Litigation
Court cases in the project's archive about laws and policies that affect transgender and other LGBTQ+ people. Each case page links its dockets, its court documents, its opinions and any oral arguments, with the originals on CourtListener. Charts show the cases by issue, year, court and place.
Also: a finding aid to experts who testified for the side defending the laws.
62 of 664 cases match.
| Case | Court | Level | Cir. | Year | Issue / type | Outcome | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| American College of Pediatricians v. BecerraNo. 1:21-cv-00195 | 6th Cir. | Circuit | 6th Cir. | 2021 | Health coverage & benefitsalso Gender-affirming care, Speech & religious objections, Federal executive actions | 44 | |
| Anna Lange v. Houston County, Georgia | 11th Cir. | Circuit | 11th Cir. | 2025 | Gender-affirming carealso Employment, Health coverage & benefits | Adverse | 71 |
| Baker v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. | N.D. Tex. | District | 5th Cir. | 2017 | Gender-affirming carealso Employment, Health coverage & benefits | Mostly adverse | 16 |
| Bernier v. Turbocam, Inc. | D.N.H. | District | 1st Cir. | 2026 | Gender-affirming carealso Employment, Health coverage & benefits | 89 | |
| Boyden v. Conlin | W.D. Wis. | District | 7th Cir. | 2019 | Gender-affirming carealso Employment, Health coverage & benefits | Mostly favorable | 28 |
| Brittany Tovar v. Essentia Health | 1st Cir. | Circuit | 1st Cir. | 2022 | Gender-affirming carealso Employment, Health coverage & benefits | Mostly favorable | 8 |
| Casillas v. Daines | S.D.N.Y. | District | 2nd Cir. | 2008 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | Adverse | 36 |
| Christian Employers Alliance v. EEOC | D.N.D. | District | 8th Cir. | 2022 | Speech & religious objectionsalso Gender-affirming care, Employment, Health coverage & benefits | 10 | |
| City & County of San Francisco v. Alex Azar, IINo. 20-15398 | 9th Cir. | Circuit | 9th Cir. | 2020 | Health coverage & benefitsalso Speech & religious objections, Federal executive actions | 9 | |
| Conforti v. St. Joseph’s Healthcare System | 2021 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits, Speech & religious objections, Public accommodations | 15 | ||||
| Covington v. ReynoldsNo. 19-1197 · Closed · Iowa | Iowa Supreme Court | State | 2019 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | 14 | ||
| Cruz v. Zucker | S.D.N.Y. | District | 2nd Cir. | 2016 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | Mostly favorable | 19 |
| Dekker v. Weida | 11th Cir. | Circuit | 11th Cir. | 2026 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | Favorable | 1,052 |
| Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island | D.R.I. | District | 1st Cir. | 1992 | Gender-affirming carealso Employment, Health coverage & benefits | Favorable | 1 |
| Dr. James Dobson Family Institute v. Becerra | N.D. Tex. | District | 5th Cir. | 2024 | Speech & religious objectionsalso Gender-affirming care, Health coverage & benefits, Federal executive actions | 2 | |
| Erika S. v. O'Malley | D.D.C. | District | D.C. Cir. | 2024 | Health coverage & benefitsalso Gender-affirming care | Favorable | 1 |
| Flack v. Wis. Dept. of Health Servs. | W.D. Wis. | District | 7th Cir. | 2018 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | Favorable | 1 |
| Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra | 5th Cir. | Circuit | 5th Cir. | 2022 | Speech & religious objectionsalso Gender-affirming care, Health coverage & benefits, Federal executive actions | Adverse | 4 |
| Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Burwell | N.D. Tex. | District | 5th Cir. | 2023 | Speech & religious objectionsalso Gender-affirming care, Health coverage & benefits, Federal executive actions | Adverse | 185 |
| Good v. Iowa Department of Human ServicesNo. CVCV055470 · Closed · Iowa | Iowa Supreme Court | State | 2017 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | 12 | ||
| Gordon v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. | 2nd Cir. | Circuit | 2nd Cir. | 2026 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | 8 | |
| Hammons v. University of Maryland Medical System, Inc. | 2026 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits, Speech & religious objections | 124 | ||||
| Hennessy-Waller v. Snyder | D. Ariz. | District | 9th Cir. | 2021 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | Adverse | 108 |
| In re Declaratory Ruling on Health Insurance Exclusions (Conn. CHRO)Closed · Connecticut | Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities | State agency | 2020 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | 3 | ||
| In re Mariah L.Closed · New York | New York Court of Appeals | State | 2007 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | 1 | ||
| In Re: Subpoenas Served On | D.D.C. | District | D.C. Cir. | 2023 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | Adverse | 1 |
| John Doe v. Jami Snyder | 9th Cir. | Circuit | 9th Cir. | 2022 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | Mostly adverse | 4 |
| John Smith v. Jessie K. Rasmussen, in Her Official Capacity as Director of the Iowa Department of Human Services | 8th Cir. | Circuit | 8th Cir. | 2001 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | Adverse | 3 |
| Ketcham v. Regence BlueCross BlueShield of OregonNo. 19CV31838 · Closed · Oregon | Multnomah County Circuit Court | State | 2019 | Gender-affirming carealso Employment, Health coverage & benefits | 1 | ||
