeed I confess that I am very uneasy about some of the comments being made at the school gate and it is important for the children’s responsibilities and experiences in later life that there is some corrective to the ill informed views which were being articulated by some of the parents.

Fox News reporting on the case says that plaintiff is appealing the decision.

Suit Challenges Tennessee's Ban On Gender Transition Treatment For Minors

Suit was filed yesterday in a Tennessee federal district court challenging Tennessee's recently enacted law banning medical or surgical treatment of gender dysphoria in minors. The complaint (full text) in L.W. v. Skrmetti, (MD TN, filed 4/20/2023), alleges that the ban violates plaintiffs' Equal Protection rights and their rights to parental autonomy, as well as violating provisions of the Affordable Care Act. ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Another Catholic Parish Sues Michigan Over Expanded Interpretation of State's Anti-Discrimination Laws

 As previously reported, in August the Michigan Supreme Court interpreted the state's civil rights law which bans sex discrimination to cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Yesterday, a Catholic parish, including its school, as well as several parents of students in the school filed suit in a Michigan federal district court alleging that, interpreted in this manner, the employment, education and public accommodation provisions of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act violate plaintiffs' First and 14th Amendment rights.  The complaint (full text) in Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 12/22/22), alleges in part:

To comply with Michigan’s re-understood laws, Sacred Heart Parish and its school, Sacred Heart Academy, would be forced to hire faculty and staff who lead lives in direct opposition to the Catholic faith, speak messages that violate Church doctrine, and refrain from articulating Catholic beliefs in teaching its students and when advertising the school to prospective students or job applicants. All of this violates Sacred Heart’s free speech and free exercise rights. Rather than defy Catholic doctrine in these ways, Sacred Heart would shut down. 

But if Sacred Heart cannot operate consistent with its Catholic faith, the parental and free exercise rights of its families are also implicated. Parents have explicitly opted out of public schools in favor of sending their children to Sacred Heart for an authentic Catholic education where their children would never be exposed to harmful ideas and ideologies that contradict the Catholic faith. When Michigan prevents Sacred Heart from operating its school consistent with its Catholic beliefs, it also necessarily violates the fundamental parental and free exercise rights of Sacred Heart families.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.  Earlier this month, a different Catholic parish filed a similar lawsuit.

HHS Must Assure Parental Consent in Grantee Programs That Distribute Contraceptives to Minors

In Deanda v. Becerra, (ND TX, Dec, 8, 20222), a Texas federal district court held that a Texas statute which protects parental rights to consent to a minor's medical care applies to all Title X grantees in Texas.  Title X of the Public Health Service Act provides for grants to entities offering family planning services.  Plaintiff, a Christian raising his daughters in accordance with Christian teachings that require unmarried children to refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage, contends that the Department of Health and Human Services is not monitoring grantees to ensure that they obtain parental consent to providing contraceptives to minors. The court rejected defendant's claim that Title X pre-empts Texas law on parental rights. It went on to hold that parents have a federal constitutional right to control the medical care of their minor children, and this includes the right to consent to contraception.  The court said in part:

Contraception is a serious matter - both medically and for parents' rights to control the upbringing and education of their children. Several popular methods of birth control carry serious side effects. The courts that have denied parental consent rights apparently presume contraceptive drugs are "no big deal." ... 

[O]mitting parental consent gives insufficient weight to the undesirability of teenage promiscuity.

9th Circuit: Religious School's Challenge to Covid Restrictions Is Moot

In Horizon Christian School v. Brown, (9th Cir., Nov. 17, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the free exercise and parental rights challenges to the Oregon governor's previous Covid restrictions on in-person school classes is moot. The claim for nominal damages does not prevent mootness because the suit against the governor in her official capacity is barred by the 11th Amendment. The court denied leave to amend plaintiffs' complaint because defendant had qualified immunity.  Judge O'Scannlain filed a concurring opinion saying that if there were not qualified immunity, he would hold that the governor's order impinged a fundamental constitutional right.

Suit Over Teaching 1st Graders About Transgender Topics Moves Forward

In Tatel v. Mt. Lebanon School District, (WD PA, Oct. 27, 2022), a Pennsylvania federal district court allowed parents of first graders to move ahead with their due process, equal protection and free exercise claims against a teacher who has a transgender child for teaching their students about transgender topics over parental objections. It also permitted plaintiffs to move ahead against school administrators, the school board and the school district   The court summarized its decision, saying in part:

[T]he factual allegations in the complaint present plausible claims that Parents have fundamental constitutional rights (pursuant to Substantive and Procedural Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment Free Exercise clause) that were violated by a public school teacher, over the Parents’ objections and without notice and opt out rights, when the teacher promoted her own agenda to their first grade children about gender dysphoria and transgender transitioning, including showing videos or reading books about those topics, telling the children that the Parents may be wrong about the child’s gender, telling a child she would never lie (implying the parents may be lying about the child’s identity), telling the children to keep the discussions about transgender topics secret, and grooming a student to become a transgender child. The Equal Protection and familial privacy claims asserted by the Plaintiffs are plausible, but will benefit from further factual development. 

A claim based on the children's privacy rights was dismissed without prejudice.

