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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shauntae Anderson v. William CrouchNo. 22-1927 | 4th Cir. | Circuit | 4th Cir. | 2023 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | Adverse | 160 |
| Smith v. Palmer | N.D. Iowa | District | 8th Cir. | 1998 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | Favorable | 1 |
| State of California v. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesNo. 1:25-cv-12019 | D. Mass. | District | 1st Cir. | 2025 | Health coverage & benefitsalso Gender-affirming care, Federal executive actions | 98 | |
| State of New York v. United States Department of Health and Human ServicesNo. 19-4254 | 2nd Cir. | Circuit | 2nd Cir. | 2019 | Health coverage & benefitsalso Speech & religious objections, Federal executive actions | 11 | |
| State of Texas v. KennedyNo. 24-40568 | 5th Cir. | Circuit | 5th Cir. | 2024 | Health coverage & benefitsalso Gender-affirming care, Federal executive actions | 5 | |
| The Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Xavier Becerra | 8th Cir. | Circuit | 8th Cir. | 2023 | Speech & religious objectionsalso Gender-affirming care, Employment, Health coverage & benefits | Adverse | 6 |
| Toomey v. Arizona, State of | D. Ariz. | District | 9th Cir. | 2020 | Gender-affirming carealso Employment, Health coverage & benefits | 255 | |
| Vasquez v. Iowa Department of Human ServicesClosed · Iowa | Iowa Supreme Court | State | 2021 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits | 23 | ||
| Voe v. Mansfield | 2026 | Gender-affirming carealso Health coverage & benefits, Family & parental rights | 126 | ||||
| Vroegh v. Iowa Department of CorrectionsClosed · Iowa | Iowa Supreme Court | State | 2016 | Gender-affirming carealso Bathrooms & facilities, Employment, Health coverage & benefits | 20 | ||
| Whitman-Walker Clinic, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | D.D.C. | District | D.C. Cir. | 2021 | Health coverage & benefitsalso Gender-affirming care, Speech & religious objections, Federal executive actions | Mostly adverse | 2 |
| Zinner v. Tennessee | 2025 | Gender-affirming carealso Employment, Health coverage & benefits | 24 |
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.