California's Prop 8 Update | ACLU

Related Content

• 

  Library Patrons Sue Greenville County Over Widespread Removals and Restrictions of LGBTQ Books

  GREENVILLE, S.C. – 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. The lawsuit asks a federal court to permanently block Greenville County’s policies and practices that have deliberately hidden or removed dozens of books that positively portray transgender and gender-nonconforming people. The ACLU and the ACLU of South Carolina filed the lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of families and residents of Greenville County, arguing that county officials have violated library patrons’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. "Books are one of our greatest tools to learn about other peoples, the world around us, and more importantly to learn about ourselves through representation,” said Greg Rogers, a Greenville County parent and plaintiff in the lawsuit. “All children and young adults should have equal access to these tools. Keeping even one child from accessing the representation they provide is a travesty for the equality of all children.” “For years, the library board has tried to censor patrons' access to diverse stories,” said Stephen Shelato, co-founder of Freedom in Libraries Advocacy Group (FLAG), a vibrant local library group that has lobbied hard against anti-LGBTQ discrimination at the Greenville Library. “Local parents believe that exposure to diverse stories is healthy and developmentally appropriate, but board members have repeatedly chosen instead to follow the demands of a loud minority of activists and partisan groups. Local parents are now courageously speaking out and taking action—and they deserve the full support of our community." “Greenville County cannot censor our public libraries merely because its officials find certain materials politically, morally, or religiously objectionable,” said Allen Chaney, Legal Director for the ACLU of South Carolina. “After years of public advocacy against these discriminatory actions, we must now rely on the courts to vindicate a simple truth: the constitution protects everyone, including LGBTQ people.” “Greenville County’s policy is a blatant infringement on the rights we all share to learn, read, and speak as we please,” said Shana Knizhnik, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s Jon L. Stryker and Slobodan Randjelović LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Decades of First Amendment precedent protects the freedom of readers and community members like our plaintiffs, and nobody’s story is unacceptable simply because of who they are or who they love. Across the country, communities like Greenville are standing up and fighting back against efforts to push LGBTQ people from public life, and we’re hopeful the court will see through these discriminatory acts of censorship.” New policies adopted by the Greenville County Library Board in 2024 require that all materials with “illustrations, themes, or story lines [that] affirm, portray, or discuss changing the appearance of a minor’s gender in ways inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex” or with “illustrations, themes, or storylines that celebrate, portray, or affirm gender transitioning” must be removed from the juvenile and young adult sections of the library. The library system has moved these books to adults-only sections of the library, limiting access for young readers. Meanwhile, the library system has completely removed dozens of titles that positively portray LGBTQ people, including in adult sections of the library. As today’s court filing explains, the library system’s leadership has granted more than 50 requests from the Greenville County Republican Women’s Club to remove LGBTQ materials, while disproportionately refusing other patrons’ requests to order new LGBTQ materials. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit identify specific books that have been removed from the Juvenile section. Amber Galea, parent of two children, says her children are interested in books that have been moved out of the Juvenile section, including Hocus and Pocus and the Spell for Home by A.R. Capetta, The Cardboard Kingdom by Chad Sell, Riding Freedom by Pam Muñoz Ryan, and Snapdragon by Kat Leyh. The following are other examples of books that the library has moved out of juvenile and young adult sections: Julián is a Mermaid by Jessica Love (an award-winning children’s picture book about a young boy who wishes to dress up like a mermaid) Ana on the Edge by A.J. Sass (an award-winning book about a 12-year-old nonbinary figure skater) Red: A Crayon’s Story by Michael Hall (a picture book about a blue crayon that was mistakenly labeled as “red”) A list of 59 books that were removed entirely from the Greenville County library system in 2023 is available here. The complaint filed today can be found here. The Greenville County Library Board members who promoted anti-transgender collection policies in 2024 did not try to keep their discriminatory motives a secret. According to those board members’ public comments, library materials condoning gender fluidity are “trash” and the “idea” of “transgenderism” is a “dangerous thing.” As one library board member put it: “[T]he presence of a transgender character in a book … is grounds for relocating it to the adult section.” Meanwhile library board members and officials have ordered Pride Month displays to be taken down, ordered library staff to remove advertising for an LGBTQ book club, and encouraged librarians to use the “weeding” process — meant to remove books that are outdated or in physical disrepair — as a pretext to throw out LGBTQ titles, including books purchased within the past five years. These actions by library board members and library administrators have contributed to an ongoing “culture of fear,” as highlighted in an October 2023 Greenville News article. That cultural shift has led the staff turnover rate to double. For years, local advocates and library employees have shown resilience in the face of these attacks. Greenville County residents have shown up to speak against censorship at Library Board meetings. One library board member resigned in protest in July 2022 after the board chair ordered Pride Month displays to be taken down, and a former library communications director resigned in October 2022 after being pressured to remove a TV slide promoting an LGBTQ book club. Today’s lawsuit seeks to address the practice of viewpoint discrimination in the Greenville County Library System, which reports 1.2 million visits per year across 12 locations. The plaintiffs are asking the court to uphold the freedom to access information, a right derived from the First Amendment. They also ask the court to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law for all Greenville County residents. Other South Carolina library systems considering following in the path of Greenville County should take heed.