School Policy On Treatment of Transgender Students Upheld

In Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education, (D MD, Aug. 18, 2022), a Maryland federal district court upheld Guidelines promulgated by Montgomery County, Maryland school officials on dealing with transgender and gender non-conforming students.  Parents particularly challenge the portion of the Guidelines that advise school personnel not to disclose a student’s gender identity to their parents without the student’s consent, especially when the student has not yet disclosed their gender identity to their parents, or if the student either expects or knows their parents are unsupportive. Plaintiffs contend that this violates their parental rights protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The court said in part:

My review of the Guidelines reveals that the Plaintiff Parents’ argument is based on a selective reading that distorts the Guidelines into a calculated prohibition against the disclosure of a child’s gender identity that aims to sow distrust among MCPS students and their families. In reality, the Guidelines instruct MCPS staff to keep a student’s gender identity confidential until the student consents to the disclosure out of concern for the student’s well-being, and as a part of a more comprehensive gender support plan that anticipates and encourages eventual familial involvement whenever possible....

The court concluded that the Guidelines are subject only to rational basis review. It went on to say that even if it were to apply strict scrutiny, the Guidelines would still be upheld because the state's interest in safeguarding a minor's physical and psychological well-being is compelling. The court also dismissed various claims under Maryland law. WTOP News reports on the decision.

Court Gives Guidance On Assessing Whether Parents Had Sincerely Held Religious Belief Opposing Vaccination

In In the Interest of C.C., (GA Sup. Ct., Aug. 23, 2022), the Georgia Supreme Court gave guidance to a Juvenile Court on how to determine whether parents' objections to vaccinating their children (who were now in custody of the state) are based on a sincerely held religious belief. The court said in part:

Even if the Chandlers do not “observe a particular religion” or attend church consistently, and even if their objection to vaccination is partly secular, they may still be able to identify a religious belief that they sincerely hold and that would be violated by the vaccination of their children.... The juvenile court’s sincerity finding apparently rested at least in part on an assumption to the contrary; this prevents us from affirming this ruling....

In fairness to the juvenile court, the proper standard is not easily reducible to a simple formula; accordingly, we offer the following guidance.... Ultimately, the juvenile court must determine whether the Chandlers’ religious objection to the vaccination of their children is “truly held.” ... The court should “sh[y] away from attempting to gauge how central a sincerely held belief is to the believer’s religion.” And it must bear in mind that “a belief can be both secular and religious. The categories are not mutually exclusive.”...

The juvenile court can weigh various factors, including ... how long the Chandlers have asserted their professed religious belief, how much they know about it, and their reliance on “religious literature and teachings supporting the belief[.]” ... Whether the Chandlers have wavered in their actions related to vaccination “also appears to be relevant[.]”... But the juvenile court should also be cautious in affording more than a little weight to evidence that the Chandlers were inconsistent in visibly living out their religious beliefs; for example, the frequency of the family’s church attendance....

Alabama Enjoined From Enforcing Ban On Medical Treatments For Transgender Minors

In Eknes-Tucker v. Marshall, (MD AL, May 13, 2022), an Alabama federal district court issued an injunction pending trial of  the portion of the Alabama Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act that restricts transgender minors from being treated with puberty blockers and hormone therapies. The court said in part:

Parent Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children. This right includes the more specific right to treat their children with transitioning medications subject to medically accepted standards. The Act infringes on that right and, as such, is subject to strict scrutiny. At this stage of litigation, the Act falls short of that standard because it is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Accordingly, Parent Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on their Substantive Due Process claim,

The court also found that parents were substantially likely to succeed on their equal protection challenge because "discrimination based on gender-nonconformity equates to sex discrimination." GLAD and other advocacy groups representing plaintiffs issued a press release announcing the decision.

Parents Sue Over School's Nondisclosure Of Children's Gender Identity Issues

Suit was filed in a Massachusetts federal district court earlier this month by four parents challenging a school policy to not notify parents of their child’s gender nonconformity or transgender status unless the child consents. The complaint in Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, (D MA, filed 4/12/2022), (full text) alleges that the policy violates parental rights of all the plaintiffs, as well as the free exercise rights of certain of the plaintiffs. It alleges in part:

158. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that all people are to be treated with respect and compassion, and that respect and compassion do not include misrepresenting an individual’s natural created identity as either a male or a female.

159. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that individuals are to speak the truth, including speaking the truth regarding matters of sexual identity as a male or female.

160. Defendants’ actions in excluding Plaintiffs Feliciano and Salmeron from decision making regarding their children’s sexual and gender identity target the Plaintiffs’ beliefs regarding the created order, human nature, sexuality, gender, ethics, and morality which constitute central components of their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Christian Post reports on the lawsuit.

New Alabama Ban On Gender Transition Procedures For Minors Is Challenged

Suit was filed last week in an Alabama federal district court challenging SB 184, the Alabama Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act (full text), which prohibits medical procedures or the prescription of drugs for a minor child to alter the child's gender or delay puberty. The law was given final passage by the legislature on April 7 and signed by the governor on the next day. Parents of two transgender teenagers and two physicians filed suit 3 days later. The complaint (full text) in Ladinsky v. Ivey, (ND AL, filed 4/11/2022), contends that the law is pre-empted by a provision in the Affordable Care Act, that the law violates equal protection, parents rights to direct medical care of their children, and is void for vagueness. Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.