Supreme Court Oral Arguments in Landmark Transgender Rights Case Scheduled for December 4
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a challenge brought by transgender youth and their families to a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care, for December 4, 2024.
The case was first filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on behalf of Samantha and Brian Williams of Nashville and their 16-year-old transgender daughter, two other plaintiff families filing anonymously, and Memphis-based medical doctor Dr. Susan Lacy. The plaintiff families and Dr. Lacy argue that the law violates the equal protection rights of transgender adolescents. The United States intervened also arguing that the Tennessee law violates the Equal Protection Clause.
In June 2024, the Supreme Court granted a cert petition filed in the case by the United States and a petition for split argument time between the U.S. Solicitor General and an attorney representing transgender youth and their families is pending before the Court. The transgender youth and their families remain parties to the case.
The ACLU, Lambda Legal, and advocates from across the civil rights movement will gather for a rally in front of the United States Supreme Court building the morning of oral arguments.

LGBTQ Rights
L.W. v. Skrmetti/U.S. v. Skrmetti

LGBTQ Rights
L.W. v. Skrmetti/U.S. v. Skrmetti
Stay informed
Sign up to be the first to hear about how to take action.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
Related Content
- Press ReleaseApr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Federal Judge Orders Temporary Relief To Six Plaintiffs In Challenge To Trump Administration Policy Barring Updates To Sex Designation On Us Passports. Explore Press Release.Federal Judge Orders Temporary Relief to Six Plaintiffs in Challenge to Trump Administration Policy Barring Updates to Sex Designation on US Passports
BOSTON – A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction today after finding that an executive order by President Trump and a State Department policy prohibiting updates to sex designations on passports is likely unconstitutional and in violation of the law. The preliminary injunction requires the State Department to allow six transgender and nonbinary people to obtain passports with sex designations consistent with their gender identity while the lawsuit proceeds. Though today’s court order applies only to six of the plaintiffs in the case, the plaintiffs plan to quickly file a motion asking the court to certify a class of people affected by the State Department policy and to extend the preliminary injunction to that entire class. “This decision is a critical victory against discrimination and for equal justice under the law,” said Li Nowlin-Sohl, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “But it’s also a historic win in the fight against this administration’s efforts to drive transgender people out of public life. The State Department’s policy is a baseless barrier for transgender and intersex Americans and denies them the dignity we all deserve. We will do everything we can to ensure this order is extended to everyone affected by the administration’s misguided and unconstitutional policy so that we all have the freedom to be ourselves.” “This ruling affirms the inherent dignity of our clients, acknowledging the immediate and profound negative impact that the Trump administration's passport policy would have on their ability to travel for work, school, and family,” said Jessie Rossman, Legal Director at ACLU of Massachusetts. “By forcing people to carry documents that directly contradict their identities, the Trump administration is attacking the very foundations of our right to privacy and the freedom to be ourselves. We will continue to fight to rescind this unlawful policy for everyone so that no one is placed in this untenable and unsafe position.” On his first day in office in January 2025, 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 “to require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards” reflect their sex “at conception.” Under the ensuing Passport Policy, within 48 hours the State Department began holding some passports and other documents (such as birth certificates and court orders) submitted by transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people who had applied to update the sex designation on their U.S. passports and returning others with their applications rejected and their newly-issued passport marked with their sex assigned at birth. Over 214,000 public comments in opposition to the State Department’s new policy were collected by the ACLU and Advocates for Transgender Equality. In February 2025, Orr v. Trump was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and Covington and Burling LLP, on behalf of seven people who have not been able to obtain passports that match who they are because of the State Department’s new Passport Policy or are 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.Court Case: Orr v. TrumpAffiliate: Massachusetts - VirginiaApr 2025
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
E.k. V. Department Of Defense Education Activity. Explore Case.E.K. v. Department of Defense Education Activity
Whether the Department of Defense Education Activity can remove educational material related to race and gender from its libraries and classrooms in K-12 schools.Status: Ongoing - Press ReleaseApr 2025
