Suit Challenges Idaho's Ban on Transgender Use of Gender-Conforming Bathrooms

Six transgender residents of Idaho filed a class-action lawsuit last week in an Idaho federal district court challenging recently enacted HB 752, an Idaho law that prohibits "knowingly and willfully enter[ing] a restroom or changing room in a government-owned building or a place of public accommodation ... that is designated for use by the opposite biological sex of such person...." The statute includes exceptions to the ban for various emergency, health-related and similar situations. A violation is punishable by up to one year in prison. A second violation within five years is punishable by up to five years in prison. The complaint (full text) in Jackson-Edney v. Labrador, (D ID, filed 4/29/2026), alleges that the law is void for vagueness and violates the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating on the basis of sex and transgender status. It also contends that it violates plaintiffs' right to informational privacy by compelling disclosure of a person's transgender status.

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

1st Amendment Challenges to State's Foster Care Licensing Policy Move Ahead

In DeGross v. Hunter, (WD WA, April 22, 2026), a Washington federal district court refused to dismiss free speech and free exercise claims against the Washington Department of Children, Youth and Families brought by a Christian couple who object to the Department's policy on sexual orientation and gender identity. The state requires prospective foster parents to agree to support a foster child's sexual orientation, gender identity and expression (SOGIE), including using their preferred pronouns and chosen name. The DeGrosses were granted only a limited foster care license because they would not agree to fully implement the state's policy. The court said in part:

The DeGrosses have plausible alleged that Policy § 1520 draws distinctions based on the message the speaker conveys....  Policy § 1520 restricts certain speech by prospective parents on the topic of SOGIE, while requiring speech that aligns with the state’s perspective.... 

In essence, the Department has forced the DeGrosses to choose between forfeiting their freedom of speech to obtain an unrestricted license, or upholding their beliefs surrounding SOGIE, and receiving a less-favorable license subject to certain restrictions.   

The DeGrosses have carried their burden to show that the Department’s enforcement of Policy § 1520 plausibly constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.  Thus, the DeGrosses alleged sufficient facts to show a First Amendment violation unless the government can satisfy strict scrutiny....

... [T]he DeGrosses plausibly allege the Department’s policy at issue here puts the DeGrosses in an unfair predicament: they may obtain an unrestricted foster care license but only if they disavow their religious beliefs.... "[S]uch a policy imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that triggers the most exacting scrutiny." ...

... “A law is not generally applicable if it ‘invites’ the government to consider the particular reasons for a person’s conduct by providing ‘a mechanism for individualized exemptions.’”... 

... [T]he DeGrosses have carried their burden, at the motion to dismiss stage, to show that § 1520 is neither neutral nor generally applicable.  Thus, the DeGrosses alleged sufficient facts to show a First Amendment violation of freedom of religion unless Defendants can satisfy strict scrutiny.  Based on the limited record before it, the Court is unable to determine at this time whether Defendants can satisfy strict scrutiny.  Thus, the DeGrosses’ freedom of religion claim survives the motion to dismiss.

The court however dismissed plaintiffs' equal protection claim.

European Court Invalidates Hungarian Law Shielding Minors from Transgender and Homosexual Depictions

In European Commission v. Hungary, (CJEU, April 21, 2026), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that Hungary's Law on the Protection of Children and other provisions of Hungarian law adopted in 2021 violate the Treaty on European Union and other EU rules. Hungary's Law on the Protection of Children provides in part:

‘In order to safeguard the objectives set out in this Law and to ensure the protection of children’s rights, making the following available to persons under the age of 18 shall be prohibited: pornography, as well as content that depicts sexuality for its own purposes, or that promotes or portrays deviation from the self-identity corresponding to the sex assigned at birth, gender reassignment, or homosexuality.’

The European Commission brought an action against Hungary challenging its 2021 enactments. In a 621-paragraph opinion, the Court of Justice said in part:

446... [T]he fact that a legislative act ... states, according to its title, that it is laying down ‘stricter measures in respect of persons convicted of paedophilia’, while providing that minors must be protected from portrayals of deviation from ... the sex assigned at birth... or of homosexuality, is also such as to amplify the offensive and stigmatising effect of the provisions ..., or even to encourage the development of hateful conduct towards non-cisgender or non-heterosexual persons, given that such persons could thereby be associated with persons convicted of paedophilia....

