Kansas attorney general blocked from denying gender changes on driver's licenses
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A Kansas state appeals court has reversed a district court decision barring the Kansas government from making changes to gender markers on driver's licenses, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced Friday.
In July 2023, Attorney General Kris Kobach filed a lawsuit in state court against the Kansas government agency that issues driver's licenses, asking the court to hold that a state law, Senate Bill 180, prohibits transgender people from changing their gender markers on their driver's licenses. A trial judge granted a temporary injunction, which has blocked the Kelly administration from allowing gender marking changes while the case goes forward.
The ACLU of Kansas, the ACLU and Stinson LLP intervened in the case on behalf of five transgender Kansans who claim to have been harmed by Kobach's effort to ban and reverse changes to the gender markers on their driver's licenses.
Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe activates National Guard, declares State of Emergency
On Friday, in a unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel, the Kansas Court of Appeals lifted the trial court's injunction, which has prevented transgender people from changing the gender markers on their driver's licenses to reflect their gender identity.
The court observed that there was no evidence 'beyond mere speculation' to support the trial court's finding that allowing transgender people to change their gender markers would somehow impair the identification of criminal suspects.
The Kansas Court of Appeals also determined that Kobach had not shown a substantial likelihood of his view that S.B. 180 requires all new and renewed driver's licenses to list the driver's sex assigned at birth.
As of Friday, the temporary ban is reversed, and the Kansas Department of Revenue may resume allowing Kansans to change their gender markers on their driver's licenses.
The attorney general has thirty days to appeal the court's decision.
'Being required to use a license with the wrong gender marker has already meant that transgender Kansans have been outed against their consent in their daily lives,' said D.C. Hiegert, Civil Liberties Legal Fellow for the ACLU of Kansas.
'We commend the incredible courage and sense of community our clients have had in standing up to this attack on all of our fundamental rights.'
'Today's decision is a welcome victory for our clients and the rights of all people to safe, usable identity documents,' added Julie Murray, co-director of the ACLU's State Supreme Court Initiative.
'The Attorney General's move to target transgender people in this way has always been baseless and discriminatory. As this case returns to the lower courts, we will continue to defend the ability of all Kansans to access driver's licenses that reflect who they know themselves to be.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court backs Missouri, Kansas ban on gender transitions for children
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — On Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Missouri, Kansas and other states seeking to ban gender transition procedures. The ruling in United States v. Skrmetti reflects Missouri's law banning what Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey calls 'gender mutilation' procedures for minors. Bailey says that the state played a pivotal role in the ruling. 16-year-old boy killed in Basehor, Kansas crash: KHP In February, Kansas became the 27th state to ban or restrict such care when after barring federal support for gender-affirming care for youth under 19. Kelly vetoed the bill on Feb. 11, saying it's inappropriate for politicians to infringe on parental rights. One week later, on Feb. 18, the veto was reversed. 'My office has been on the front lines of the fight to stop the mutilation of children in the name of radical gender ideology,' Bailey said. 'Missouri was the first state in the nation to win on this issue, and the Supreme Court's decision affirms what we've said all along: states have both the right and the duty to protect children from these irreversible and experimental procedures.' Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach also released a statement on Wednesday, saying 'This decision is a big win for those of us who want to protect the original meaning of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment equal protection clause in no way prevents states from protecting minors in this contest. The decision also strengthens the state's position regarding Kansas's law. The Kansas equal protection clause must be interpreted in the same fashion as the U.S. equal protection clause. I look forward to defending the law in court.' Suspect dead, trooper injured after shooting in Saline County In the Skrmetti case, Bailey's office says that Missouri led 19 other states in asking the Supreme Court to allow states to ban gender transition practices. 'This is a victory not just for Missouri, but for every state fighting to shield children from irreversible harm disguised as medical care,' concluded Bailey. 'We are proud that the Supreme Court has now adopted the same position we've led on from day one: children deserve protection, not permanent damage. As a father and as Attorney General, I will not rest until every entity harming kids is shut down, every bad actor is held accountable, and Missouri remains the safest state in the nation for children.' Other local leaders joined in as well. U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, R-Kan., shared a statement praising the decision. 'Today was not just a win for basic biology and common sense, but for human decency, sound medicine, and the dignity and safety of children everywhere,' Marshall said. 'As a doctor for over 25 years, I understand the gravity of these harmful so-called treatments radical activists have been pushing on children. They leave permanent scarring, sterilization, and other horrible side effects. Make no mistake, there's more work to do, and I remain committed to eliminating taxpayer-funded transgender procedures on both minors and adults.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
CNN
a day ago
- CNN
Court blocks Louisiana law requiring schools to post Ten Commandments in classrooms