| L.B. v. Premera Blue Cross | 9th Cir. | Circuit | 9th Cir. | 2026 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | 43 | |
| Lawrence v. OPMClosed · Florida | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | Federal agency | 2016 | Gender-affirming carealso Employment, Health coverage & benefits | 2 | ||
| Manago v. Barnhart | E.D.N.Y. | District | 2nd Cir. | 2004 | Health coverage & benefits | Favorable | 1 |
| Manning v. OPMClosed | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (federal sector) | Federal agency | 2021 | Gender-affirming carealso Employment, Health coverage & benefits | 1 | ||
| Marc Andrew Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc. | 2nd Cir. | Circuit | 2nd Cir. | 2002 | Gender-affirming carealso Employment, Health coverage & benefits | Adverse | 1 |
| Maxwell Kadel v. Dale FolwellNo. 22-1721 | 4th Cir. | Circuit | 4th Cir. | 2022 | Gender-affirming carealso Employment, Health coverage & benefits | Favorable | 141 |
| Maxwell Kadel v. N.C. State Health Plan | 4th Cir. | Circuit | 4th Cir. | 2021 | Gender-affirming carealso Employment, Health coverage & benefits | Favorable | 1 |
| McComb Childrens Clinic, LTD. v. FinkNo. 5:24-cv-00048 | S.D. Miss. | District | 5th Cir. | 2024 | Health coverage & benefitsalso Gender-affirming care, Speech & religious objections, Federal executive actions | 23 | |
| Misanin v. Wilson | 2025 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | 27 | ||||
| Musgrove v. The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia | M.D. Ga. | District | 11th Cir. | 2018 | Gender-affirming carealso Employment, Health coverage & benefits | 2 | |
| Neese v. BecerraNo. 23-10078 | 5th Cir. | Circuit | 5th Cir. | 2023 | Health coverage & benefitsalso Gender-affirming care, Federal executive actions | Favorable | 50 |
| North Dakota, State of v. Burwell | D.N.D. | District | 8th Cir. | 2021 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits, Speech & religious objections | Adverse | 86 |
| OutFront Minnesota v. Johnson PiperClosed · Minnesota | Minnesota District Court, Ramsey County | State | 2015 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | 3 | ||
| Palacios v. Medstar Health, Inc. | D.C. Cir. | Circuit | D.C. Cir. | 2018 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | Mixed | 3 |
| Pinneke v. Preisser | 8th Cir. | Circuit | 8th Cir. | 1980 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | Favorable | 1 |
| Prescott v. Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego | S.D. Cal. | District | 9th Cir. | 2019 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | Mostly favorable | 7 |
| Pritchard, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of IllinoisNo. 23-4331 | 9th Cir. | Circuit | 9th Cir. | 2025 | Gender-affirming carealso Employment, Health coverage & benefits, Speech & religious objections | Mixed | 20 |
| Radtke v. Miscellaneous Drivers & Helpers Union Local 638 Health, Welfare, Eye & Dental Fund | D. Minn. | District | 8th Cir. | 2012 | Health coverage & benefitsalso Employment, Identity documents, Family & parental rights | Favorable | 5 |
| Rapides Parish v. Health & Human Services | W.D. La. | District | 5th Cir. | 2025 | Federal executive actionsalso Schools & education, Health coverage & benefits | 2 | |
| Rush v. Johnson | N.D. Ga. | District | 11th Cir. | 1983 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | Adverse | 1 |
| Rush v. Parham | N.D. Ga. | District | 11th Cir. | 1977 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | Favorable | 1 |
Each case has one main issue and may raise others (shown as “also”); the Issue filter finds a case by either. Choose a column heading to sort by it, and again to reverse the order. A blank cell means the archive has no entry for that case yet.
The outcome is this project's own coding of how a case turned out, made from the court's record; it is not the court's finding. How it is coded, and how to ask for a correction, is on the About page.
Litigation
Court cases about transgender and other LGBTQ+ people · federal & state courts
Cases tracked
| Case | Court | Level | Cir. | Year | Issue / type | Outcome | Docs |
|---|
Archive stats
Cases by issue
Every tracked case once, under its main issue, split by the coded direction of its final ruling (the same reading as "Reached a final ruling" below): favorable or adverse to the LGBTQ-rights claim, or mixed. The empty part of each bar is cases with no coded ruling at the trial, circuit or Supreme Court stage yet, which is most of them; it is not a claim that they have no outcome. Choose a bar to list its cases.
Reached a final ruling
The coded direction at the HIGHEST stage a case reached — trial-level, circuit-court or Supreme Court only. A preliminary-injunction ruling never counts as final, and a "procedural, no direction" or "unclear" coding is excluded rather than shown as an outcome.
Case duration
Filed to terminated, from real CourtListener docket dates, among cases where EVERY tracked docket has terminated (an open appellate docket alongside a closed district one is pending, not resolved). No stage-by-stage date exists in this corpus, so only this one span is shown; dates cover only the tracked-docket tier — see the coverage note below the numbers.
Cases by circuit
A real geographic map, states shaded by their circuit's case count relative to the busiest circuit (linear). The Federal Circuit has no state territory of its own (its jurisdiction is subject matter, not geography) and so never paints here, but still appears in the list and the table. Select a circuit below for its final-ruling mix.