487   ... [T]he result of the provisions at issue is the stigmatisation and marginalisation of non-cisgender persons – including transgender persons – or non-heterosexual persons, who constitute a minority group of persons, solely on the basis of their gender identity or their sexual orientation.

488    ... Hungary has, in a binding legal act, made an association between the fact of not being cisgender or not being heterosexual, on the one hand, and being convicted of paedophilia, on the other. Such an association, through its offensive and stigmatising effect – an association which is, moreover, such as to encourage the development of hateful conduct towards such persons – violates the human dignity of those persons, for the purposes of Article 1 of the Charter.

489    ... [T]hat association and that stigmatisation entail a group of persons forming an integral part of a society in which pluralism prevails being treated as a threat to that society meriting special legal treatment, which results in such persons’ social ‘invisibility’ being established, maintained, or reinforced, in breach of Article 1 of the Charter....

The Court has also issued a press release and a video explaining the decision. Politico reports on the decision.  [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Certiorari Denied in Challenge to School Policy on Gender Transitioning Students

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, (Docket No. 25-77, certiorari denied 4/20/2026). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals held that petitioners' parental rights protected by the 14th Amendment were not infringed by a school Protocol requiring staff to use a student's requested name and gender pronouns in school without notifying parents of the request unless the student consents. Parents' objections to the policy were not religious, but were moral and scientific. Reuters reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Catholic Hospice Sues Over NY Standards for Care of Transgender Patients

Last week, Dominican Sisters who operate a home that provides palliative care for indigent, terminally ill cancer patients filed suit in a New York federal district court challenging New York's requirements for care of transgender patients. The complaint (full text) in Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne v. Hochul, filed 4/6/2026) alleges in part:

New York’s LGBTQ Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights ...  require long-term care facilities to assign patients to rooms based on stated “gender identity” rather than biological sex even over the opposition of the roommate, to permit residents and their visitors of one sex to access bathrooms set aside for those of the opposite sex, to use patients’ “preferred pronouns” even when the patient is not present, to use language and to “create communities” affirming patients’ sexual preferences, to accommodate patients’ desire for extramarital relations, and to post notices affirming compliance with these requirements....

... The Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne and Rosary Hill Home operate in accordance with the Ethical and Religious Directives and the teachings of the Catholic Church. They cannot comply with the Mandate without violating these sincerely held religious beliefs.....

Requiring a person to identify another by a sex other than his or her God-gifted sex would therefore require such a person to act against central, unchangeable and architectural teachings of the Catholic faith. It would contradict the teachings of the Bible concerning God’s creative sovereignty, contradict reason and truth, and betray our sacred obligation not to knowingly harm other persons, particularly the most vulnerable. The implications are so much greater than whether to utter the words “he” or “she.” Indeed, to demand that a Catholic deny another’s sex is to require him or her to affirm another religious worldview....

The complaint alleges 7 counts: Free Exercise; Religious Autonomy Doctrine; Ministerial Exception; Establishment Clause; Equal Protection; Free Speech; and Expressive Association.

NewsNation reports on the lawsuit.

DOJ Investigating California and Maine for Housing Transgender Women in Women's Prisons

Last Thursday, the Department of Justice announced that it has notified the governors of California and Maine that DOJ is initiating investigations into their housing of transgender women who have not undergone sex reassignment surgery in women's prisons. DOJ's press release reads in part:

“California’s Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act has provided none of these qualities to the female inmates of state prisons who have been forced to share space with biological men who are violent felons,” said First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli of the Central District of California.  “Our Constitution protects women from having their civil rights violated by harmful state legislation wrapped in the language of ‘equity’ and ‘progress.’”...

In California, the Justice Department will investigate widely reported allegations of deprivation of female prisoners’ rights, including the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, the Eighth Amendment’s protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.  There have been allegations of sexual assaults, rape, voyeurism and a pervasive climate of sexual intimidation due to the presence of males in the women’s prison.

Under California law, men in state prisons, including violent felons charged with sex crimes and who have intact genitals, can request transfer to women’s prisons based on self-identification as transgender.

In Maine, the Justice Department will investigate allegations that Maine has allowed a biological male inmate to remain housed with women despite complaints that the male inmate has assaulted or harassed several female inmates.

