Since 2015, political attacks against LGBTQ people have grown exponentially in state legislatures across the country. The ACLU has launched a nationwide tracking system to publicly document and categorize anti-LGBTQ bills introduced in state legislatures, and guide users to learn more about efforts to protect LGBTQ people and the right to safe, inclusive schools and communities.

The goal of this page is to help advocates, organizers, and allies take action against these bills while also revealing these proposals for what they are: a coordinated and political attack on LGBTQ people nationwide.

American Civil Liberties Union

Mapping Attacks on LGBTQ Rights in U.S. State Legislatures

The ACLU is tracking attacks on LGBTQ rights and working with our national network of affiliates to support LGBTQ people everywhere.

A: Our legal and advocacy team uses a bill-tracking service and works with ACLU affiliates and local organizations across the country to monitor state legislatures for bills targeting the rights of LGBTQ people. Each bill is reviewed by legal staff at the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project before being categorized on this site.

The ACLU’s first priority in this work is stopping any anti-LGBTQ bill from becoming law by working alongside our affiliates and coalition partners, building relationships with grassroots activists, direct engagement with lawmakers, and educating the broader public about the harms of these attacks. Because of this hard work, most proposed anti-LGBTQ bills never become law.

Bills that do become law may face a legal challenge from the ACLU, its affiliates, or one of our many partners across the LGBTQ rights movement. In recent years, the ACLU has challenged bills across the country restricting access to gender-affirming health care, barring trans people from updating identity documents, and denying transgender students equal access to school facilities and activities, as well as defending inclusive policies from political and legal attacks.

Show Up for Civil Liberties: Donate Now.
From free speech to reproductive freedom to immigrants' rights, the ACLU has shown up for over 100 years to protect civil liberties and civil rights for all — and we won't stop now. Donate today to help fund critical litigation, advocacy, and grassroots efforts.

A: Each bill is assigned one or more categories based on its focus and issue matter. These include:

Health Care Access

Lawmakers are targeting access to medically-necessary health care for transgender people. Many of these bills ban affirming care for trans youth, and can even create criminal penalties for providing this care. These bills exempt identical treatments offered to cisgender youth and even surgeries forced onto intersex youth. Other bills block funding to medical centers that offer gender-affirming care, or block Medicaid or other insurance coverage of health care for transgender people.

Public Accommodations

Everyone should have access to spaces like restrooms and locker rooms, no matter their gender identity or gender expression, but these bills prohibit transgender people from using facilities like public restrooms and locker rooms. If you can’t use the restroom, you can’t fully participate in work, school, and public life.

Schools and Education

State lawmakers are trying to prevent trans students from participating in school activities like sports, force teachers to out students, and censor in-school discussions of LGBTQ people and issues. Instead of limiting resources, education, and opportunities, our schools should protect and support all students to learn and thrive.

Free Speech and Expression

Despite the safeguards of the First Amendment’s right to free expression, politicians are fighting to restrict how and when LGBTQ people can be themselves, limiting access to books about them and trying to ban or censor performances like drag shows.

Access to Accurate IDs

These bills attempt to limit the ability to update gender information on IDs and records, such as birth certificates and driver’s licenses. This puts transgender people at risk of losing jobs, facing harassment, and other harms. Trans, intersex, and nonbinary people need IDs that accurately reflect who they are to travel, apply for jobs, and enter public establishments without risk of harassment or harm.

Weakening Civil Rights Laws

These bills attempt to undermine and weaken nondiscrimination laws by allowing employers, businesses, and even hospitals to turn away LGBTQ people or refuse them equal treatment.

Other Anti-LGBTQ Bills

These bills don’t quite fit in any of the other categories, but nonetheless target the rights of LGBTQ people. Examples include bans on marriage and bills preempting local nondiscrimination protections.

A: Each bill is reviewed by ACLU legal staff and designated an anti-LGBTQ bill based on its text, potential impact, and restrictions or intrusions based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Most of these bills may not use words like “gay” or “transgender” in their text but nonetheless aim directly to restrict the rights, safety, or liberty of LGBTQ people.

Not included on this page are bills and proposals which may have a disparate impact on LGBTQ people but are not directly targeted at LGBTQ people. Restrictions on abortion access, for example, have a disparate impact on LGBQ women and many transgender people, but will not be tallied on this page at this time. Click here to learn more about the ACLU’s work to expand reproductive freedom and abortion access.

A: Legislative tallies from previous years can be found here.

A: You can use our tracking system to see what’s happening in your state, and sign this legislative action petition to stay up to date on state legislative attacks on trans rights, reproductive freedom, and more.

