WE'RE HERE TO HELP. OUR LEGAL HELP DESK IS OPEN.CONTACT

Cases

Find Your State

Know the laws in your state that protect LGBT people and people living with HIV.

Docket (Open Cases)

Lambda Legal filed an amicus brief on behalf of LGBT organizations including Human Rights Campaign, National Center for Transgender Equality, National LGBT Bar Association, National Trans Bar Association, and Transgender Law Center in support of Kathrine Jett's petition for rehearing en banc at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Amici are asking the court to remove the harmful and disrespectful language in its opinion from January 15, 2020, which denies Ms. Jett's request to be referred to consistently with her gender identity and is an advisory opinion which makes inappropriate factual determinations and legal conclusions.
Lambda Legal and Democracy Forward filed a lawsuit on behalf of three organizations serving vulnerable populations — Family Equality, True Colors United, and SAGE — against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for its unlawful November 2019 announcement that it would stop enforcing anti-discrimination protections against federal grantees that deny services to, or otherwise discriminate against, individuals. The administration's unlawful action endangers already vulnerable populations, especially as the country confronts the coronavirus pandemic.

Recent Victories

A lawsuit against the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) on behalf of a 65-year-old gay man seeking spousal survivor’s benefits based on his 43-year relationship with his husband, who died seven months after Arizona began allowing same-sex couples to marry. The lawsuit filed on behalf of Michael Ely in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona argues that SSA’s imposition of a nine-month marriage requirement for social security survivor’s benefits is unconstitutional where same-sex couples were not able to be married for nine months because of discriminatory marriage laws.
Lambda Legal filed a federal lawsuit challenging Kansas’ refusal to correct the gender marker on birth certificates for transgender individuals. At the time of the filing, Kansas was one of just three states, along with Tennessee and Ohio, that had yet to change this extremely regressive and outdated policy.

Landmark Cases

A lawsuit against the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) on behalf of a 65-year-old gay man seeking spousal survivor’s benefits based on his 43-year relationship with his husband, who died seven months after Arizona began allowing same-sex couples to marry. The lawsuit filed on behalf of Michael Ely in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona argues that SSA’s imposition of a nine-month marriage requirement for social security survivor’s benefits is unconstitutional where same-sex couples were not able to be married for nine months because of discriminatory marriage laws.
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision approving the analysis Lambda Legal has been advancing for fifteen years that discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation is sex discrimination, and violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This federal law, which often is referred to as “Title VII,” prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin and religion.

Selected Cases

Lambda Legal and Steptoe & Johnson LLP filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published rule that purports to carve out LGBTQ people and other vulnerable populations from the protections of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, among other bases.
Lambda Legal filed an amicus brief on behalf of LGBT organizations including Human Rights Campaign, National Center for Transgender Equality, National LGBT Bar Association, National Trans Bar Association, and Transgender Law Center in support of Kathrine Jett's petition for rehearing en banc at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Amici are asking the court to remove the harmful and disrespectful language in its opinion from January 15, 2020, which denies Ms. Jett's request to be referred to consistently with her gender identity and is an advisory opinion which makes inappropriate factual determinations and legal conclusions.