While the rash of executive orders targeting LGBTQ people signed by President Trump in his first month in office is unprecedented, and reprehensible, the fact remains: the orders are not law.
And thanks to the skill and fast work of LGBTQ and ally legal groups, multiple orders have already been blocked in federal court and dismantled in the court of public opinion. In briefs and legal proceedings, the orders are systematically being exposed as inaccurate and incoherent, and recognized as filled with unhinged animus.
At least nine lawsuits have been filed against the anti-LGBTQ orders, four of which have already been blocked in federal courts. Here’s a look at what’s been filed:
Nonprofits Fight to Serve
On Wednesday, Lambda Legal and the Legal Defense Fund filed to stop enforcement of three executive orders on behalf of nonprofit advocacy groups: The National Urban League, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and AIDS Foundation Chicago.
The lawsuit, National Urban League v. Trump, argues Trump’s efforts against diversity, equity, and inclusion as well as his anti-transgender orders violate the First Amendment right to free speech. The complaint notes the orders are so vague, the organizations do not know what is and is not prohibited, a violation of their Fifth Amendment due process rights that forces them into overcompliance and makes it impossible for them to carry out their respective missions. The orders discriminate against people of color, women, and LGBTQ+ people, with particular animus towards Black people and transgender people, which also violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.
The orders “drip with contempt for transgender people, and pose a significant threat to critical health and HIV services that support marginalized communities, putting lives at risk,” said Jose Abrigo, Lambda Legal’s HIV Project Director and lead counsel on the case.
“These orders pose an existential threat to transgender people and the organizations that provide them with shelter and support… they are patently unconstitutional.”
On Thursday, Lambda Legal filed a second lawsuit on behalf of multiple nonprofits that serve the LGBTQ+ community, work to end the HIV epidemic, and record the history of LGBTQ+ people, including the LA LGBT Center and the New York City LGBTQ Community Center, two of the largest LGBTQ community centers in the country which serve over 500,000 people per year.
The lawsuit. San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump, challenges the constitutionality of three executive orders that seek to erase transgender people from public life, defund organizations that provide lifesaving services to the community, and terminate equity-related grants essential to the health and lives of other underserved communities, including people of color and people living with HIV.
At the heart of the lawsuit filed Thursday is the fact that racial justice, LGBTQ justice, transgender justice, and HIV justice are all interconnected; and no nonprofit can or community center can exist if they can’t even acknowledge a significant portion of the population it serves. The lawyers in the case will seek a preliminary injunction to halt the orders while the lawsuit proceeds in court.
Accurate Documents, Inaccurate Orders
Seven Americans from across the country filed a federal lawsuit, Orr v Trump, challenging the State Department’s refusal to issue passports with accurate sex designations.
The State Department immediately changed applications and protocols following the first anti-transgender executive order signed by President Trump that falsely claims there are “only two genders.” As the brief filed by the plaintiffs notes, “The Executive Order is transparently unlawful and unconstitutional. It also is unmoored from scientific and medical reality: Transgender people, intersex people, and people who do not identify as either (or exclusively) male or female exist. Scientific and medical authorities have recognized that fact, as have courts across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court…. (The order) is based on no science, no evidence, and no meaningful explanation aside from empty, dehumanizing rhetoric.”
Health Care Order: On HOLD
A federal judge has blocked the executive order attempting to ban essential health care nationwide for patients under age 19.
Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the ACLU of Maryland, with the law firms Hogan Lovells and Jenner & Block, sued the Trump-Vance administration, with PFLAG National and GMLA representing plaintiffs, seven families with transgender or nonbinary children.
A separate case, also blocked in court, includes attorneys general for the states of Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota as well as health care providers. Their lawsuit calls the health care order “cruel and baseless,” accusing the executive branch of “attempts to dictate medical care by executive fiat.” The states argue the order violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by singling out transgender individuals for discrimination.
Every major medical association supports health care for transgender people and youth. 30+ statements here.
Military Battle, Take Two
Donald Trump’s second attempt to bar transgender people from serving in the military is facing challenge in case law and for the language used in the executive order that reveals more about the author of the order than a military need for a ban.
GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed Talbott v Trump on behalf of six active duty transgender military service members and two trans Americans looking to enlist.
Over two days of hearings on the case this week, Judge Ana Reyes fact checked and challenged the Trump Justice Department lawyers to bring evidence to support the claims in the executive order.