Arizona chose — for more than a decade — to violate the constitutional rights of the people in its custody. It denied medical care to the men and women incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) for years, causing untold suffering and deaths. It ignored the mental health needs of people in ADCRR, spraying them with pepper spray or shooting them with pepper ball guns instead of providing treatment. And it buried people in solitary confinement for years on end, sometimes for the terrible misdeed of being assaulted.

All the while, ADCRR denied that these constitutional violations were occurring and frequently told outright lies to the court presiding over Jensen v. Shinn, the lawsuit challenging these unlawful conditions brought by the ACLU’s National Prison Project, the ACLU of Arizona, the Prison Law Office, the Arizona Center for Disability Law, and the law firm of Perkins Coie LLP in 2012.

Finally, Arizona is being held to account. This month, U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver issued a preliminary but sweeping remedial order, telling state officials what they must do to bring standards up to constitutional muster — and that the state will not weasel out of its constitutional obligations this time.

The remedial order is the outcome of a 15-day trial in November and December 2021. After reviewing evidence and testimony at trial, Judge Silver concluded that ADCRR systematically violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment by having a “grossly inadequate” medical and mental health care system, and by depriving people in solitary confinement of “basic human needs” including adequate nutrition, exercise, and social interaction.

Among the examples of ADCRR’s utter failure to meet constitutional standards was Kendall Johnson. At age 33, the former basketball player started experiencing numbness in her feet and legs and asked for medical care. ADCRR failed for years to diagnose her multiple sclerosis or provide her with the treatment that could slow the progression of the disease. Instead of doing the tests necessary for diagnosis, the ADCRR doctors thought that Ms. Johnson might have conversion disorder — an extremely rare mental health disorder in which a person believes they have a disease. Due to ADCRR’s failures, by the time of her testimony, at age 37, Ms. Johnson was bedridden, unable to care for her most basic needs, read due to her vision loss, and eat without assistance.

Another example was Rahim Muhammad, a man diagnosed with schizophrenia who was held in solitary confinement for almost seven years, despite ADCRR’s own classification system finding that he did not pose a security risk that warranted such isolation. Mr. Muhammad spent most of the year leading up to trial on suicide watch, where he was pepper-sprayed almost 50 times for banging his head on the wall of his cell, usually while clearly delusional. When — after a year — ADCRR finally transferred him to an inpatient mental health unit where he was allowed out of his cell more often and received a minimal amount of treatment, Mr. Muhammad stopped harming himself and was no longer subjected to pepper spray.

Sadly, Ms. Johnson and Mr. Muhammad are just two of the thousands of people whose rights ADCRR violated.

On Jan. 9, 2023, Judge Silver issued a preliminary order setting out what she will require of ADCRR. Among other things, she will require ADCRR to hire and train sufficient medical, mental health, and correctional staff to provide adequate care to and monitoring of the people in its custody.

The order requires ADCRR to provide clinically appropriate medical and mental health care, including specific actions such as assigning each person a primary provider, improving the electronic medical record system, and ensuring that people are actually sent to the specialists they need. The court also ordered that the care provided will be assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The court’s recognition that the care must be qualitatively appropriate should mitigate the tendency of ADCRR, like many prison and jail systems throughout the country, to treat health care as a box-checking exercise. For example, ADCRR has long counted two-minute interactions between mental health staff and a person with a serious mental illness as a counseling visit, even if they are just speaking to each other through the crack between the cell door and the wall. It has also considered a visit to a nurse at which no tests or evaluations are conducted, regardless of the seriousness of the person’s complaint, to be adequate care. The court’s order should put a stop to these performative but ineffective practices.

The court established a presumptive two-month time limit for people to stay in solitary confinement, where many have languished for years. The court will also require ADCRR to: ensure that everyone is let out of their cells for at least 14 hours per week; provide people in solitary confinement three meals a day, two of which must be hot; repair and maintain the facilities in a habitable condition; and use an electronic system to track the actions of correctional officers, to ensure that they are conducting welfare checks and not improperly denying people recreation and other out-of-cell activities.

The court’s order is a strong statement that constitutional rights must be respected, even in a prison system that has turned mistreatment, cruelty, and suffering into the norm. This outcome was possible only because of the courage of Ms. Kendall, Mr. Muhammad, and the many other people who came forward to demand recognition of the rights that the U.S. Constitution protects for themselves and others in ADCRR custody. We hope Arizona will rise to the challenge of treating the people in its custody with the basic human dignity that each and every one of us deserves.