红杏视频

BOSTON 鈥� A federal appeals court today denied the Trump administration鈥檚 request to stay a preliminary injunction that preserves access to passports with accurate sex designations for many trans, nonbinary, and intersex U.S. citizens. The injunction remains in effect, and certain class members may still apply for passports. In April, District Court Judge Julia Kobick granted a preliminary injunction requiring the State Department to allow six transgender and nonbinary plaintiffs in Orr v. Trump to obtain passports with sex designations consistent with their gender identity or with an 鈥淴鈥� sex designation while the lawsuit proceeds. Then, in June, Judge Kobick certified two classes of passport holders and expanded the preliminary injunction to include any class member applying to: Obtain a new passport, Change the sex designation or update their name on their current passport Replace a lost, stolen, or damaged passport, or Renew their passport within one year of its expiration.   This includes those who, under the Trump administration鈥檚 policy, were previously sent a passport with a sex designation listing their sex assigned at birth. "The ability to access accurate identification is core to the safety and wellbeing of all people in this country," said Jessie Rossman, legal director at the 红杏视频 of Massachusetts. "It has profound impacts on the ability of trans, nonbinary, and intersex to travel and exist in this country. We are glad that the First Circuit upheld the District Court's injunction in this case, and we will continue to advocate for the basic rights and dignity of our clients and all class members." 鈥淲e鈥檙e thankful the court rejected this effort by the Trump administration to enforce their discriminatory and baseless policy,鈥� said Li Nowlin-Sohl, Staff Attorney for the 红杏视频鈥檚 LGBTQ & HIV Project. 鈥淧eople across the country depend on identity documents that accurately reflect their identity鈥搘ho they are in their workplaces, their schools, and their communities. The administration鈥檚 attempts to deny that right to transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people has no basis in law or policy and we鈥檒l continue to fight this policy until its permanently defeated.鈥� On his first day in office in January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order attempting to mandate discrimination against transgender people across the federal government and government programs. This included a directive to the Departments of State and Homeland Security 鈥渢o require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards鈥� reflect a person鈥檚 sex 鈥渁t conception.鈥� Within 48 hours, the State Department paused the processing of some passport applications submitted by transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people and returned others with a newly-issued passport marked with their sex assigned at birth. Over 214,000 public comments in opposition to the State Department鈥檚 new policy were collected by the 红杏视频 and Advocates for Transgender Equality. In February 2025, Orr v. Trump was filed by the 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Massachusetts, and Covington and Burling LLP, on behalf of seven people who had not been able to obtain passports that match who they are because of the State Department鈥檚 new Passport Policy or were likely to be impacted by the new policy upon their next renewal. The complaint was filed in the federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint was subsequently amended to add five additional transgender, nonbinary, and intersex plaintiffs and to seek to represent a class of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex passport holders. All twelve individual plaintiffs were appointed as class representatives. Read the order here. For more information about Orr v. Trump, visit: /cases/orr-v-trump For more information about the 红杏视频, visit: / For more information about the 红杏视频 of Massachusetts, visit: https://www.aclum.org/

Little Rock, Ark.--Following the Supreme Court鈥檚 ruling in US v. Skrmetti, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a challenge to an Arkansas law banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The law in Arkansas was the first statewide ban on gender-affirming care when it passed over a veto from Governor Asa Hutchinson in 2021. 鈥淭his is a tragically unjust result for transgender Arkansans, their doctors, and their families,鈥� said Holly Dickson, executive director of the 红杏视频 of Arkansas. 鈥淭he state had every opportunity and failed at every turn to prove that this law helps children; in fact, this is a dangerous law that harms children. The law has already had a profound impact on families across Arkansas who all deserve a fundamental right to do what is best for their children. As we and our clients consider our next steps, we want transgender Arkansans to know they are far from alone and we remain as determined as ever to secure their right to safety, dignity, and equal access to the health care they need.鈥� Soon after the ban was passed in 2021, four families of transgender youth and two doctors challenged the ban that would prohibit healthcare professionals from providing medically necessary healthcare to transgender youth under the age of 18. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleged that House Bill 1570 is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. A preliminary injunction from the District Court had blocked enforcement of the law since July 2021. Serving as counsel for the families and their physician are the 红杏视频鈥檚 Jon L. Stryker and Slobodan Randjelovi膰 LGBTQ & HIV Project, the 红杏视频 of Arkansas, and the law firms of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and Gill Ragon Owen. For more on Brandt v. Rutledge, click here: /cases/brandt-et-al-v-rutledge-et-al  

