ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵ

The ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵ and the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵ of Colorado filed a discrimination charge against InnoSource Inc. on behalf of Dashir Moore, a 32-year-old transgender man who was denied health care coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and subsequent transition-related care. Insurance carve-outs for transition-related care are illegal, yet two days after his surgery Mr. Moore was informed that his insurance company had denied the claim and he began receiving bills from the hospital, which eventually totaled nearly $30,000.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic marriage equality ruling in 2015, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis refused to issue any marriage licenses because of her personal, religious opposition to marriage for same-sex couples. The ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵand the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵof Kentucky won a preliminary injunction on behalf of Rowan County couples enabling them to marry.

Whether it violates the First Amendment for a state to authorize a public employee union to collect a fee from non-members for the cost of benefits that the union is legally required to provide all employees.

On October 20, 2017 the ACLU, the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵof Maryland, and Free State Justice intervened on behalf of James van Kuilenburg, a transgender student, in the case Smith v. Board of Education of Frederick County to defend a Maryland school board’s policies that prevent discrimination, harassment, and stigmatization of transgender and gender nonconforming students in the school system.

In response to efforts by the Montana Family Foundation to push an anti-transgender ballot measure that would bar transgender people from using public facilities like bathrooms or locker rooms that are consistent with their gender identity, the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵand the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵof Montana filed a petition challenging the legal sufficiency of the description of the proposed anti-trans ballot initiative (I-183) that would go to the voters. The petition argued that the ballot and fiscal impact statements inaccurately characterize the initiative – hiding both its discriminatory effect and its impact on local and state budgets. The Supreme Court of Montana agreed, ordering the Attorney General to revise both statements.