“This executive order is premised on an assertion that’s not biologically correct,” Reyes said. “There are anywhere near 30 intersex examples. Anyone who doesn’t have XX or XY chromosomes is not just male or female, they’re intersex… “I’m telling you that there are people who are neither male or female.”
On the order’s claim that “invented pronouns” negatively impact military readiness, Reyes stated the obvious: All pronouns are invented and have been throughout history.
Then challenged the government: “If you want to get me an officer of the U.S. military who is willing to get on the stand and say that because of pronoun usage, the U.S. military is less prepared… I will be the first to buy you a box of cigars.”
“We’re dealing with unadulterated animus,” Reyes said. GLAD Law and NCLR lawyers noted that the order violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause, and divisive language throughout the executive order demonstrates “‘negative attitudes,’ ‘fear,’ and ‘irrational prejudice’ rather than legitimate military needs.”
A separate lawsuit against the transgender military order was filed by Lambda Legal and HRC. Shilling v Trump represents six active duty personnel, including U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who has served more than 19 years as an aviator.
The brief notes that “being able to serve openly as a transgender person has made Commander Shilling an even more productive, healthy member of her command. Being able to lead with authenticity and integrity has only strengthened her relationships with fellow service members.”
GLAD Law and NCLR led the legal challenge to Trump’s first attempt to ban transgender people in the military in 2017. Multiple federal courts found that ban to be unconstitutional, blocking it from taking effect for nearly two years. President Biden reversed the ban in 2021 and trans people have been serving openly and honorably ever since.
Teen Spirit + Transgender Equality
GLAD Law and ACLU of New Hampshire have expanded Tirrell and Turmelle v. Edelblut, a challenge to a New Hampshire state law banning transgender girls from school sports from 5th grade through twelfth grade, to encompass the Trump order baselessly attempting to ban transgender students from school sports nationwide.
“The Trump Administration’s executive orders amount to a coordinated campaign to prevent transgender people from functioning in society. The systematic targeting of transgender people across American institutions is chilling, but targeting young people in schools, denying them support and essential opportunities during their most vulnerable years, is especially cruel,” said Chris Erchull, Senior Staff Attorney at GLAD Law, which is representing the plaintiffs along with the ACLU of NH.
“School sports are an important part of education—something no child should be denied simply because of who they are. Our clients Parker and Iris simply want to go to school, learn, and play on teams with their peers.”
Parker is a tenth-grader who plays on her high school soccer team. Iris is a ninth-grader who is looking forward to trying out for tennis this spring.
“Stay strong. Keep fighting. We’re out here. We exist and we will not stop fighting.”
Transgender student Iris Turmelle gives her message to the trans community who feel under threat from Trump’s bigotry.
— AYMAN on MSNBC (@ayman.msnbc.com) February 16, 2025 at 5:48 PM
“Stay strong. Keep fighting,” Iris told MSNBC, when asked about her message to other trans youth.
“We’re out here. We exist and we will not stop fighting.”
Guarantees of The U.S. Constitution: Health Care is a Human Right
Three more GLAD Law and NCLR lawsuits are supporting transgender women from being moved to unsafe housing and being denied essential health care.
Moe v Trump: a U.S. District judge in Boston is considering a permanent injunction against Trump’s scientifically incorrect “two genders” order, which had threatened to move a transgender woman into a men’s prison facility. The complaint notes the order violates regulations, is “arbitrary and capricious,” and directly conflicts with regulations requiring officials to assess each person’s safety and security when determining where they should be housed.
The judge’s temporary restraining order requires that Moe (a pseudonym) remain in the general population in a women’s facility and maintain her medical care. Jennifer Levi of GLAD told Reuters it was a relief that her client “is staying put for now.”
Doe v McHenry: blocks the same executive order as of February 19, 2025, because it violates the 8th Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. The injunction noted that transgender women detainees would face “substantial increased risk of physical and sexual violence” if transferred to the men’s housing and would face harm if denied medical treatment, evidence that was not refuted by the Trump administration’s lawyers.
Jones v Trump: filed against Trump’s incorrect “two genders” order attempting to deny transgender people legal recognition under federal law and to strip them of long-established legal protections. The Trump order violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which entitles people in custody to be free from a known and substantial risk of serious harm. Inaccurate placement of transgender women poses “a substantial risk of serious harm, including an extremely high risk of violence and sexual assault.”
“The timing, content, and context of Executive Order 14166 demonstrate it was motivated by and implements the same discriminatory animus Defendant Trump repeatedly expressed during his campaign, rather than any legitimate government purpose,” the complaint states.