Kansas attorney general blocked from denying gender changes on driver's licenses
In July 2023, Attorney General Kris Kobach filed a lawsuit in state court against the Kansas government agency that issues driver's licenses, asking the court to hold that a state law, Senate Bill 180, prohibits transgender people from changing their gender markers on their driver's licenses. A trial judge granted a temporary injunction, which has blocked the Kelly administration from allowing gender marking changes while the case goes forward.
The ACLU of Kansas, the ACLU and Stinson LLP intervened in the case on behalf of five transgender Kansans who claim to have been harmed by Kobach's effort to ban and reverse changes to the gender markers on their driver's licenses.
Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe activates National Guard, declares State of Emergency
On Friday, in a unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel, the Kansas Court of Appeals lifted the trial court's injunction, which has prevented transgender people from changing the gender markers on their driver's licenses to reflect their gender identity.
The court observed that there was no evidence 'beyond mere speculation' to support the trial court's finding that allowing transgender people to change their gender markers would somehow impair the identification of criminal suspects.
The Kansas Court of Appeals also determined that Kobach had not shown a substantial likelihood of his view that S.B. 180 requires all new and renewed driver's licenses to list the driver's sex assigned at birth.
As of Friday, the temporary ban is reversed, and the Kansas Department of Revenue may resume allowing Kansans to change their gender markers on their driver's licenses.
The attorney general has thirty days to appeal the court's decision.
'Being required to use a license with the wrong gender marker has already meant that transgender Kansans have been outed against their consent in their daily lives,' said D.C. Hiegert, Civil Liberties Legal Fellow for the ACLU of Kansas.
'We commend the incredible courage and sense of community our clients have had in standing up to this attack on all of our fundamental rights.'
'Today's decision is a welcome victory for our clients and the rights of all people to safe, usable identity documents,' added Julie Murray, co-director of the ACLU's State Supreme Court Initiative.
'The Attorney General's move to target transgender people in this way has always been baseless and discriminatory. As this case returns to the lower courts, we will continue to defend the ability of all Kansans to access driver's licenses that reflect who they know themselves to be.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge in RI halts restrictions on funding to groups that serve society's vulnerable
PROVIDENCE — A federal judge has temporarily barred President Donald Trump's administration from requiring organizations that serve some of society's most vulnerable to align with its views on gender identity and diversity in order to receive grant funding. The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island and the public policy group Democracy Forward announced on July 25 that U.S. District Court Judge Melissa R. DuBose granted a request to temporarily block the president's administration from imposing restrictions based on diversity, equity and inclusion; gender ideology; and abortion rights to grant programs administered by the federal departments of Housing and Urban Development and Health and Human Services. A nationwide coalition of dozens of organizations, including six from Rhode Island, sued the government on July 21 in U.S. District Court. The state groups include the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, House of Hope Community Development Corporation, Community Care Alliance, Foster Forward, Rhode Island Coalition to End Homelessness and Haus of Codec. The groups hailed DuBose's order as critical to ensuring that organizations that serve survivors of domestic and sexual abuse, LGBTQI+ youth and unhoused communities can continue their work without 'being forced to abandon inclusive practices or censor support for transgender people.' 'We welcome the court's decision to grant our motion to halt the Trump-Vance administration's unlawful and dangerous funding restrictions," the groups stated in a release that supported the ruling. "These conditions threaten to undermine decades of progress in supporting survivors of violence, LGBTQI+ youth and unhoused individuals. Our organizations exist to serve everyone with compassion and equity, and we will not be forced to choose between our values and mission and the communities we serve.' The groups cast it as crucial to protecting life-saving programs and ensuring that providers across the country can continue their work without political interference. 'This ruling affirms what we have long known," the groups stated, "that the law does not permit any government to use its funding power to force service providers to abandon their core principles." What's next? The advocacy groups will submit a proposal for the precise scope of the temporary restraining order in DuBose's review that will focus on the organizations that must decide whether to accept the administration's conditions as soon as July 30, according to their statement. The groups are ultimately seeking a permanent court order that would block enforcement of the conditions, which they allege are unlawful and violate separation of powers by usurping the authority of Congress to authorize spending. They argue the policies violate the First Amendment by forcing grantees to voice the administration's views on gender and restrict them from promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Federal judge in RI halts restrictions on US funding to aid groups
CNN
8 hours ago
- CNN
Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship could have taken effect this weekend. Lower courts are continuing to block it
Donald Trump Supreme Court Trump legal casesFacebookTweetLink Follow A Supreme Court decision last month limiting the use of nationwide injunctions appeared to pave the way for President Donald Trump to begin enforcing his plan to end birthright citizenship on Sunday — until lower courts stalled the effort. The president could have begun enforcement if lower courts had significantly modified a series of injunctions ahead of a 30-day deadline given by the justices. But that hasn't happened. In fact, lower court judges have gone in a different direction, preventing Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship from taking effect now — and possibly ever — through three new adverse rulings. And more lower court decisions against the administration may be coming. A federal judge in New Hampshire earlier this month blocked Trump's order nationwide via a class action lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. Such lawsuits are one of the ways the Supreme Court suggested challengers could try to jam up enforcement of the policy for those who would be impacted by it. The Justice Department has not appealed that ruling from US District Judge Joseph LaPlante, who was appointed to the bench by former President George W. Bush. The administration was further stymied last week, after a federal appeals court decided that a nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle earlier this year against Trump's order did not represent a judicial overreach that needed to be curbed in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. The Supreme Court ordered lower courts that issued or kept intact such broad injunctions to reconsider those rulings to see whether they comply with the justices' decision that such injunctions may not be needed to provide litigants with the 'complete relief' they're seeking. 