Advocates say the move could turn the tide for other British overseas territories battling for LGBTQ+ rights
More: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/30/cayman-islands-same-sex-partnerships-law
Hong Kong government proposes to legally recognize same-sex couples registered abroad
On Wednesday, the Hong Kong government released an official document that proposes to establish a registration system for same-sex couples who were married or whose marriages are registered overseas.
This document, released by the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, mandates that both partners must be of the same sex and at least 18 years old. Further, one of them must be a Hong Kong resident. Such a framework, if implemented, would confer certain important rights upon same-sex couples. These include rights related to the health of their partner, such as hospital visits, access to medical information and organ donations, as well as the right to handle a partner’s post-death affairs, like applying for a death certificate, claiming the body and arranging funeral matters.
Commenting on this proposed framework, the Bureau stated, “It is essential to establish appropriate registration requirements under an alternative framework that aligns with practical realities and public expectations, while safeguarding registrants’ rights and preventing abuse.”
Importantly, this government proposal comes on the back of a crucial ruling given by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in September 2023, in the case of Sham Tsz Kit v. Secretary for Justice. Herein, the Court held that Article 14 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights obligates the government to create a legal framework to recognize the rights of same sex couples, with a timeline of two years. However, it stopped short of deciding that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Since this ruling, human rights groups as well as the UN have called upon the government of Hong Kong to take legislative steps in furtherance of the court’s decision. The Court of Final Appeal itself has also gone ahead to affirm the rights of same-sex couples to public housing and inheritance.
Hong Kong remains one of the few places in Asia to have created a legal framework for same-sex couples, along with other countries like Thailand, Japan and South Korea. Countries in other parts of the world, such as Poland have also recently moved to give legal support to same-sex unions.
This proposal is the first of such steps taken pursuant to the Court’s ruling, and will be discussed in the legislative council of Hong Kong on Thursday.
The post Hong Kong government proposes to legally recognize same-sex couples registered abroad appeared first on JURIST – News.
US Supreme Court Protects Affordable Access to PrEP
Webinar: a discussion on two LGBTQ-related cases decided this term by the Supreme Court: United States v. Skrmetti and Mahmoud v. Taylor – 10 July2025
Join us for a discussion on two LGBTQ-related cases decided this term by the Supreme Court: United States v. Skrmetti and Mahmoud v. Taylor. UCLA Law Professor Cary Franklin, Faculty Director of the Williams Institute and constitutional law scholar, will analyze the decisions, explain their broader implications, and discuss what they mean for access to gender-affirming care, LGBTQ school curricula, and the legal landscape of LGBTQ rights moving forward.  |
Register here:https://ucla.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_zu4TMhC8QEiZOMy2Vo58BQ
The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law is an academic research institute dedicated to conducting rigorous, independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy.
USA: University of Pennsylvania agrees to ban trans women from women’s sports in agreement with federal government
More:https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/university-penn-lia-thomas-transgender-athletes/
A Wave of Arrests in China Is Targeting Gay Erotica Authors
At least 30 writers of danmei, or “boys’ love” fiction, have been arrested on obscenity charges in the last four months.
More: https://www.them.us/story/china-gay-erotica-arrests-danmei
Indian court rules trans women are women and ‘legally entitled to recognition’
More: https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/06/26/india-trans-women-high-court-decision/
Georgia – Removal of gender and gender identity terminology from legislation
On 2 April 2025, the Georgian Parliament adopted amendments to more than a dozen laws, removing all references to “gender” and “gender identity.” This legislative rollback undermines the legal basis for gender equality, protection against gender-based violence, and recognition of diverse gender identities
The court agreed that refusing service to trans women who had not had bottom surgery was unlawful under Washington State’s non-discrimination law.
June 16, 2025
A federal appeals court has ruled that a Christian-owned Washington spa’s practice of denying service to transgender women violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD).