Religion Supreme CourtFacebookTweetLink Follow A panel of three federal appellate judges has ruled that a Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in each of the state's public school classrooms is unconstitutional. The ruling Friday marked a major win for civil liberties groups who say the mandate violates the separation of church and state, and that the poster-sized displays would isolate students — especially those who are not Christian. The mandate has been touted by Republicans, including President Donald Trump, and marks one of the latest pushes by conservatives to incorporate religion into classrooms. Backers of the law argue the Ten Commandments belong in classrooms because they are historical and part of the foundation of US law. 'This is a resounding victory for the separation of church and state and public education,' said Heather L. Weaver, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. 'With today's ruling, the Fifth Circuit has held Louisiana accountable to a core constitutional promise: Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith.' The plaintiffs' attorneys and Louisiana disagreed on whether the appeals court's decision applied to every public school district in the state or only the districts party to the lawsuit. 'All school districts in the state are bound to comply with the US Constitution,' said Liz Hayes, a spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs. The appeals court's rulings 'interpret the law for all of Louisiana,' Hayes added. 'Thus, all school districts must abide by this decision and should not post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms.' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said she disagreed and believed the ruling only applied to school districts in the five parishes that were party to the lawsuit. Murrill added that she would appeal the ruling, including taking it to the US Supreme Court if necessary. The panel of judges reviewing the case was unusually liberal for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a court with more than twice as many Republican-appointed judges, two of the three judges involved in the ruling were appointed by Democratic presidents. The court's ruling stems from a lawsuit filed last year by parents of Louisiana school children from various religious backgrounds, who said the law violates First Amendment language guaranteeing religious liberty and forbidding government establishment of religion. The ruling also backs an order issued last fall by US District Judge John deGravelles, who declared the mandate unconstitutional and ordered state education officials not to enforce it and to notify all local school boards in the state of his decision. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed the mandate into law last June. Landry said in a statement Friday that he supports the attorney general's plans to appeal. 'The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our laws — serving both an educational and historical purpose in our classrooms,' Landry said. Law experts have long said they expect the Louisiana case to make its way to the US Supreme Court, testing the court on the issue of religion and government. Similar laws have been challenged in court. A group of Arkansas families filed a federal lawsuit earlier this month challenging a near-identical law passed in their state. And comparable legislation in Texas currently awaits Gov. Greg Abbott's signature. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, which says Congress can 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' The court found that the law had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose. And in 2005, the Supreme Court held that such displays in a pair of Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution. At the same time, the court upheld a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin.
CNN
a day ago
- CNN
Court blocks Louisiana law requiring schools to post Ten Commandments in classrooms
Religion Supreme CourtFacebookTweetLink Follow A panel of three federal appellate judges has ruled that a Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in each of the state's public school classrooms is unconstitutional. The ruling Friday marked a major win for civil liberties groups who say the mandate violates the separation of church and state, and that the poster-sized displays would isolate students — especially those who are not Christian. The mandate has been touted by Republicans, including President Donald Trump, and marks one of the latest pushes by conservatives to incorporate religion into classrooms. Backers of the law argue the Ten Commandments belong in classrooms because they are historical and part of the foundation of US law. 'This is a resounding victory for the separation of church and state and public education,' said Heather L. Weaver, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. 'With today's ruling, the Fifth Circuit has held Louisiana accountable to a core constitutional promise: Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith.' The plaintiffs' attorneys and Louisiana disagreed on whether the appeals court's decision applied to every public school district in the state or only the districts party to the lawsuit. 'All school districts in the state are bound to comply with the US Constitution,' said Liz Hayes, a spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs. The appeals court's rulings 'interpret the law for all of Louisiana,' Hayes added. 'Thus, all school districts must abide by this decision and should not post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms.' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said she disagreed and believed the ruling only applied to school districts in the five parishes that were party to the lawsuit. Murrill added that she would appeal the ruling, including taking it to the US Supreme Court if necessary. The panel of judges reviewing the case was unusually liberal for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a court with more than twice as many Republican-appointed judges, two of the three judges involved in the ruling were appointed by Democratic presidents. The court's ruling stems from a lawsuit filed last year by parents of Louisiana school children from various religious backgrounds, who said the law violates First Amendment language guaranteeing religious liberty and forbidding government establishment of religion. The ruling also backs an order issued last fall by US District Judge John deGravelles, who declared the mandate unconstitutional and ordered state education officials not to enforce it and to notify all local school boards in the state of his decision. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed the mandate into law last June. Landry said in a statement Friday that he supports the attorney general's plans to appeal. 'The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our laws — serving both an educational and historical purpose in our classrooms,' Landry said. Law experts have long said they expect the Louisiana case to make its way to the US Supreme Court, testing the court on the issue of religion and government. Similar laws have been challenged in court. A group of Arkansas families filed a federal lawsuit earlier this month challenging a near-identical law passed in their state. And comparable legislation in Texas currently awaits Gov. Greg Abbott's signature. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, which says Congress can 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' The court found that the law had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose. And in 2005, the Supreme Court held that such displays in a pair of Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution. At the same time, the court upheld a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin.