'We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the states complete relief,' the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 decision in a case brought by several Democratic-led states against Trump's order. The administration has not yet appealed that ruling. The 9th Circuit's decision may soon bring the birthright issue back before the Supreme Court, since the appeals court had also reviewed the merits of the executive order and found that it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's June 27 decision did not address the legality of the policy, only the use of nationwide injunctions. Yet another blow came on Friday, when US District Judge Leo Sorokin decided that his earlier nationwide injunction against the birthright policy could not be narrowed in a way that would 'feasibly and adequately protect' against the harms that more than a dozen Democratic state attorneys general, the District of Columbia and several cities said would befall them if the policy could be enforced, even partially. In that ruling, Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who sits on the federal bench in Boston, repeated his conclusion that Trump's order 'is unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute.' It's not clear whether, absent those three rulings this month, the policy could have taken effect this weekend. In court, attorneys for the administration have avoided providing specifics when speaking about what would happen once the 30-day pause from the Supreme Court is lifted. 'It's an unusual situation, what the Supreme Court did,' DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton said earlier this month to Sorokin. It's possible Trump may never be able to fully implement his order. Every lower court in the US to scrutinize the policy has found it unconstitutional. Signed by Trump on January 20, the executive order, titled 'PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP,' said that the federal government will not 'issue documents recognizing United States citizenship' to any children born on American soil to parents who were in the country unlawfully, or were in the states lawfully, but temporarily. But courts have roundly concluded that Trump's policy violates the Constitution's 14th Amendment, an 1898 Supreme Court case known as United States v. Wong Kim Ark and years of practice by previous presidents. Whether the administration decides to file appeals in the cases challenging the executive order is no small matter: Legal experts have long said the government's decision to take the issue to the Supreme Court only on the technical question of whether courts went too far in blocking his policy nationwide represented a vehicle to undermine the power of lower courts sifting through a bevy of litigation over Trump's actions. 'The Trump administration was very purposeful and strategic in their decision to go to the Supreme Court on the question of what remedy can people get when they challenge executive actions, as opposed to the merits of this particular executive order,' said Jessica Levinson, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School. More adverse rulings for Trump's birthright order could be on the horizon. A federal judge in Maryland, Deborah Boardman, who blocked Trump's order nationwide said earlier this month that she was prepared to do so again after the plaintiffs in that challenge refiled their case as a class-action lawsuit. But first, a Richmond, Virginia-based appeals court would have to put the litigation back in her hands. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to craft guidance on how the federal government would carry out Trump's birthright policy, but no details have emerged on what that guidance looks like. 'The agencies are right now working on public guidance to explain how the President's executive order is going to be implemented,' Hamilton told Sorokin last month, in response to the judge's question about what's been done behind the scenes.
CNN
a day ago
- CNN
See where gender identity care is restricted and where it's protected
The US Supreme Court's decision to uphold Tennessee's ban on gender identity care for transgender minors earlier this summer has fueled ongoing polarization around LGBTQ issues and controversial policies across the nation. The high court has also agreed to take on more cases dealing with trans rights in its next session that begins in October. Twenty-seven states have passed laws limiting access to gender identity health care for transgender children and teenagers, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health policy think tank. An estimated 40% of trans youth ages 13 to 17 live in these states. There have already been more anti-LGBTQ bills introduced in state legislatures so far this year than in any full year since at least 2020, a CNN analysis of American Civil Liberties Union data found. These bills span various aspects of everyday life, including bathroom access, school sports and identification documents. CNN is tracking where these laws are being passed and where these bills are being introduced. This story will be updated. Gender identity care includes medically necessary, evidence-based care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned sex— the one the person was designated at birth — to their affirmed gender, the gender by which one wants to be known. Most of the states limiting gender identity care for trans minors adopted their bans in 2023, a record-breaking year for such laws. So far this year, one state — Kansas — has passed a ban, prohibiting the use of state funds to provide or subsidize health care for transgender youth. Not all laws are currently being enforced, however. The ban in Arkansas has been permanently blocked by a federal court, though the state said it would appeal the ruling. Montana's ban is also permanently blocked, according to KFF. Though Arizona has a 2022 law on the books banning surgical care for transgender minors, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs signed an executive order in 2023 ensuring access to gender identity health care. Nearly 600 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced into state legislatures as of July 11, which is already more than any other year on record, according to the ACLU. Education and health care continue to be key targets. There were more bills restricting student and educator rights — enforcing school sports bans and targeting students' access to facilities consistent with their gender identities, for example — than any other category of bills, according to a CNN analysis of ACLU data. Legislators in Texas have introduced 88 anti-LGBTQ bills so far this year, more than double the number of bills being considered in any other state. Four of those — including one that limits changes to gender markers on state medical records — have been passed into law. In late July, Texas lawmakers are reconvening for a 30-day special session. On the agenda is a transgender bathroom bill. Lawmakers in every state, except for Vermont, have filed at least one anti-LGBTQ bill in 2025, according to a CNN analysis. Twenty-two states have signed those bills into law.