CONCORD, N.H. 鈥� A diverse group of educators and advocacy groups filed a federal lawsuit today challenging a new anti-equity, anti-inclusion, and anti-diversity law in New Hampshire, which became effective on July 1, 2025, after being signed into law by Governor Ayotte in late June. The law, contained within House Bill 2鈥檚 budget provisions, seeks to ban diversity, equity, and inclusion programs pertaining to race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability in New Hampshire schools (including both K-12 public schools as well as both public and private colleges and universities) and public entities like police departments and libraries. According to the lawsuit, this law radically contradicts federal civil rights laws that protect the rights of students with disabilities, violates the First Amendment rights of educators and students, and is vague and ambiguous under the United States and New Hampshire Constitutions. Megan Tuttle, NEA-New Hampshire president, stated, 鈥淎ll Granite State children deserve a high-quality education, safe and welcoming public schools, and the support they need to thrive. We know diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and initiatives are not only legally required in certain contexts but also create a sense of belonging where all students can feel comfortable sharing their ideas and stories. Vague and confusing laws that have the effect of censoring or limiting educators鈥� abilities to teach and accommodate students who may have special education needs can undermine the high-quality education that students deserve. New Hampshire educators are standing together against HB 2鈥檚 unconstitutional attack on those programs and standing up to politicians鈥� overreach into our classrooms. Our profession should be guided by what鈥檚 best for our students, not the threat of funding restrictions and punishment. We will never stop working to make sure every child feels safe, seen, and is prepared for the future.鈥� The lawsuit was brought by the state鈥檚 largest educator union, National Education Association 鈥� New Hampshire (NEA-NH), four school districts (Oyster River Cooperative School District, the Dover School District, the Somersworth School District, and the Grantham School District), trainer and consultant for diversity, equity, and inclusion James M. McKim, Jr., diversity, equity, and inclusion administrator and psychology professor Dottie Morris, and New Hampshire Outright, a nonprofit that provides training in public schools and entities on creating environments of inclusion and belonging for LGBTQ+ students. They are represented by lawyers from a broad coalition of organizations and law firms, including the 红杏视频 of New Hampshire, the national 红杏视频鈥檚 Disability Rights Program and Racial Justice Program, National Education Association-New Hampshire (NEA-NH), GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law), and Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon. Devon Chaffee, executive director of the 红杏视频 of New Hampshire, said, 鈥淭his new law threatens to revoke critical public funding from Granite State schools using vague criteria unless they cease programming and policies aimed at fostering equitable and inclusive environments for all 鈥� and that鈥檚 unconstitutional. Just like with our other two lawsuits, we will continue to fight these unwarranted and unconstitutional attacks on diversity and inclusion efforts and our right to learn.鈥� The law does not just seek to prohibit diversity, equity, and inclusion in public entities and public schools, but it also seeks to strip away millions of dollars in critical state (and possibly federal) public funding if K-12 public school districts guess wrong as to how the New Hampshire Department of Education interprets the vague law鈥檚 provisions. According to one estimate, state aid to school districts could amount to more than $1 billion annually. John Shea, the superintendent of the Somersworth School District, said, 鈥淟ooking at HB2鈥檚 attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion, I鈥檓 worried that our legislature and our politicians may have lost sight of what these three words actually represent -- and just how important they are to our public education system. 鈥楧iversity鈥� simply is who we are here in Somersworth. It鈥檚 not a program, initiative or ideology. It cannot be legislated away. And equity -- or more particularly 鈥榚quitable opportunity鈥� -- is fundamental to the very idea of universal public education. As is 鈥榠nclusiveness,鈥� one of our community鈥檚 most cherished values. We strive for a welcoming environment for all, one that is strengthened by diverse perspectives. The State鈥檚 attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion are an attack on all of this. Special education, ESOL programs (English for Speakers of Other Languages), and the free and reduced meals program included -- among many other examples. We have no choice but to fight the anti-DEI elements of HB2.鈥� Zoe Brennan-Krohn, director of the 红杏视频 Disability Rights Program, said, 鈥淣ew Hampshire's anti-DEI law is an expansive assault on the rights and freedoms of students and educators across the state. Among those potentially swept up in this vague law are students with disabilities, many of whom rely on accessibility and integration programs to succeed at school. Federal disability rights laws require public schools to identify disabled students to increase their achievement; state law cannot prohibit what federal law mandates.