9th Circuit Denies En Banc Review of Spa's Policy on Transgender Women, With Unusually Controversial Dissent

Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, (9th Cir., March 12, 2026), is the denial of a panel and en banc rehearings to two Korean Spas that lost their 1st Amendment challenges to application of Washington state's anti-discrimination provisions to the spas admission policies. The spas admitted only "biological women", including transgender women who had received gender confirmation surgery. They excluded transgender women who had not completed that surgery. The original 3-judge panel denied a rehearing, but issued an amended majority opinion amending the opinion originally issued on May 29, 2025 (full text of original opinion). The court then denied en banc review.  Three opinions dissenting from the denial of en banc review were filed. Judge VanDyke's dissenting opinion led to an unusual Statement concurred in by 27 Ninth Circuit judges saying:

The American legal system has long been regarded as a place to resolve disputes in a dignified and civil manner or, as Justice O’Connor put it, to “disagree without being disagreeable.”1 It is not a place for vulgar barroom talk. Nor is it a place to suggest that fellow judges have “collectively lost their minds,” or that they are “woke judges[]” “complicit” in a scheme to harm ordinary Americans. That language makes us sound like juveniles, not judges, and it undermines public trust in the courts. The lead dissent’s use of such coarse language and invective may make for publicity or entertainment value, but it has no place in a judicial opinion. The lead dissent ignores ordinary principles of dignity and civility and demeans this court. Neither the parties nor the panel dissent found it necessary to invoke such crude and vitriolic language. Decorum and collegiality demand more.

Supreme Court in Shadow Docket Case Rejects California's Policy on Informing Parents of Student's Gender Transition

On Monday evening, the U.S. Supreme Court in Mirabelli v. Bonta, (Sup. Ct., March 2, 2026), barred enforcement against objecting parents of a controversial California school policy that requires student consent before disclosing to parents a student's gender transitioning in school. A California federal district court had enjoined enforcement of the policy in a challenge by parents and teachers. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, stayed the district court's injunction, thus reinstating the policy. In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court ruled for the parents.  It vacated the 9th Circuit's stay as to parents who object to the policy, but left the stay in place as to teachers. Justices Thomas and Alito would have vacated the injunction as to teachers as well. Justices Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor dissented.

The per curiam opinion says in part:

We conclude that the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim.  California’s policies likely trigger strict scrutiny under that provision because they substantially interfere with the “right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.” ...  The parents who assert a free exercise claim have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs....

The same is true for the subclass of parents who object to those policies on due process grounds.  Under long-established precedent, parents—not the State—have primary authority with respect to “the upbringing and education of children.” ... The right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health....

Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

The dissent questions how the Court can adhere to parental-rights precedent after its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization..... But Dobbs calls into question neither the doctrine of substantive due process nor the other unexpressed rights that the doctrine protects....

 ... [C]ontrary to the dissent’s charge, granting interim relief is not a sign of the Court’s “impatience” to reach the merits.... Instead, the grant reflects the Court’s judgment about the risk of irreparable harm to the parents.... 

Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Jackson, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Today’s decision shows, not for the first time, how our emergency docket can malfunction.  A case raising novel legal questions and arousing strong views comes to this Court via an application about whether to stay a district court’s injunction pending appeal. The ordinary appellate process has barely started; only a district court has ruled on the case’s merits. The Court receives scant and, frankly, inadequate briefing about the legal issues in dispute.  It does not hold oral argument or deliberate in conference, as regular procedures dictate. It considers the request on a short fuse—a matter of weeks. And then the Court grants relief by means of a terse, tonally dismissive ruling designed to conclusively resolve the dispute. The Court does all this even though the application of existing law to the case raises tricky questions, and so cries out for reflection and explanation....

As to due process particularly... I have no doubt that parents have rights, even though unenumerated, concerning their children and the life choices they make..... On the other side of ledger, of course, a State has critical interests in the care and education of children.  But California’s policy, in depriving all parents of information critical to their children’s health and well-being, could have crossed the constitutional line.  And that would entitle the parents, at the end of the day, to relief. 

The Court, however, would be far better equipped to draw the appropriate line and to explain its legal basis—in short, to do law in the right way—if it had followed our ordinary processes....

