Cross v. State
Affirmed a lower court’s preliminary injunction against Montana’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Applying strict scrutiny, the state high court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the ban likely violates the state constitution’s express right to privacy.
Related Commentary
How Far Does the Kansas Constitution Go in Protecting Bodily Autonomy and Dignity?
Two recent transgender rights cases may help answer this question.
What this Year’s SCOTUS Term Means for State Courts
Several rulings will impact the power of state courts and the cases that come before them.
Reflections on the Supreme Court’s Decision Upholding a Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Trans Youth
We spoke with a transgender rights advocate about U.S. v. Skrmetti’s impact on trans people and what’s next in the struggle for equal rights.
Levels of Scrutiny Applied by State Courts, Explained
The tests state courts use to decide whether a law impermissibly infringes on people’s rights play a big role in determining whether government restrictions on those rights are upheld.