鈥� The law is already arbitrarily and selectively being enforced by the state Department of Education, which is aggressively applying it to private (including religious) colleges and universities that receive student scholarship funds through state grant aid programs (like UNIQUE Program state grants and the Governor鈥檚 Scholarship), but apparently not private K-12 schools (including religious schools) that receive public funds through Education Freedom Accounts. The law also applies to private colleges and universities (for example, Dartmouth College, Southern New Hampshire University, and Saint Anselm College) that receive any form of state funding, including those that receive state scholarship grants that help New Hampshire residents attend these colleges. For public and private colleges and universities in New Hampshire, the stakes for Granite Staters are severe: the amount at stake includes over $22 million in annual UNIQUE Program state grants and over $2 million in annual Governor鈥檚 scholarship program state grants, which are both distributed based on merit and need to New Hampshire residents who attend private or public New Hampshire colleges or universities. 鈥淭he lack of clarity about the expectations for how to comply with HB2鈥檚 anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion provisions, coupled with the severe and potentially devastating consequences a perceived violation may bring, have educators in a dilemma. As a result of this law, I am aware of several educators who will err on the side of caution out of concern and fear of engaging in some activity that might be perceived as diversity, equity, and inclusion related. The concern and fear of violating HB2鈥檚 directive will stifle educators鈥� abilities to adequately serve all of their students, to create school environments that support students from diverse lived experiences, and to ethically engage in their vocation,鈥� said Dottie Morris, a college administrator focusing on belonging and psychology professor, who is a plaintiff in this case. She is bringing suit only in her individual capacity. Also at stake are the millions of dollars the State provides for operating costs. All of this scholarship money and operational funding could be ripped away if public and private colleges and universities guess wrong as to how to comply with the law or with the education department鈥檚 interpretation of it. The lawsuit also raises concerns about how this law could impact school districts鈥� federally-mandated collection of demographic data, including racial and ethnic groups, in New Hampshire. James T. McKim, Jr., a plaintiff in the case and who works regularly with state and local government bodies to improve operations, including through diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, said, 鈥淚 am joining this suit because I believe the diversity, equity, and inclusion provision in HB2 goes against our Live Free or Die nature. It is unconstitutional. And it is harmful not only to me personally and to those in the protected classes mentioned in the law, but also to White people in our state and beyond. The work of helping organizations live into diversity, equity, and inclusion helps everyone.鈥� As the law was still making its way through the legislative process, disability rights advocates expressed clear concerns that essential services, programs, and trainings aimed at helping the lives of people with disabilities could be dismantled by the law. The legislature failed to address these concerns in the final bill language that was ultimately signed into law. Jennifer Eber, litigation director for the Disability Rights Center - New Hampshire, who is not part of this lawsuit but opposed the law, said, 鈥淔ederal laws require school districts to provide specialized instruction and related services to qualifying students with disabilities. These federal laws protect the fundamental right of students with disabilities to access a free appropriate public education. Disability Rights Center -New Hampshire opposes HB2's effort to undermine these federal laws and fully supports the request that the Court find HB2 both unconstitutional and preempted.鈥� The law also impacts LGBTQ+ students in New Hampshire and could be viewed as potentially requiring the removal of certain programming, for example, policies establishing non-discrimination protections for transgender students or making menstrual hygiene products available in gender neutral bathrooms. Heidi Carrington Heath, executive director of New Hampshire Outright, a plaintiff in the case, said, 鈥淣.H. Outright has been leading the way in caring for LGBTQ+ youth and their families for over 30 years. That includes a well-respected, evidence-based training program that many schools and communities across the Granite State have benefitted from. We know that creating healthier and stronger environments for LGBTQ+ youth does so for everyone. HB2 is an attempt to silence the voices of vulnerable Granite Staters and puts them at risk in a time when they need stronger supports than ever. We believe that it is critical to challenge this unjust law that is already causing harm to our organization, and communities.