The following weekly digest is written and compiled by the Trans Formations Project, a grassroots nonprofit dedicated to tracking and educating about the anti-trans legislative crisis currently sweeping the United States. You can follow their work and latest updates via Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Tumblr, and Facebook.
Hello readers. It’s Friday, September 6, 2024.
As a reminder, legislative sessions are different for each state — and you can keep track of your state’s legislative session here. Currently, bill progressions have slowed following the conclusion of legislative sessions in most states.
This week: no new bill progressions or introductions!
Editorial Feature: Chevron Deference
This week, Mika Fernandez, Esq. (she/her), President of the Board of Trans Formations Project, updates us on the ongoing impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron deference.
Mika is a practicing civil rights lawyer with over 12 years of experience. She specializes in education law, focusing specifically on cases that impact children from marginalized communities.
In Mika's own words:
Back in July, I wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Chevron v. NRDC, commonly referred to as Chevron deference. In that article, I discussed the potential negative impact of this decision on minoritized groups, including the trans community. I am writing to you now with an update on the current legal landscape in the absence of Chevron.
On Thursday, August 22, a Trump-appointed judge blocked the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) Office of External Civil Rights Compliance from considering disparate environmental harms. At issue was Section VII of the Title VI legal manual, pertaining to the implementation of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. This bill allows the federal government to prohibit discriminatory state-level action against minoritized groups, regardless of the intentions of such action. Currently, 26 federal agencies have rules prohibiting this kind of discrimination, also known as “disparate impact” discrimination. Since the Supreme Court struck down Chevron deference in July, those discrimination rules have been called into question.
One might wonder, after reading the above paragraph, why it matters whether or not a state intends to discriminate. Given that we are currently experiencing one of the most concentrated attacks on LGBTQIA+ rights in U.S. history, it seems like common sense to assume that state officials are acting with discriminatory intent. This is, of course, true: to any trans person, LGBTQIA+ person, or person who simply pays attention, it’s obvious that our community faces discrimination. It’s proving discriminatory intent in court that becomes the issue.
Proving harm in court is easy. Proving in court what an Attorney General, or a bureaucrat, or an entire legislature intends is a much harder task. Public statements of hatred often work as evidence, but in most cases, elected or appointed officials who intend to discriminate know better than to say the quiet part out loud.
What does this mean for the trans rights movement? As many people are undoubtedly aware, or are becoming so, trans people cannot rely on the federal government to protect us from state-level persecution. State and local elections, on the other hand, are an increasingly crucial battleground on which the fight for LGBTQIA+ civil rights takes place. This November, don’t forget about down-ballot, local candidates — their efforts will be some of the most important in securing trans rights in your state.
One of the most important things you can do for the trans/GNC community right now is vote in your local and state-level elections! If you aren’t already registered to vote in your state, you can do so here.
The Things We Won!
On Tuesday, September 3, 64 transgender adults — including actor Elliot Page and Delaware state Senator Sarah McBride — filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Skrmetti. In the amicus brief, trans Americans from a wide range of backgrounds voice their support for gender-affirming care, communicating its physical and psychological benefits. The individuals who filed the brief (referred to collectively as “amici”) claim that “for those [among us] fortunate enough to receive gender-affirming healthcare as minors, early intervention proved crucial to [our] wellbeing and survival.”
United States v. Skrmetti concerns TN SB0001, a gender-affirming care ban for minors that became law in Tennessee on March 22, 2023. In October, the Supreme Court will determine whether or not SB0001 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
On Thursday, August 29, the ACLU of South Carolina filed a lawsuit against SC H4642, a gender-affirming care (GAC) ban for minors. In addition to banning GAC for minors, SC H4642 prohibits the state Medicaid program from covering transition procedures or related care.
In an August 29 press release, the ACLU of South Carolina asserts that SC H4642 “sets a dangerous double standard for medical care that is clearly discriminatory against trans individuals.” For this reason, among others, the plaintiffs in the case argue that H4642 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, the plaintiffs object to H4642 on the basis that it violates both parental due-process and the anti-discrimination clauses present in the Medicaid Act, Affordable Care Act (ACA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Rehabilitation Act.
What the Heck Else Happened This Week?
Two weeks ago, we reported that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had banned gender marker changes on state driver’s licenses. This week, Texas went one step further, banning citizens from changing the sex on their birth certificate. The rule change makes an exception for clerical errors or omissions in which the hospital is at fault. This move is the latest in Attorney General Paxton’s anti-trans policy campaign. Advocates from Equality Texas, an LGBTQIA+ rights organization, have accused Paxton of bullying state agencies in order to make public life more difficult for trans Texans.
With this decision from Attorney General Paxton’s office, Texas joins a small group of states — including Kansas, Montana, and Oklahoma — that have outright banned citizens from amending gender markers on birth certificates.
Mental Health Resources
We know that staying up-to-date with anti-trans legislation may be distressing to our readers. If you or someone you know needs support, here are a few affirming resources that you can reach out to:
- If you need support or are in crisis, you can contact the Trans Lifeline hotline at (877) 565-8860.
- The Trans Lifeline is run by trans people, for trans people, and does not engage in non-consensual active rescue, meaning they will not call law enforcement without your consent.
- You can connect with a Trevor Project crisis counselor via phone 1 (866) 488-7386, chat, or text (Text ‘START’ to 678-678).
- Note: This resource could utilize non-consensual active rescue, including law enforcement, 911, and first responders.
- You can call the LGBT National Hotline at (888) 843-4564 or connect with a peer via chat.
- The LGBT National Help Center will NOT call other suicide hotlines, law enforcement, 911, or rescue services.
- BlackLine is a BIPOC LGBTQ+ support line, run by BIPOC folks, for BIPOC folks. This resource does not involve law enforcement or state agencies. You can call 1 (800) 604-5841 to chat with a peer.
- For folks under 25, you can call the LGBT National Youth Talkline at (800) 246-7743.
- The LGBT National Help Center will NOT call other suicide hotlines, law enforcement, 911, or rescue services.
- Adults (folks 18+) can text the THRIVE Lifeline, which is trans-led and operated. Text "THRIVE" to (313) 662-8209 to begin your conversation.
- THRIVE Lifeline does NOT call emergency services for people who are at risk of harming themselves without their consent.
Get the best of what’s queer. Sign up for Them’s weekly newsletter here.
