Consistent with the Trump Administration’s longstanding stance on “gender ideology,” several recent legal developments have curtailed or sought to limit LGBTQ rights.  Collectively, these actions reflect a broader trend of renewed efforts to limit LGBTQ protections at the federal and state levels.  Despite these efforts, sexual orientation and gender identity remain protected characteristics under federal and many state and local antidiscrimination laws.

Transition Care.  On March 26, 2026, the EEOC ruled that the federal government has the right to limit federal workers’ health care plans from covering gender-affirming care without running afoul of antidiscrimination laws, including Title VII.  The workers had enrolled in Federal Employees Health Benefits plans, at a time when the plans covered certain gender-affirming services and procedures.  However, the latest guidance removes any coverage. According to the ruling:  “It is not inherently suspicious for a health insurance plan to make distinctions based on medical diagnosis and treatment purposes. And it is not illogical for a health plan to cover surgical procedures when used to treat severe physical ailments but decline to underwrite the risk from these procedures when used to treat ‘conditions [like gender dysphoria] that only manifests themselves through psychological or psychosocial symptoms.’”  It is unclear whether the EEOC’s ruling will be subject to legal challenges.  However, the EEOC’s ruling is limited to federal workers, so private employers and healthcare providers may be subject to differing state or local laws regulating the availability of gender-affirming care for transgender individuals. 

Transgender Student Athletes.  The Trump Administration filed a lawsuit on March 30, 2026 against the Minnesota Department of Education and the Minnesota State High School League challenging state laws and guidance allowing transgender girls to play on sports teams and use locker rooms that align with their gender identities.  According to the lawsuit, this law constitutes “unapologetic sex discrimination against female student athletes” and violates Title IX and the contractual assurance agreements signed by Minnesota as a condition of receiving federal funding.  The Trump Administration’s lawsuit is not the only active challenge to Minnesota’s inclusion of transgender student athletes.  A group of private plaintiffs filed suit in Female Athletes United v. Ellison, similarly alleging that Minnesota’s policy violates Title IX.  However, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion on April 15, 2026 upholding the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiffs have no right to sue under Title IX where their claims do not allege intentional discrimination.  Both cases are pending in Minnesota federal court.

Conversion Therapy.  The US Supreme Court on March 31, 2026, ruled (8-1) in Chiles v. Salazar that a Colorado law banning therapy to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity, known as “conversion therapy,” violates the First Amendment.  The Colorado law bars treatment that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”  The Court found that this ban censors speech based on viewpoint, according to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion.  He wrote: “The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”  Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the Court’s sole dissent, arguing that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy was consistent with the state’s lawful police power to regulate the medical profession.  Based on the Supreme Court’s decision, it is likely that similar state laws banning conversion therapy will likewise be ruled unconstitutional.