Justice Sotomayor, without writing or joining an opinion, stated that she would have left the 9th Circuit's injunction in place both as to parents and teachers.

SCOTUSblog reports on the decision.

Lawsuit Challenges Recent Kansas Law on Sex Designation for Restrooms, Birth Certificates, Driver's Licenses

On Feb.18, the Kansas legislature overrode Governor Laura Kelly's veto of SB 244 which requires the use of biological sex at birth to define usage of rest rooms and locker rooms in public buildings, and the use of biological sex on birth certificates and driver's licenses. It calls for correction of previously issued birth certificates and reissuance of previously issued driver's licenses.

Last week, suit was filed in a Kansas state trial court challenging the constitutionality of SB 244 under various provision of the Kansas state Constitution. The complaint (full text) in Doe v. State of Kansas ex rel. Kobach, (KS Dist. Ct., filed 2/26/2026) alleges in part:

2. The Act targets transgender Kansans across multiple, unrelated domains of their lives. This sweeping law restricts transgender individuals from obtaining driver’s licenses reflecting their gender identity and bans transgender people from accessing restrooms or other single-sex spaces in a range of public places including libraries, courthouses, state parks, hospitals, and interstate rest stops.  SB 244’s restrictions extend beyond just government buildings, applying also to buildings owned by or leased from the government, even if they are controlled by private entities. By targeting transgender Kansans, the Act violates the Kansas Constitution’s guarantees of personal autonomy, privacy, equality under the law, due process, and free expression. It also violates the Kansas Constitution’s single-subject and clear title requirements.  

3. SB 244 is just the most recent law in a shameful litany of statutes enacted by the Kansas Legislature meant to discriminate against and dehumanize transgender people. 

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

EEOC Says Federal Agencies May Base Restroom Access on Biological Sex

 In a February 26 press release, the EEOC announced:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted 2-1 today to approve a federal sector appellate decision adjudicating an appeal regarding access to intimate spaces, including bathrooms and locker rooms, in federal workplaces under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended....

 “Today’s opinion is consistent with the plain meaning of ‘sex’ as understood by Congress at the time Title VII was enacted, as well as longstanding civil rights principles: that similarly situated employees must be treated equally,” said EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas. “When it comes to bathrooms, male and female employees are not similarly situated. Biology is not bigotry.”

When adjudicating appeals of alleged employment discrimination in the federal sector, the EEOC applies longstanding precedent, including relevant Supreme Court decisions, to the facts of the case. In this case, however, such precedent does not exist, as federal courts have not determined whether Title VII requires employers to permit trans-identifying employees to access bathrooms and other intimate spaces otherwise reserved for the opposite sex. In the absence of authoritative court precedent, the EEOC used the traditional tools of statutory construction, turning first to the ordinary meaning of the statute’s text and ensuring that the decision is further anchored by the Supreme Court’s precedents in comparable areas of law.

In applying the traditional tools of statutory construction, the EEOC found that Title VII permits a federal agency employer to maintain single-sex bathrooms and similar intimate spaces; and permits a federal agency employer to exclude employees, including trans-identifying employees, from opposite sex-facilities. Today’s opinion overturns a prior EEOC federal sector appellate decision (Lusardi v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133395, 2015 WL 1607756 (2015)) with respect to the portion of that opinion addressing a federal employee’s access to an opposite-sex bathroom based on “gender identity.”

As with all of the EEOC’s appellate decisions adjudicating federal agency employment discrimination complaints, this decision applies only to federal agencies subject to the EEOC’s administrative complaint process for federal employees. It does not apply to private sector employers, nor does it bind any federal court.

The Agency's action approved a 23-page Federal Sector Appellate Decision, Selina S. v. Driscoll, (EEOC Federal Sector Appeal, Feb. 26, 2026), a case brought by a civilian employee of the Army.

9th Circuit: Anti-Transgender Comments Justify Mayor's Veto of Membership on Police Advisory Board

In Hodges v. Gloria, (9th Cir., Feb. 26, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech and free exercise challenges to the San Diego mayor's veto of the reappointment of a voluntary member of the city's Police Advisory Board.  The mayor vetoed the reappointment of Dennis Hodges, a correctional officer and pastor, because of Hodges' public comments that he considered “transgenderism” to be a sin just like adultery and fornication. The court said in part:

Hodges asserts that he was not a policymaker and that government officials may not create religious tests for holding public office.  However, a consistent line of cases ... hold that an appointed volunteer may be dismissed for statements that might otherwise be protected by the First Amendment when “commonality of political purpose” is an appropriate requirement for the volunteer’s services....

