Advocacy leaders gathered Monday to discuss the future of the Kansas transgender community and share resources in the face of state and federal anti-trans laws.
“After the Gavel: Trans Futures in Kansas” was organized by members of Trans Lawrence Coalition, Loud Light and Equality Kansas.
Advertisement
Led by D.C. Hiegert, a legal fellow at ACLU Kansas, and Donnavan Dillon, senior organizer with Loud Light, the evening’s discussion addressed developments in changing gender markers and gender-affirming health care for minors, as well as resources for the local community.
Hiegert outlined four significant past and ongoing lawsuits impacting trans people, discussing the impact of federal decisions on Kansans’ day-to-day lives.
Gender markers on IDs
Federal level
Orr v. Trump is an ongoing federal lawsuit brought by the national ACLU fighting the ban on changing passport gender markers. As of June, the ACLU was granted a preliminary injunction (PI), which is a court order “preserving the status quo before final judgment,” according to Cornell Law School.
In this case, a PI translates to a temporary pause on the ban on changing passport gender markers. Transgender people can currently obtain an accurate gender marker on a federal passport, and nonbinary and gender-queer individuals can get an X gender marker.
Marker changes are presently awarded under a self-attestation policy. As such, an individual’s word is sufficient, and no additional documentation is needed.
However, due to the complications of the pending lawsuit, people must undergo a unique application process to make an update. The National ACLU has a robust guide on this process, which can be found here.
Hiegert said the government will likely appeal the ruling that established the PI. He said “there’s a world where the ban could go back in place” if the appeal is successful.
“But I just flag that there is potentially a limited amount of time where this preliminary injunction is in place allowing us to change our passports again,” Hiegert said. “So if it’s something that you are interested in doing, I definitely recommend doing it sooner rather than later, or looking into the resources.”
Molly Adams / Lawrence TimesZines and stickers at Trans Lawrence Coalition’s table at “After the Gavel”
State level
Kansas v. Harper is a current case the ACLU of Kansas is involved in regarding SB 180, a 2023 bill that purports to define “man” and “woman” under state law.
The year the bill passed, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach sued the Kansas Department of Revenue, which oversees the Kansas Department of Motor Vehicles, for allowing residents to change gender markers on their state driver’s license.
Although the DMV policy had been in place for more than a decade, the AG argued that a ban was a valid interpretation of SB 180. Shortly after, the ACLU of Kansas intervened in the lawsuit, stating that “trans Kansans actually have a right to privacy, that they shouldn’t be outed,” Hiegert said.
Advertisement
After a complicated fight to gain a PI temporarily lifting the ban, the ACLU of Kansas was successful in June. Kansans, however, have expressed confusion over their inability to immediately update their gender markers despite the favorable ruling. Hiegert attributes this to “procedural stickiness.”
Per Hiegert, the opinion from the appellate court cannot take legal effect until a mandate is issued. The opposing side had 30 days after the decision to appeal the mandate — for this PI, the final day to appeal was Monday. Kobach did file a petition after 5 p.m. Monday for the Kansas Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision, according to online court records.
Some event attendees expressed fear that seeking a gender marker change would put them “on a government list.” Referring back to McCarthyism and the Red Scare, Hiegert said it is a historically reasonable concern.
“Really, it comes down to the importance of having your gender marker reflected on your identity documents and the safety that affords you in your daily life,” they said. “If it feels important enough … and those safety concerns feel more important to you than the fear of you potentially being tracked, you know, that is sort of a balancing factor that you have to weigh for yourself.”
Gender-affirming health care for minors
Federal level
U.S. v. Skrmetti is a federal lawsuit brought by the national ACLU, which concluded with an unfavorable ruling in June. The case specifically targeted a Tennessee bill that sought to ban gender-affirming care for minors in the state.
The Supreme Court ruled that the bill was not specific enough to warrant a sex- or gender-based discrimination analysis. As such, “the court applied the lowest level of legal scrutiny,” according to reporting from NPR.
“Obviously, the ACLU believes that this is wrong legal analysis for these types of bills,” Hiegert said.
The ultimate ruling this June did allow Tennessee to institute a ban on health care for trans youth. However, Hiegert reminded the audience that Skrmetti was the first time an out trans lawyer argued in the Supreme Court.
Molly Adams / Lawrence TimesMaterials from Loud Light’s table at “After the Gavel”
State level
The ACLU of Kansas has a lawsuit, Loe v. Kansas, pending to challenge SB 63, legislation that has banned gender-affirming health care for minors in Kansas since February. Trans minors who are not currently accessing the forms of care listed under the bill are completely banned from doing so. Under a “grandfather” provision, those who currently receive this care have until December to cease.
Kansans have understandably expressed concern about the impacts of the Skrmetti decision on state legislation. Although Skrmetti was not a favorable outcome, Hiegert said the federal decision does not automatically mean that SB 63 is undefeatable in Kansas.
Advertisement
“There was a ruling from our Kansas Supreme Court in the reproductive freedom context a few years back that made clear our constitution has broader protections than the federal constitution, and we believe that those protections apply to trans folks and parents of trans minors in our state and their ability to access health care,” Hiegert said.
Since the lawsuit is being argued in Kansas, rather than at the federal level, Hiegert says the ACLU of Kansas will have more room to make this argument.
At present, ACLU of Kansas has filed a PI with the court to pause SB 63 while the lawsuit, which is in its early stages, plays out.
“We are working to move it sort of expeditiously through the court, because we’re obviously aware of our grandfather provision approaching at the end of the year, and the different types of harm that’s going to cause for trans folks in our state,” Hiegert said.
Further resources
Molly Adams / Lawrence TimesDonnavan Dillon of Loud Light
Hiegert and Dillon rounded out the evening by providing attendees with a list of national and local resources, as well as recommendations for getting involved to “impact bills like these passing in the first place.”
Here are the resources speakers highlighted:
National and local resources
• Campaign for Southern Equality’s Trans Youth Emergency Project provides “logistical and financial support” to families navigating health care bans.
• Trans Lifeline offers microgrants and a trans-run hotline for “our trans and questioning peers.”
• All for Trans Equality provides extensive support materials while addressing a broad number of legal and political concerns affecting trans people.
• KU Law’s Legal Aid Clinic can assist with name changes.
Regional advocacy organizations
Molly Adams / Lawrence TimesIsaac Johnson of Trans Lawrence Coalition speaks at the “After the Gavel: Trans Futures in Kansas” event.
• Loud Light
• ACLU of Kansas
• Trans Lawrence Coalition
• Equality Kansas
• Trans Women of Color Collective
Regional community-based organizations
• Lawrence Pride
• Topeka Pride
• Rainbow Kids & Families
• Queer Voices: Storytelling
• Transformations KC
• Our Spot KC
• PFLAG – Lawrence and Topeka
• Trans Joy KC