Invitation to submit your views and news on SOGIESC issues
Just as a reminder: Everyone is welcome to submit information or thoughts on SOGIESC issues on this page and the related social media accounts. We welcome submissions of any kind.
Send your communications by email to: andreas.ziegler@unil.ch
The International Protection of Human Rights of LGBTIQ Persons: A Comprehensive Review and Path Forward (Andreas R. Ziegler and Raphaël Bagi) in Fremuth, Lysander (ed.) UN World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna 1993 (Manz, Vienna, 2026, ISBN: 9783214267254), 115-134.
Order here: https://shop.manz.at/shop/products/9783214267254
I’d like to invite you to a webinar hosted by Access Now’s Digital Security Helpline, titled: “Stronger together: Digital security and resilience for LGBTQ+ people”.
The session will take place on July 14 at 9:00 am Eastern Time / 3:00 pm CEST.
We will touch on the crucial and timely topic of LGBTQ security alongside experts from Loom SWANA (an LGBTQ+ digital rights organization), Match Group, and our own team at Access Now.
📅Register to attend this session at the link below
https://www.accessnow.org/event/digital-security-webinars
Feel free to share this invitation with colleagues or networks who might benefit.
If you would like to know more about the Helpline, and our support for LGBTQ+ communities, you can send me a private message here.
All the best,
Luis Barrueto
Digital Security Helpline Coordinator, Helpline
He/they
Access Now | https://www.accessnow.org
PGP: 0x5B233C14667FA508
Fingerprint: 1A71 D198 461A 4FAA 6EE7 3B7B 5B23 3C14 667F A508* Subscribe to the Access Now Express, our weekly newsletter on digital rights, or find out how to support our work
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that states may bar transgender athletes from competing on girls’ and women’s sports teams, upholding bans in West Virginia and Idaho, and holding that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause requires schools to allow participation based on gender identity rather than biological sex.
The court issued a 6-3 decision in two consolidated cases, West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, with Justice Kavanaugh writing for the majority. The majority held that neither Title IX nor the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits schools from determining eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex. Both West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act and Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act limit female sports teams to biological females.
The first case involved BPJ, a transgender girl from West Virginia who took puberty blockers in elementary school and began undergoing hormone treatment in sixth grade. She was ultimately barred from her middle school’s girls’ cross-country and track and field teams. The second case centered on Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman who played for the Boise State University women’s club soccer team, and who tried out for the school’s Division 1 cross-country and track teams. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had ruled in favor of BPJ on her Title IX claim, while the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction blocking Idaho’s law in Hecox’s case.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote that “safety and competitive fairness” are important government interests that are substantially served by restricting women’s and girls’ sports to biological females. Kavanaugh wrote that individualized judicial assessments of transgender athletes’ physical capabilities would be “an almost impossible task for a judge to perform on an equitable basis.”
Justice Thomas, concurring, wrote that gender dysphoria is “a mutable mental state that is the object of psychiatric treatment” and does not resemble the immutable characteristics, like race, sex, or national origin, on which the court has applied heightened scrutiny.
In a partial dissent, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that unresolved factual questions—including whether transgender athletes who have never undergone male puberty and receive hormone therapy retain a physical advantage—should have been resolved by the lower courts before the Supreme Court decided the equal protection question. Sotomayor agreed, however, that BPJ’s Title IX claim fails.
The decision follows the court’s 2025 ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld state restrictions on gender-affirming medical care for minors. Twenty-seven states currently restrict transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports under similar laws.
The Supreme Court reversed the rulings of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits and remanded both cases for further proceedings.
The post Supreme Court upholds West Virginia, Idaho bans on transgender athletes in women’s sports appeared first on JURIST – News.
The Dutch Parliament on Tuesday passed legislation criminalizing conversion therapy, making the Netherlands the latest country to impose criminal sanctions on actions aimed towards changing individuals’ sexual orientation and gender identity.
Tuesday’s legislation, titled Wet strafbaarstelling conversiehandelingen (Act on the Criminalization of Conversion Acts), was approved by the Upper House (Eerste Kamer) with 57 out of 75 total votes in favor of passage. The law targets intrusive conversion therapy practices with violators subject to fines of up to €27,500 and imprisonment for a maximum of two years.
Conversion therapy has a long and contested history. Dating back to the late 19th century, conversion therapy purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation through various means including hypnosis, exposure therapy, and faith-based intervention. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), reflecting evolving views that sexual orientation is not a “disorder” requiring treatment. Despite these changes, the practice persists internationally. A 2020 United Nations (UN) report found that conversion therapy practices inflict severe pain and suffering—often resulting in psychological and physical damage—and called for a global ban. International medical bodies such as the World Psychiatric Association have reached similar conclusions in their condemnation of conversion therapy.