Hodges has not shown that the district court erred in rejecting his free exercise claim.  To prevail on this claim, Hodges would have to show that even though the veto of his reappointment did not violate his free speech rights, it violated his free exercise rights because of his underlying religious beliefs.  He offers no case law supporting such a proposition.  Moreover, he does not explain how his religious motive for making public statements changes the court’s evaluation of his claim....

DOJ Opens Title IX Investigations of 3 Michigan School Districts

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has opened Title IX investigations into three Michigan school districts. The announcement said in part:

Today, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division launched investigations into three Michigan public school districts: the Detroit Public Schools Community District, Godfrey-Lee Public Schools, and the Lansing School District ... to determine whether they have included sexual orientation and gender ideology (SOGI) content in any class for grades pre-K-12. If they are teaching SOGI-related content, the investigations will examine whether the schools have notified parents of their right to opt their children out of such instruction. The investigation will also assess whether the Michigan School Districts limit access to single-sex intimate spaces, such as bathrooms and locker rooms, based on biological sex....

4th Circuit: School Gender Identity Guidelines Do Not Violate Teacher's 1st Amendment Rights

 In Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools, (4th Cir., Jan. 28, 2026), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed a Maryland federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a substitute teacher who objected on free speech and free exercise grounds to the school district's Guidelines for Student Gender Identity. The court rejected plaintiff's free exercise claim, concluding that the Guidelines are neutral and generally applicable and that they satisfy the rational basis standard. The majority said in part:

... Polk believes that gender is rigid, based on her understanding of Christianity.  And referring to her students by a gender that is not consistent with the student’s gender assigned at birth places a requirement on Polk, that she says is at odds with her faith....

Distilled to its core, the thrust of Polk’s appellate position is that, because persons who hold religious views are those most impacted by the Guidelines, they cannot be deemed “neutral.” But that logic turns the well-established neutrality analysis on its head.  As the court explained, the Complaint “alleges no facts from which the Court could infer religious animus.” ...  That a certain religious practice is incidentally burdened by the Guidelines is not sufficient. Rather, the Guidelines must be motivated by religious hostility....

The majority also rejected plaintiff's free speech claim, saying in part:

 ... [W]e agree with the district court that the Guidelines’s mandate does not concern the speech of a private citizen, but establishes the official duties of a public-school teacher.  More pointedly, how a teacher addresses a particular student in a particular classroom — and whether a teacher communicates with a student’s parent — is merely a part of that teacher’s job description....

 ... And “[w]hen an employee engages in speech that is part of the employee’s job duties, the employee’s words are really the words of the employer.  The employee is effectively the employer’s spokesperson.” ...

Judge Wilkinson dissented, contending that the Guidelines violated plaintiff's free speech rights.  He said in part:

In holding instead that the Free Speech Clause does not provide even qualified protection to Ms. Polk’s speech, the majority leaves teachers completely vulnerable to becoming the unwilling mouthpieces of government messaging. Although transgender rights advocates may now cheer the majority opinion, they will find today’s cure in truth a poison when states enact legally indistinguishable policies preventing teachers from using preferred pronouns in schools. And because nothing prevents school systems from pushing this newfound control much further than mere pronoun usage, I respectfully dissent....

This case is, without question, about compelled speech—a detail to which the majority gives short shrift....

... My qualm with the majority is simply that we cannot categorically write all in-class speech out of the First Amendment. Garcetti has its place, but chiefly with regard to core curricular functions. Speech at the noncurricular margins of a teacher’s job should remain subject to the same standards that we have always applied. This is no jurisprudential revolution....

 Ms. Polk’s case is one of many plaguing our nation’s educational system. Across all levels of education—elementary to college—LGBT rights, DEI, antisemitism, systemic racism, and innumerable other issues have made our schools hotbeds of vehement sociopolitical debate. Silencing voices and compelling affirmations to government preferred messaging do nothing to temper the vitriol; on the contrary, such actions foster further hostility....