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
Students Sue Department Of Defense Schools Over Curriculum Changes, Book Bans. Explore Press Release.Students Sue Department of Defense Schools Over Curriculum Changes, Book Bans
QUANTICO, Va. – Students in Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) schools on military bases sued today, arguing that DoDEA’s book removals and curricular changes following several executive orders from President Donald Trump violate their First Amendment rights. DoDEA operates 161 schools across 11 countries, seven states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The suit was filed on behalf of 12 students from six families, ranging in age from pre-K to 11th grade, that attend DoDEA schools as children of active duty servicemembers stationed in Virginia, Kentucky, Italy, and Japan. Since January, their schools have systemically removed books, altered curricula, and canceled events that the government has accused of promoting “gender ideology” or “divisive equity ideology.” This has included materials about slavery, Native American history, LGBTQ identities and history, and preventing sexual harassment and abuse, as well as portions of the Advanced Placement (AP) Psychology curriculum. “Learning is a sacred and foundational right that is now being limited for students in DoDEA schools,” said Natalie Tolley, a plaintiff on behalf of her three children in DoDEA schools. “The implementation of these EOs, without any due process or parental or professional input, is a violation of our children's right to access information that prevents them from learning about their own histories, bodies, and identities. I have three daughters, and they, like all children, deserve access to books that both mirror their own life experiences and that act as windows that expose them to greater diversity. The administration has now made that verboten in DoDEA schools.” In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed three executive orders which led to these removals: Executive Order (EO) 14168 titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”; EO 14185 titled “Restoring America’s Fighting Force”; and EO 14190 titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.” The suit names Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and administrators of the DoDEA system, arguing that by revoking students’ access to books and curricula about race and gender, defendants are harming students’ First Amendment right to receive information. “Students in DoDEA schools, though they are members of military families, have the same First Amendment rights as all students,” said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Like everyone else, they deserve classrooms where they are free to read, speak, and learn about themselves, their neighbors, and the world around them. These schools are some of the most diverse and high achieving in the nation, making it particularly insulting to strip their shelves of diverse books and erase women, LGBTQ people, and people of color from the curriculum to serve a political goal. Our clients deserve better, and the First Amendment demands it.” The Department of Defense has also prohibited cultural awareness months, including Black History Month, Pride Month, Women’s History Month, and National Hispanic Heritage Month. Schools have also released guidance for yearbooks to prohibit students from using them to promote “gender ideology” or “social transition.” Books banned within some DoDEA schools have reportedly included “The Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini; “Freckleface Strawberry” by Julianne Moore; “Hillbilly Elegy” by Vice President JD Vance; “The Antiracist Kid” by Tiffany Jewell; and a preparation guide for the AP Psychology exam. “By quarantining library books and whitewashing curricula in its civilian schools, the Department of Defense Education Activity is violating students’ First Amendment rights,” said Matt Callahan, senior supervising attorney at the ACLU of Virginia. “The government can’t scrub references to race and gender from public school libraries and classrooms just because the Trump administration doesn’t like certain viewpoints on those topics.” “Our clients have a right to receive an education that includes an open and honest dialogue about America’s history,” said Corey Shapiro, legal director for the ACLU of Kentucky. “Censoring books and canceling assignments about the contributions of Black Americans is not only wrong, but antithetical to our First Amendment rights.” The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Virginia, and the ACLU of Kentucky. The complaint can be viewed here: https://www.aclu-ky.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/ek_v_dodea_-_2025.04.15_ecf_001_-_complaint.pdfAffiliates: Virginia, Kentucky - South CarolinaApr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
O.r. V. Greenville County, South Carolina. Explore Case.O.R. v. Greenville County, South Carolina
Local library patrons, with help from the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of South Carolina, are suing officials in South Carolina’s most populous county for systematically purging literature by and about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people from its public library collection.Status: Ongoing