In a decision filed May 25, a three-member panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Washington State Human Rights Commission (HRC) was justified in enforcing the WLAD against Olympus Spa, a Korean spa owned by Christians. The spa was required to amend their policy and ensure equal access regardless of gender identity as part of a 2021 settlement, but filed a complaint against the HRC in 2022, arguing that allowing trans women who have not had bottom surgery to receive nude spa services alongside cisgender women violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, free expression, and freedom of association. But in a 2-1 decision last month, the panel sided with the state, upholding a district court’s decision to dismiss the spa’s complaint.
The court’s opinion, written by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee, dismissed notions that the spa’s First Amendment rights had been violated when it was forced to amend its policy. The spa’s original policy allowing only “biological” women, McKeown wrote, violated the plain text of the WLAD, which bars discrimination based on “sexual orientation” — a term that also includes “gender expression or identity” under state law.
“The statutory language is undoubtedly expansive, and its definition of sexual orientation is bespoke,” McKeown wrote in her opinion. “But it is also unambiguous, and it applies to the Spa’s entrance policy.” The HRC did not compel Olympus’ owners to adopt different religious views, McKeown found, but generally required the spa to change its practice of refusing service to trans women without bottom surgery, because it “was unlawful under WLAD.”
McKeown also rejected the spa’s claim that it was legally an “intimate” and “expressive” institution, opining that their First Amendment arguments “would stretch the freedom of association beyond all existing bounds.” Although the spa’s owners “may have other avenues to challenge the enforcement action […] that relief cannot come from the First Amendment,” McKeown went on.
Advertisement
In his dissent, Judge Kenneth K. Lee claimed that the majority “ignores [WLAD’s] statutory structure and context” and that McKeown’s interpretation “defies common sense.” Lee, who was appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term in office, went on to accuse the HRC of “wield[ing] its power” against an immigrant-owned business “to advance its own political agenda” — specifically, the HRC’s public opposition to Trump’s anti-diversity executive orders. (Lee’s own comments about LGBTQ+ people caused a stir when Trump nominated him in 2019, particularly a Cornell Review article in which Lee claimed that “homosexuals generally are more promiscuous than heterosexuals” and that “one has to only abstain from drug-use and promiscuity” to avoid contracting HIV. Lee later said he regretted writing the article.)
Federal Appeals Court Says That Florida’s Drag Ban Is Likely Unconstitutional
The case now returns to the district court to issue a final ruling.
Olympus Spa was represented in the case by attorneys from the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), categorized as an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and which received $159,000 in Paycheck Protection Plan loans from the first Trump administration in 2020. PJI chief counsel Kevin Snider told the Seattle Times in an emailed statement that the organization plans to ask the full Ninth Circuit to review the decision; PJI previously stated that they plan to take the case to the Supreme Court.
Olympus’ case stems from a 2020 complaint by a trans woman, Haven Wilvich, who said in an HRC filing that she was denied service at the spa because she had not had bottom surgery. Wilvich has not publicly commented on the court’s decision last month; in 2023, following coverage of Olympus’ lawsuit by right-wing media outlets, Wilvich told The Stranger she received numerous death threats and messages telling her to kill herself, and locked down her online presence to avoid being doxxed.
“It shouldn’t be the case that in order to make a complaint of human rights violations and a violation of Washington state law that you have to be publicly named in searchable documents,” Wilvich said at the time.
Get the best of what’s queer. Sign up for Them’s weekly newsletter here.
