Across the globe, the rights and recognition of transgender individuals are facing intense scrutiny and challenge, as recent developments in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom reveal a shifting—and often shrinking—landscape of legal protections and access to care. From courtrooms in Saskatchewan and Ohio to the corridors of power in London, the battle over trans rights is playing out with high stakes for individuals and institutions alike.
In Canada, a yearlong legal struggle over the Saskatchewan government’s Parents’ Bill of Rights has brought the country’s constitutional framework into sharp relief. The legislation, introduced by Premier Scott Moe’s conservative administration, requires students under 16 to obtain written parental consent before teachers may refer to them by their preferred names and pronouns. This policy, which many see as a direct restriction of trans identity expression in provincial high schools, was met with an immediate legal challenge by the University of Regina Pride Centre. According to a detailed report from Canadian Dimension, the Pride Centre argued that the policy violated Charter rights, while the provincial government countered by invoking Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—the so-called "notwithstanding clause."
This clause allows federal and provincial legislatures to pass laws that operate “notwithstanding” certain Charter rights, provided they explicitly declare their intent. The clause’s scope, however, has long been a subject of debate among legal scholars. Some, like Leonid Sirota, contend that while the clause prevents courts from striking down laws, it may not shield governments from all forms of judicial remedy—such as monetary compensation or declaratory statements acknowledging rights infringements. Others, including Geoffrey Sigalet, argue that the clause is a broad tool for governments to assert legislative supremacy and limit judicial interference.
The Saskatchewan dispute reached a pivotal moment on August 11, 2025, when the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan delivered its ruling in Saskatchewan (Minister of Education) v. UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity. The court sided with the reformist perspective, declaring, “Section 33 of the Charter…enables the Act or provision to operate regardless of whether it unreasonably limits a specific Charter right or freedom, by suspending the invalidating effect of s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. A declaration made pursuant to s. 33 does not mean that the Act or provision does not limit the referenced Charter right or freedom…nor does it nullify the jurisdiction of the Court of King’s Bench to issue a declaration to that effect.” In short, even when the notwithstanding clause is invoked, courts retain the authority to declare that a law infringes Charter rights.
Despite this legal victory for the UR Pride Centre, the practical effects for trans youth remain limited. The Parents’ Bill of Rights is still in force, continuing to require parental consent for students under 16 to use their preferred names and pronouns. As Canadian Dimension notes, “At best, the Court of King’s Bench might offer ‘declaratory relief’…but no more to the affected queer youth in Saskatchewan.” The ruling highlights the limitations of legal strategies alone and underscores the need for ongoing political advocacy and grassroots mobilization to effect meaningful change.
South of the border, transgender youth in Ohio are facing a different, but equally daunting, set of obstacles. On September 5, 2025, Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus announced it would discontinue prescribing gender-affirming medications for youth, effective September 26. The hospital attributed its decision to the “rapidly changing regulatory environment” as legal battles over Ohio’s gender-affirming care ban continue to unfold. The ban, enacted by the Republican-controlled state legislature in early 2024, allows children already receiving care to continue if cessation is deemed medically harmful by their doctors.
The response from LGBTQ+ organizations and local leaders has been swift and critical. The Kaleidoscope Youth Center, a Columbus-based support group, expressed that it was “incredibly disappointed” by the hospital’s move, stating, “Service providers in our community should be finding ways to proactively support transgender individuals, rather than proactively discriminating against them.” TransOhio, another advocacy group, released a statement saying, “We are not surprised, but are furious at Nationwide (Children’s) choosing this non-legally mandated discrimination. No kid anywhere deserves to be stigmatized and/or targeted, and trans youth are just kids.”
Columbus City Council President Shannon G. Hardin also weighed in, criticizing the increasing involvement of elected officials in personal medical decisions. “I think that that should terrify all parents, and I think that makes us less safe,” Hardin remarked, adding that such policies could deter families from moving to Ohio and harm the state’s economic development. The ongoing legal battle, led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, has seen conflicting rulings in state courts. While a Franklin County judge initially allowed the ban to take effect, a subsequent appellate decision was overturned, only for the Ohio Supreme Court to permit the ban to remain while the case is appealed. The ACLU has vowed to continue fighting for access to “lifesaving medical care” for transgender youth.
Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, the debate has shifted to the international stage. On September 5, 2025, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention called on the United Nations to revoke the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) top-grade “A status” accreditation. The Institute accused the EHRC of “a transparent attempt to eradicate transgender and intersex people from British life,” alleging that the commission had been captured by transphobic and inter-phobic agendas and was failing to meet the Paris Principles of pluralism, independence, and effectiveness required for national human rights institutions.
This call comes in the wake of the EHRC’s recent updates to its Code of Practice, following an April 2025 UK Supreme Court ruling that defined “woman” in the 2010 Equality Act as “biological woman.” This legal interpretation is expected to restrict trans people’s access to single-sex facilities such as restrooms and changing rooms. The Lemkin Institute criticized the EHRC’s consultation process for lacking transparency and parliamentary debate, warning that the new guidance could “undemocratically strip transgender and intersex people in the United Kingdom of fundamental human rights and dignity.”
The EHRC, for its part, maintains it is “wholeheartedly committed” to equality and human rights, stating, “We remain fully compliant with the Paris Principles, which provide the benchmark for high-performing, independent National Human Rights Institutions. This was most recently confirmed by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions’ sub committee on accreditation in May 2024, when we retained our ‘A’ status.” Still, the Lemkin Institute and other critics argue that the commission’s actions have eroded decades of established protections for transgender and intersex people.
Should the EHRC lose its “A status,” the UK would face a significant blow to its international standing on human rights. As barrister and non-binary influencer Oscar Davies noted, “Holding ‘A status’ accreditation enables an institution to speak at UN human rights forums, including the Human Rights Council, and lends credibility to its domestic work. Losing that status would not only undercut the EHRC’s moral authority but could also weaken its ability to hold the UK government to account and to shape human rights enforcement in the country.”
Across borders and legal systems, the common thread is clear: transgender rights are under pressure, with policy changes and legal decisions often falling short of providing the security and dignity that advocates seek. For many, the lesson is that while courts and commissions play a crucial role, the fight for equality is far from over—and will require both legal vigilance and persistent political action.