Parents Seek Emergency Order from SCOTUS Reinstating Trial Court's Voiding of School Policy on Disclosure of Students' Gender Transition

As previously reported, last December in Mirabelli v. Bonta, a California federal district court held unconstitutional the policy of California school boards that bars public school teachers and staff from informing parents about changes in a child’s gender expression unless the child consents. On January 5, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal of the district court's injunction. Now plaintiffs in the case have filed an Emergency Application with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to vacate the 9th Circuit's stay. (Mirabelli v. Bonta, (Sup.Ct., filed 1/8/2026). (Full text of 9th Circuit's stay order and Application to Supreme Court).

Education Week reports on these developments.

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments Tomorrow In Transgender Athlete Cases

Tomorrow (Tuesday), the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases involving alleged illegal discrimination against transgender women athletes. At issue in Little v. Hecox is whether Idaho's Fairness in Women's Sports Act violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Act prohibits transgender women and girls from participating on women's sports teams in public elementary schools, high schools and public colleges. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction that barred enforcement of Idaho's ban. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the pleadings and briefs, as well as to commentary on the case.

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the question is whether West Virginia's Save Women's Sports Act violates Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that it does.  The law bans transgender girls and women from participating on girls'/ women's sports teams in public high schools or state colleges where team members are chosen on the basis of competitive skills or in contact sports. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the pleadings and briefs, as well as to commentary on the case.

Audio of the oral arguments in the cases will be streamed live by the Court beginning at 10:00 AM at this link. Transcript and recording of the oral arguments will become available later in the day at this link.

California Policy Barring School's Disclosure of Student's Change in Gender Expression Is Unconstitutional

In Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, Dec. 22, 2025), a California federal district court held unconstitutional the policy of California school boards that bars public school teachers and staff from informing parents about changes in a child’s gender expression unless the child consents. The court concluded:

[The policies] harm the parents by depriving them of the long-recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children, and by substantially burdening many parents’ First Amendment right to train their children in their sincerely held religious beliefs.  And finally, they harm teachers who are compelled to violate the sincerely held beliefs and the parent’s rights by forcing them to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students.

Justifying its conclusion, the court said: 

The constitutional question is about when gender incongruence is observed, whether parents have a right to be informed and make the decision about whether further professional investigation or therapy is needed.  Put another way, the question is whether being involved in potentially serious medical or psychological decision-making for their school student is a parent’s constitutional right. It is. "Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state...."

The State Defendants argue... that a parent “does not possess a religious exercise right to dictate that a school reject their child’s gender identity.”...  Nevertheless, this Court disagrees....

Defendants concede that parents “may find notification that their child is expressing a transgender identity at school helpful in the general exercise of their right to direct a religious upbringing for that child.” ... So, the State Defendants are aware that notification would be helpful to religious parents, but provide no room for those parents to exercise those federal constitutional rights.... [T]he California state education parental exclusion policies provide no exceptions for religious parents....

The four teacher Plaintiffs and class representatives sincerely hold religious beliefs that that are being severely burdened by the imposition of the parental exclusion policies....

The teachers successfully make out a First Amendment freedom of speech claim when they are compelled to speak in violation of the law or to deliberately convey an illegal message....

Daily Wire reports on the decision.

HHS Proposes Rules to Bar Hospitals from Performing Gender Affirming Care to Minors

The Department of Health and Human Services today published in the Federal Register two Releases proposing rule changes that would effectively ban almost all U.S. hospitals from providing pharmaceutical or surgical gender-affirming care to children and adolescents under 18 years of age. One Release is titled Prohibition on Federal Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program Funding for Sex-Rejecting Procedures Furnished to Children. The second Release is titled Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Hospital Condition of Participation: Prohibiting Sex-Rejecting Procedures for Children. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announced the Proposed Rules yesterday in a Press Release and in a "Declaration" titled Safety, Effectiveness, and Professional Standards of Care for Sex Rejecting Procedures on Children and Adolescents.  According to the Press Release:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today announced a series of proposed regulatory actions to carry out President Trump’s Executive Order directing HHS to end the practice of sex-rejecting procedures on children that expose young people to irreversible harm. These procedures include pharmaceutical or surgical interventions of specified types that attempt to align a child’s physical appearance or body with an asserted identity different from their sex.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will release a notice of proposed rulemaking to bar hospitals from performing sex-rejecting procedures on children under age 18 as a condition of participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs. Nearly all U.S. hospitals participate in Medicare and Medicaid and this action is designed to ensure that the U.S. government will not be in business with organizations that intentionally or unintentionally inflict permanent harm on children....