Samantha Riedel is a writer and editor whose work on transgender culture and politics has previously appeared in VICE, Bitch Magazine, and The Establishment. She lives in Massachusetts, where she is presently at work on her first manuscript. … Read More
USA: Supreme Court upholds Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for youth
POLICY NEWS Supreme Court upholds Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for youth Today, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s law banning access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Williams Institute research shows that an estimated 1.6 million people ages 13 and older in the U.S. identify as transgender. The decision impacts the 112,400 transgender youth ages 13-17 who live in Tennessee and 24 other states that have similar laws banning access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth.  While impacting thousands of transgender youth and their families, the decision does not affect access to care for the youth living in states that do not ban access to hormones and puberty blockers. Many of these states have shield laws that protect access to care for youth and their families and safeguard providers who offer care. These states could offer access to care for transgender youth living in states with bans who can travel to them. Research shows that these bans deny young people access to care endorsed by every major medical association in the U.S. and negatively impact providers. In response to a recent Williams Institute survey, 29% of providers in states without bans reported that they had received threats to their workplace related to the provision of gender-affirming care, and 26% had been personally threatened online. Over half (55%) of providers have experienced a recent increased demand for care among youth, and many reported long waitlists. Today’s decision upholds state laws that ban access to gender-affirming care for youth. However, it was decided on narrow grounds, which leaves open avenues to legally challenge other laws and policies that limit transgender people’s participation in areas such as the military, education, and health care. For example, the majority opinion leaves open the question of whether sufficient evidence of animus toward transgender people by the government could result in a different outcome. It also did not determine whether classifications based on transgender status are entitled to heightened scrutiny, allowing Equal Protection challenges to other forms of discrimination against transgender people to proceed. The Court’s decision extends only to laws that implicate both minors and medical care. The opinion also doesn’t impact other constitutional arguments, including the fundamental rights of parents to make decisions about their children’s medical care, the responsibility to protect incarcerated transgender people, or the First Amendment rights to obtaining a valid passport and fully participating in public education. Additionally, Justice Alito stated in his concurring opinion that Bostock is now “entitled to the staunch protection we give statutory interpretation decisions,” so any efforts to overturn workplace nondiscrimination protections for transgender people are likely to fail. Notably, the Justices’ written opinions depart from language used in executive actions by the Trump administration, which denies the existence of transgender people or portrays them as trying to commit fraud in the military context. In its first sentence, the majority opinion cites the Williams Institute’s estimate of the transgender population and includes references that use respectful language, an marked departure from the administration’s rhetoric regarding transgender people. “Today’s decision will directly impact the health care decisions of thousands of transgender youth and their families,” said Christy Mallory, Interim Executive Director and Legal Director at the Williams Institute. “But based on research and the personal stories of transgender people, the Supreme Court affirmed that transgender people of all ages exist, they have experienced discrimination, and constitutional and other legal arguments remain available to challenge such discrimination.” |
 The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law is an academic research institute dedicated to conducting rigorous, independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy. |
________________________________________________________
The US Supreme Court issued an opinion on Wednesday upholding a 2023 Tennessee law restricting minors’ access to gender affirming care in the state.
The 2023 Tennessee law, SB1, prohibits medical procedures that alter a minor’s hormonal balance, remove a minor’s sex organs, or otherwise change a minor’s physical appearance when undergone with purpose of enabling a minor to identify with an identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or treating discomfort from discordance between the minor’s assigned sex and asserted identity. The law emphasizes that it only prohibits the medical procedures when the purpose is for gender-affirming reasons.
Shortly before the law was supposed to take effect in 2023, three Tennessee families who have transgender children and one physician brought suit against the state of Tennessee. The plaintiffs argued that the Tennessee law violated their equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because the law classifies on the basis of sex and discriminates against transgender persons. The Biden Administration ended up joining the plaintiffs in their action, and the case later became known as US v. Skrmetti.
A district court originally blocked the law, calling it unconstitutional, but in a tight decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, allowing the law to become effective as proceedings continued. The Supreme Court approved the plaintiff’s writ of certiorari and, in a 6-3 decision, upheld the law. Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion, which is joined in or concurred with by all of the conservative justices, states that the Court has decided this law sets age- and use-based limits on medical care and exercises the states’ authority to regulate medicine. Therefore, this law must be reviewed under rational basis review, which passes.
Chief Justice Roberts concludes his opinion with a statement on the Supreme Court’s role in policy debates in the US:
The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not “to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic” of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.
In a dissent joined by the other two liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes that she wholly disagrees with the majority’s use of rational basis review to analyze this law. She states this law discriminates against transgender adolescents and should have been held to intermediate scrutiny for this reason. Justice Sotomayor warns of the dangers that leaving the rights of transgender persons in the hands of a “political whim.”
The decision comes amid the strongly polarized debate over transgender rights in the US after multiple states have enacted similar laws to SB1 and laws relating to the restriction of transgender athletes’ participation in women’s sports.
The post US Supreme Court upholds Tennessee law prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors appeared first on JURIST – News.
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 