Arkansas Supreme Court Strikes Down Parenting Ban As Contrary To Children’s Welfare
Decision Affirms Lower Court Ruling That Barring Straight And Gay Unmarried Couples From Adopting And Fostering Violates The Constitution
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
LITTLE ROCK– The Arkansas Supreme Court today declared unconstitutional a law that bans any unmarried person who lives with a partner in a sexual relationship, including those in same-sex relationships, from serving as an adoptive or foster parent. The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arkansas filed a lawsuit against the ban on behalf of children, parents and couples harmed by the law, known as Act 1, in December 2008. The Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision today affirms an earlier ruling by the Pulaski County Circuit Court holding that Act 1 violates the Arkansas Constitution's guarantee of a right to privacy, a ruling that Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel appealed.
“We are excited about today's ruling,” said Wendy Rickman, who, along with her partner of 11 years, Stephanie Huffman, was represented in the case by the ACLU. Rickman and Huffman adopted a special-needs foster child in Arkansas and would like to open their home to another special-needs child. “We feel that the court thoroughly reviewed the facts of the case and ruled accordingly. We look forward to the opportunity to go through the adoption process once more and to welcome another child into our family.”
“This ruling is a relief for the over 1,600 children in the state of Arkansas who need a permanent family. The state admitted good families would be banned by this law, and that we have a critical shortage of homes,” said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “This ban wouldn’t even allow a relative – gay or straight – to foster or adopt a child with whom they had a close relationship, so long as that relative was unmarried and living with a partner. The court clearly saw that this ban violated the constitutional rights of our clients and thousands of other Arkansans.”
In addition to Rickman and Huffman, plaintiffs participating in the case include three teenagers in state care who are awaiting placement with a foster or adoptive family, a grandmother who was barred by Act 1 from adopting her own grandchild and several married heterosexual couples who are prohibited by Act 1 from arranging for certain friends or relatives to adopt their children if they die or become incapacitated.
As the state Supreme Court observed: “Act 1 presents a pernicious choice….[Individuals] can either give up [their] fundamental right to sexual intimacy in [their] home free from investigation by the State into [their] sexual practices in order to adopt or foster, or forego the privilege of having children by adoption or fostering.”
The court also found that “by imposing a categorical ban on all persons who cohabit with a sexual partner, Act 1 removes the ability of the State and our courts to conduct…individualized assessments on these individuals, many of whom could qualify and be entirely suitable foster or adoptive parents. As a result, Act 1 fails to pass constitutional muster under a heightened-scrutiny analysis.”
“This law was an assault on Arkansas’ most vulnerable children and arbitrarily denied them the opportunity to be placed into good and loving homes,” said Christine P. Sun, senior counsel with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “The ban did nothing positive. It required the government to intrude into the private lives of Arkansans for no child welfare purpose at all. We are relieved that the court agreed that the law is unconstitutional.”
Act 1 did not prevent single people, regardless of the number of romantic partners they have, from adopting or fostering children in Arkansas, and did not bar unmarried cohabiting couples from serving as guardians, which has lower standards of approval and oversight than fostering and adopting.
In a similar ruling in 2006, the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down a law explicitly banning gay people from serving as foster parents, finding that there was no connection between parenting ability and a parent’s sexual orientation and that there was no connection between the ban and any child welfare purpose.
“The courts have clearly decided that the bans do nothing but hurt kids,” said Holly Dickson, staff attorney for the ACLU of Arkansas. “We’ve faced attempts at bans like this in Arkansas for over ten years now, and it is long past time to stop denying children good homes.”
Attorneys on the case include Marie-Bernarde Miller and Daniel J. Beck of Williams & Anderson PLC, on behalf of the ACLU of Arkansas; Sun, Leslie Cooper and Rose Saxe of the ACLU; and Garrard R. Beeney, Stacey R. Friedman, Stephen Ehrenberg, Emma Gilmore, Christopher Diffee, Taly Dvorkis, Angelica Sinopole and Jared A. Bennett Feiger of Sullivan and Cromwell.
The decision can be found here: www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/cole-v-arkansas-opinion
More on this case, including videos featuring some of the plaintiffs, can be found here:
www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/cole-v-arkansas-case-profile
LGBTQ Rights
Cole v. Arkansas
LGBTQ Rights
Cole v. Arkansas
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.