US laws on conversion therapy are fragmented, as no federal ban currently exists. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia ban licensed healthcare providers from subjecting minors to conversion therapy, while four states restrict conversion therapy. However, these protections have faced challenges on First Amendment grounds. In March, the US Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar that conversion therapy restrictions regarding “talk therapy” are subject to strict scrutiny review, striking down a Colorado state ban. Last December, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the state of Michigan’s ban in Catholic Charities v. Whitmer, citing First Amendment concerns.
Tuesday’s vote in the Netherlands aligns within recent trends across Europe. Eight European Union member states have national bans on conversion therapy. In January, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a resolution urging all member states to ban the practice and implement criminal sanctions for violations.
The post Netherlands passes law banning conversion therapy appeared first on JURIST – News.
Discrimination of LGBTI people in access to family life
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Monday that a Trump administration policy banning transgender troops from military service illegal. In a split decision, the court concluded that the administration may stop transgender recruits from joining, but could not immediately remove transgender troops who are already actively serving.
The three-judge panel found that the policy likely violates transgender troops’ constitutional rights. The 50-page majority opinion stated that the policy is “both arbitrary and based upon animus, and for those reasons the Policy violates Plaintiff-Appellees’ constitutional right to equal protection of the law,” as the policy appeared to be driven by the desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender.
The ruling also noted that the government went
far beyond disqualifying persons currently or recently suffering from gender dysphoria” and the government did not attempt to defend or provide a factual basis for the ban, rather contending that this case is solely about whether the military can disqualify persons from military service because they suffer from “gender dysphoria, a mental health condition.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Justin Walker, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, wrote:
“We know that from top to bottom of the Army the complaint is often made, and sometimes with justification, that there is discrimination, favoritism or other objectionable handling of men. But judges are not given the task of running the Army.” Only the Executive and Congress are responsible for system-wide military judgments about the composition of the armed forces. The Supreme Court has never assumed that role for itself. Neither has the D.C. Circuit. Not until today.
The executive order, signed in January 2025, declared that the “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria,” as well as “shifting pronoun usage,” are inconsistent with government policy and the standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, and integrity.” The order led Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to issue a policy that disqualified people with gender dysphoria from serving.
Originally, the policy faced significant legal pushback. However, the US Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to start enforcing the ban in May 2025. It remained in effect as litigation continued, until this ruling.
The post Federal appeals court rules Trump policy banning transgender troops is illegal appeared first on JURIST – News.
Ghana’s parliament on Friday approved a controversial new bill that criminalizes the so-called “promotion” of LGBTQ activity. The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values bill imposes prison terms of up to 10 years for individuals who “promote, sponsor, or advocate LGBTQ+ acts” and bans the funding of associated groups and activities.
The bill comes in the wake of a broader crackdown on sexual minorities in West Africa, with religious groups in Ghana long advocating for the legislation. While supporters of the bill say that it protects Ghanaian family values and cultural norms, critics—including leading rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International—have condemned the bill, warning the government that the bill’s enactment will bring an unavoidable fallout, dealing a catastrophic blow to the country’s already fragile human rights landscape. In particular, HRW urged Ghana’s government to “uphold the international legal protections that guarantee every Ghanaian equality, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, and privacy.”
Friday’s law is the second iteration of an earlier bill, passed in 2024. While retaining the core provisions of the previous bill, it also includes exemptions for legal professionals, members of the media, and healthcare professionals. For example, lawyers can still represent LGBTQ+ clients without being penalized, and healthcare professionals will be able to provide care or psychological support without fear of reprisal. While Ghana’s parliament unanimously passed the bill in 2024, former president Nana Akufo-Addo did not sign it. Under Ghana’s constitution, if the president does not sign draft legislation before the end of a parliamentary term, the legislation automatically expires and must be passed again by the new parliament.
Friday’s bill, proponents suggest, is unlikely to be met with the same executive stalling, given current President John Dramani Mahama’s more conservative and decisive stance on social legislation than his predecessor.
More than 30 of Africa’s 54 countries have laws that criminalize same-sex sexual acts and relationships. While some of these laws carry heavy prison sentences of more than 10 years, in countries like Somalia and Mauritania, the punishment is death. The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association (ILGA) and its continental counterpart, Pan Africa ILGA, have jointly called on Mahama to reject the bill, warning that its severe restrictions tear at the very fabric of human rights and democracy allegedly enshrined in the country’s constitution.
The post Ghana parliament approves bill criminalizing promotion of LGBTQ activity appeared first on JURIST – News.
in European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, The
Authors: Clément Lanier and Sam Chollet
Online-Publikationsdatum: 12 May 2026
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 