In a pivotal week for LGBTQ rights across America, a series of court decisions and Supreme Court deliberations have reignited national debates over anti-discrimination protections, religious freedom, and the very definitions of sex and gender under the law. From Mississippi to Minnesota and all the way to the nation’s highest court, the legal landscape for LGBTQ Americans is shifting—sometimes forward, sometimes back, and always under intense scrutiny.
On October 22, 2025, a federal judge in Mississippi struck down a Biden-era rule that would have extended anti-discrimination healthcare protections to transgender people. According to The Hill and Washington Blade, Judge Louis Guirola Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi sided with a coalition of 15 GOP-led states that sued to overturn the regulation. The rule, crafted by the Biden-Harris administration in 2024, aimed to broaden the definition of sex discrimination in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity. This would have required health insurers and providers receiving federal funds to offer the same services to transgender individuals as they do to cisgender patients—including gender-affirming care.
Judge Guirola, appointed by President George W. Bush, found that the Department of Health and Human Services had "exceeded its authority by implementing regulations redefining sex discrimination and prohibiting gender identity discrimination." He ruled that, under an "originalist" interpretation of Title IX from 1972, "sex" must be understood as the reproductive distinction between male and female, not as a broader concept encompassing gender identity or sexual orientation. As a result, the decision effectively makes it legal—at least in the eyes of this federal district court—for healthcare providers to discriminate against transgender individuals.
This is hardly the first time such protections have been challenged. The Obama administration advanced similar rules in 2016, only for them to be reversed by the Trump administration, which narrowed Title IX protections to exclude transgender people. President Biden’s team reinstated and expanded these protections in 2024, but now, with Judge Guirola’s ruling, the pendulum has swung once again. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, who led the lawsuit, celebrated the outcome, stating, "This decision restores not just common sense but also constitutional limits on federal overreach, and I am proud of the team of excellent attorneys who fought this through to the finish." As LGBTQ Nation notes, the rule had not yet taken effect, so the impact is more symbolic than practical—yet it’s a significant setback for transgender rights amid a wave of restrictive state legislation.
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, the state Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in favor of transgender athlete JayCee Cooper, who sued USA Powerlifting after being barred from the women’s division in 2018. On the same day as the Mississippi decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously found that USA Powerlifting’s policy "categorically excluded transgender women from competing in the women's division" and was "discriminatory on its face," as Chief Justice Natalie Hudson wrote in the court’s opinion. The ruling reversed a previous appellate decision and sent the case back to a lower court to determine whether USA Powerlifting has a "legitimate business purpose" for the exclusion.
Cooper’s lawsuit, filed in 2021, argued that the organization’s actions violated Minnesota’s Human Rights Act. USA Powerlifting, for its part, has maintained that "those who were born biologically male have a profound physical advantage over female-born athletes," as President Larry Maile said last year. The group introduced an open MX division in 2021 to accommodate transgender and nonbinary athletes, but insists its women’s division must be reserved for cisgender women to ensure fairness. Attorneys for the organization characterized the court’s decision as a "partial victory for both sides," according to The Independent.
The ruling sparked swift reaction from political leaders. Minnesota Republican House Speaker Lisa Demuth condemned the decision, stating, "For decades, women and girls fought tirelessly for the rights guaranteed under Title IX. Sadly, those hard-won protections have increasingly come under attack, and today’s decision marks another setback in the fight to protect girls' sports." She pledged that House Republicans would act in early 2026 to "make clear that girls’ sports are for girls." This sentiment reflects a broader national debate, with advocates on both sides invoking fairness, safety, and inclusion as core values in the ongoing struggle over trans participation in sports.
While these state and federal court battles play out, the U.S. Supreme Court is also weighing several cases with far-reaching implications for LGBTQ rights. The justices recently heard arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that could overturn bans on conversion therapy for minors in more than 20 states and the District of Columbia. The case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist from Colorado, who contends that the state’s 2019 law banning conversion therapy infringes on her First Amendment rights by restricting her ability to provide "religiously informed care." During oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic to Chiles’s claim that the law constitutes "viewpoint discrimination," with Justice Samuel Alito describing the ban as "blatant viewpoint discrimination."
Survivors of conversion therapy, however, have been outspoken in urging the Court to uphold the bans. As Washington Blade reported, members of the Conversion Therapy Survivor Network and allies gathered in Washington, D.C., to share their stories of trauma and resilience. "Since when is the freedom of religion more important than ‘do no harm?’" one survivor asked. Curtis Lopez-Galloway, the group’s founder, emphasized, "The one way we’re going to defeat conversion therapy is by education. The more people that know about the harms, the less likely they are to take their children—or themselves—into it." The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by summer, could determine whether states retain the authority to restrict conversion therapy as a medical practice or whether such bans infringe on free speech rights.
Adding yet another layer to the legal patchwork, the Supreme Court is soon set to decide whether to hear Kim Davis’s latest challenge to same-sex marriage. Davis, the former Rowan County, Kentucky clerk, made headlines in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Court’s landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision. After being sued and ordered to pay damages, Davis has now petitioned the Supreme Court to reconsider Obergefell, arguing that it "has no basis in the Constitution." Legal experts, as reported by SCOTUSblog and Washington Blade, consider it unlikely that the Court will overturn the ruling, but the case has reignited fierce debate over religious liberty and LGBTQ rights.
Each of these legal battles underscores the deep divisions—and the high stakes—surrounding LGBTQ rights in America today. Whether the courts will ultimately expand, restrict, or simply redefine the boundaries of equality remains to be seen. For now, advocates and opponents alike are watching closely, knowing that the next decision could reshape lives and liberties for years to come.