  Affiliate: South Carolina

  Library Patrons Sue Greenville County Over Widespread Removals and Restrictions of LGBTQ Books

• 

  LGBTQ Rights

  Federal Court to Consider Preliminary Injunction Against Trump’s Discriminatory Passport Policy

  BOSTON – Tomorrow, a federal district court will hear arguments from attorneys representing transgender and nonbinary Americans impacted by a new State Department policy requiring US passports to reflect their sex assigned at birth, rolling back decades of State Department policy. What: Orr v. Trump Preliminary Injunction Hearing When: Tuesday, March 25 10:00 a.m. Eastern Where: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston, MA) Press Availability: When the hearing concludes, attorneys will be available for questions outside the District Court building (near the intersection of Northern Avenue and Courthouse Way). The hearing will not be livestreamed but is open to the public in-person. According to the District Court’s website, attendance is limited to the capacity of the courtroom and an overflow room on a first-come-first-serve basis. Please refer to the District Court’s guidance for members of the media. “Even before Donald Trump was inaugurated, it was clear to me he wanted to control the lives and identities of transgender people like myself,” said Ash Lazarus Orr, transgender West Virginian and title plaintiff in Orr v. Trump. “Like many others, I rushed to update my passport hoping I could get an accurate version. Now, the State Department has suspended my application and withheld all my documents from me, including my passport, my birth certificate, and even my marriage license. I’m hopeful the court will see this discriminatory policy for what is and prevent even more people from having their lives disrupted and their freedom threatened by this administration.” “The policy we’re challenging in this case is openly discriminatory and animated by a transparent desire to drive transgender people out of public life altogether,” said Li Nowlin-Sohl, Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, who will be presenting arguments before the court on Tuesday. “Our clients rely on their passports to travel abroad for work, for school, and to see family abroad, and the administration has put forward no reasonable justification for rolling back decades of policy and disrupting the lives of thousands of people across the country. We’re hopeful the court will agree that transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people are entitled to the same freedom we all deserve—the freedom to be ourselves without fear.” “The new passport policy threatens to expose transgender people to violence, harassment, and discrimination in nearly every element of public life: while flying, opening bank accounts, enrolling in school, and more,” said Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “We’re challenging this policy because every person deserves the right to move freely about the world safely and with dignity." 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. In February 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Massachusetts filed Orr v. Trump on behalf of seven people who have not been able to obtain passports that match their identities 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. Trump

  Affiliate: Massachusetts

  Federal Court to Consider Preliminary Injunction Against Trump’s Discriminatory Passport Policy

• 

  LGBTQ Rights

  State District Court of Appeals Blocks Ohio’s Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Trans Minors, in an Historic Win for Families and Bodily Autonomy

  COLUMBUS- Today, in an historic win for bodily autonomy and LGBTQ+ Ohioans, a three judge panel on the Tenth District Court of Appeals overturned House Bill 68, Ohio’s law banning gender-affirming medical care for trans youth, and prohibiting trans women and girls from participating in sports. The case, Moe v. Yost, was originally filed on March 26 by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Ohio, and the global law firm Goodwin on behalf of two families whose transgender adolescents would be negatively impacted by HB 68. On August 6, following a five-day trial in July, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge, and allowed the ban to take effect. Today, transgender youth in Ohio will once again be able to access lifesaving healthcare. The following is reaction to the ruling: Freda Levenson, Legal Director at the ACLU of Ohio: “Today, we celebrate this win not only for our brave plaintiffs, but for all LGBTQ+ Ohioans and their families. This win restores the right of trans youth in Ohio to choose vitally important health care, with the support of their families and physicians. We are gratified by the Court’s decision, which soundly rejects this interference of politicians with Ohioans’ bodily autonomy. Although this litigation will likely not end here, we remain fervently committed to preventing this egregious bill from ever again taking effect. The path towards protecting the rights and civil liberties of trans Ohioans goes on, and we will continue to hold the torch.” Harper Seldin, Senior Staff Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union: “This is a critical victory for transgender youth and their families across Ohio. The state’s ban is discriminatory, baseless, and a danger to the well-being of the same Ohioan youth lawmakers claim to want to protect. It’s also part of a sweeping effort to drive trans people out of public life altogether by controlling our health care, our families, and our lives. We’re thankful the court upheld their rights under the state constitution.” Miranda Hooker, Complex Litigation & Dispute Resolution Partner, Goodwin: "We applaud the families who courageously shared their personal experiences to oppose House Bill 68. This victory underscores the critical need to safeguard bodily autonomy and access to essential healthcare. The decision marks an important milestone in advancing equality and personal freedom for all Ohioans and we will continue to fight against the unconstitutional Bill moving forward." The ruling can be found online here.

  Court Case: Moe v. Yost

  Affiliate: Ohio

  State District Court of Appeals Blocks Ohio’s Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Trans Minors, in an Historic Win for Families and Bodily Autonomy

• 

  LGBTQ Rights

  Kingdom v. Trump

  Three transgender people currently incarcerated in federal custody have filed a class action lawsuit against the Trump Administration and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) challenging an Executive Order and new BOP policies prohibiting their access to gender-affirming care. The class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of approximately 2,000 transgender people incarcerated in federal prisons across the United States.

  Kingdom v. Trump