鈥� Hannah Hussey, staff attorney at GLAD Law, said, 鈥淭his law is yet another unconstitutional attempt by elected officials seeking to control and censor valued and trusted educational programs in New Hampshire simply because they don鈥檛 like them. Imposing vague bans on programs related to race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability in our public schools and public and private colleges and universities will chill vital programs like special education services in our public schools, initiatives to increase the representation of girls in STEM, and other opportunities and resources to ensure equal opportunity for LGBTQ students, students of color, and students with disabilities. Such programs not only provide vital support for marginalized students, they contribute to an enriching environment for all students to get a well-rounded education, develop critical thinking skills, and learn to appreciate human differences.鈥� The court documents also outline how the law could forbid education programs designed to increase the representation of girls and women in STEM classes, the use of tuition waivers or campus recruitment efforts for older learners 50 and up, or opportunities for religious students through spiritual activities. This lawsuit follows several others filed in New Hampshire challenging anti-equity practices in education, including a 2021 lawsuit against a classroom censorship law that was struck down in federal court in May 2024, and one lawsuit filed on March 5, 2025 in New Hampshire by the 红杏视频 of New Hampshire, national 红杏视频, NEA, and NEA-NH against the U.S. Department of Education. These practices were halted by the court in April 2024. Dr. Christine Boston, superintendent of Dover Public Schools, said, 鈥淭he Dover School District provides relevant and engaging learning experiences and curricula to each student, which could violate HB2鈥檚 anti-DEI provisions where such individualized instruction is for the purpose of 鈥榓chieving demographic outcomes鈥� and classifies students based on the groups listed in RSA 354-A:1. The District celebrates the diversity of our student body, pursues equity to provide an individualized education, and creates inclusive learning environments. This commitment is required by the City of Dover school board and the State of New Hampshire. According to the Educational Equity Policy ACB of the Dover School District: 鈥楾he ultimate goal of the Dover School District鈥檚 educational system is to assure that each and every student, regardless of background, has access to relevant and engaging learning experiences and curricula that they will need in order to thrive today and into the future. This foundation will allow our students to become dynamic global citizens as they adapt to a rapidly changing world.鈥� HB2鈥檚 vague ban on, for example, 'critical race theory鈥� and 鈥榓ny program, policy, training, or initiative that classifies individuals based on a characteristic identified under RSA 354-A:1鈥欌�攏amely, age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion or national origin鈥斺�檉or the purpose of achieving demographic outcomes, rather than treating individuals equally under the law鈥� makes me question whether the N.H. Department of Education and others could view the District鈥檚 efforts to create relevant and engaging learning environments with well-rounded teachers and staff as violating HB2, thus jeopardizing much needed state and federal funding.鈥� Dr. Robert Shaps, the superintendent of the Oyster River Cooperative School District (ORCSD), said, 鈥淗B 2, as written, directly contradicts our legal responsibility to meet our obligations under a wide range of preexisting laws that require school districts to improve learning outcomes for demographic groups. It contains broad and ambiguous declarations coupled with unclearly defined prohibited practices and no guidance. These determinations are subjective and unreviewable, and conflict with our legal and ethical responsibilities to our students. The ability to provide and apply resources and services that ensure all students succeed academically is crucial to their success. In effect, the New Hampshire State Government is using financial force to impose an unclear directive regarding educational learning opportunities, despite its constitutional responsibility to provide adequate school funding without conditions. This unprecedented ability gives them the ability to immediately halt all sources of public funding without warning if a school or district, knowingly or unknowingly, fails to abide by any section of the anti-DEI provisions. We cannot stand by as the state attempts to bypass its own legal responsibilities while failing to provide due process to respond to violations and offering no chance of appeal. We hope this legal action will defend our right to deliver a high-quality public school education and support a democratic, informed, and engaged community as we work together to protect our children鈥檚 future.鈥� Christine Downing, the superintendent of the Grantham School District, said, 鈥淭he Grantham School District is taking a proactive stance to protect its students and educational programs by challenging the diversity, equity, and inclusion prohibition language of HB2. The District is committed to providing a high-quality education that prepares students for a diverse, global society, grounded in principles of inclusion and equity. Due to a severe lack of clarity regarding what constitutes 鈥楧EI-related programs, initiatives, policies, and training,鈥� the District believes it's essential to seek legal action. Without clear guidance from the Department of Education, the District cannot risk the possibility of arbitrary and unilateral actions by the Commissioner that could halt all sources of public funding. Joining this legal action is a necessary step to ensure the District can continue to provide the education our community expects and our students deserve.鈥� The complaint is available here: /cases/national-education-association-new-hampshire-v-formella?document=Complaint