CMS will release an additional notice of proposed rulemaking to prohibit federal Medicaid funding for sex-rejecting procedures on children under age 18. The same prohibition would apply to federal Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding for these procedures on individuals under age 19. Currently, 27 states do not provide Medicaid coverage of sex-rejecting procedures on children....

DOJ Seeks to Intervene in Suit Over Christian Males' Reaction to Transgender Use of Boy's Locker Room

The Justice Department this week filed a Motion to Intervene and a Memorandum In Support of its motion in S.W. v. Loudoun County School Board, (ED VA, filed 12/8/2025). DOJ alleges that a Loudoun County high school discriminated against two male Christian students in disciplining them for their reaction to the presence of a transgender male in the boy's locker room.

In an Announcement of its action, DOJ said in part:

Policy 8040 requires all students, regardless of their religious beliefs, to adopt the Loudoun County School Board’s understanding of “gender identity” — including its practical application that affects all students’ use of intimate spaces, such as bathrooms and changing facilities. At Stone Bridge High School, a female student took advantage of this policy, entered the boys’ locker room, and recorded audio and video of the boys in that locker room. Several boys spoke out about this incident, including two Christian, male students whose religious beliefs require them to use biologically accurate pronouns and use sex-segregated facilities.

Loudoun County determined that these Christian, male students’ religious practice violated school policy, recasting constitutionally protected activity as “sex-based discrimination” and “sexual harassment.” ...

(See prior related posting.) Northern Virginia reports on DOJ's action.

HHS Replaces Label on Portrait of Former Official to Reflect Administration's Refusal to Recognize Changes in Gender Identity

NPR reports that the U.S. Public Health Service has altered the official portrait of Admiral Rachel Levine who served for four years as deputy assistant secretary for health policy in the Biden administration. Her portrait is one in the photo display of individuals who have led the Public Health Corps at the Department of Health and Human Services. Levine was the first transgender person to serve in a position that required Senate confirmation. According to NPR, during the recent federal government shut down, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health removed Levine's legal name (under which she served in office) from her portrait and substituted her prior name. In response to an NPR inquiry, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon wrote:

Our priority is ensuring that the information presented internally and externally by HHS reflects gold standard science. We remain committed to reversing harmful policies enacted by Levine and ensuring that biological reality guides our approach to public health.

As previously reported, President Trump on his first day in office issued an Executive Order providing in part:

It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.  These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality....

Agencies shall remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages....

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.] 

[CORRECTION: A prior version of this post inaccurately referred to an archived version of the HHS website as its current version.]

Church Autonomy Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Catholic School Employee's Discrimination Claim

In MoChridhe v. Academy of Holy Angels, (MN App. Dec. 1, 2025), a Minnesota state appellate court rejected an employment discrimination claim by a former media specialist/librarian at a Catholic school. The school refused to renew her contract when she disclosed that she was undergoing gender transition to present as a female. The school based its decision on MoChridhe's refusal to abide by the "Guiding Principles for Catholic Schools and Religious Education Concerning Human Sexuality and Sexual Identity." The court said in part:

Does the First Amendment protect a religious employer from discrimination claims by a terminated non-minister employee if the termination was based on a religious reason?  Given the facts alleged in MoChridhe’s complaint and the absence of any binding precedent suggesting otherwise, we discern no basis to conclude that the broader religious protections of the First Amendment church autonomy doctrine are not available to the religious employer in that situation....

... [C]onsideration of MoChridhe’s claims would require consideration of the Archdiocese’s religious reason for the employment decision, would interfere with the Archdiocese’s internal decision to require compliance with the Guiding Principles in the school setting—which relates to the church’s mission to educate young people in its faith— and would foster excessive governmental entanglement with religion.  The potential inapplicability of the ministerial exception does not change that conclusion, and there is no precedent indicating that it must...