The legal landscape surrounding transgender rights in the workplace and healthcare is once again under the national spotlight, as recent actions by the Trump administration have prompted swift backlash and a flurry of legal challenges. On August 27, 2025, two significant events unfolded: a federal lawsuit was filed in Maryland challenging the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) retreat from transgender discrimination enforcement, and Michigan’s attorney general issued a stern warning to hospitals against complying with a new federal ban on transgender healthcare. Both developments highlight the intensifying conflict over the scope of protections for transgender Americans—and the stakes could hardly be higher.
According to Bloomberg Law, the Maryland lawsuit was brought by FreeState Justice, an advocacy group for LGBTQ+ rights. The group alleges that the EEOC, under the Trump administration, has systematically undermined its own mission by depriving transgender workers of the protections and processes it affords to their cisgender counterparts. The complaint contends that these actions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the landmark 2020 Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which expanded LGBTQ+ protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
"What the EEOC is alleged to have done is very disconcerting and is flatly contrary to what its entire mission is, which is to alleviate discrimination and not facilitate it," said Greg Nevins, senior counsel at Lambda Legal, as quoted by Bloomberg Law. The lawsuit accuses the EEOC of initially stalling the processing of transgender bias charges by instructing staff to classify them alongside claims typically deemed lacking in merit. While the agency resumed processing some of these charges in July 2025, it imposed additional hurdles: claims now require extra scrutiny by a senior attorney and the chair’s office. Even more concerning to advocates, the EEOC has narrowed its focus to cases involving hiring, firing, or promotion—explicitly leaving out harassment claims, which are often the most pervasive forms of workplace discrimination faced by transgender individuals.
FreeState Justice’s complaint also notes that the EEOC has ceased providing financial support for state and local agencies’ efforts to protect transgender workers. In a statement, FreeState reiterated that these policy changes "undermine the law and endanger people." The group argues that such selective enforcement not only contradicts the spirit of federal anti-discrimination law, but also exposes transgender workers to increased risk of marginalization and harm.
Legal scholars contacted by Bloomberg Law suggest that the case faces an uphill battle due to longstanding precedent that generally defers to agencies’ enforcement discretion. As Joseph Seiner, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, put it: "The counterargument is that each administration has its own agenda to carry out whatever they believe is the proper enforcement of the law." Yet, there are notable exceptions. The Supreme Court’s 1985 decision in Heckler v. Chaney held that agency non-enforcement can be reviewed by courts if it violates constitutional rights or statutory responsibilities. Katie Eyer, a professor at Rutgers Law School, explained that while Title VII doesn’t require the EEOC to investigate every charge or pursue every legal action, it does mandate that the agency process all charges it receives. "That doesn’t necessarily mean they have to give them all equal amounts of resources," Eyer noted, "but under Trump, the EEOC is going beyond standard priority shifts with an administration change."
The legal hurdles don’t stop there. Before the court can even consider the Equal Protection claim, FreeState Justice must establish standing—that is, show that it or its members have been or will be harmed by the EEOC’s actions. Their complaint alleges that the agency’s changes have forced them to divert resources to outreach, education, and non-legal aid, compensating for the diminished protections at the federal level. Still, some experts, like University of Pennsylvania law professor Cary Coglianese, believe the case for standing would be stronger if FreeState had identified a specific client denied relief by the EEOC. "It’s obviously something that the government will challenge," Coglianese told Bloomberg Law.
As the Maryland lawsuit makes its way through the courts, the implications could be far-reaching. The outcome may not only determine the fate of transgender workers’ rights under federal law, but also signal how much leeway future administrations will have in shaping civil rights enforcement. Nevins summed up the stakes: "There haven’t been lawsuits like this because there haven’t been actions like this." The case, officially titled FreeState Justice v. EEOC, D. Md., No. 1:25-cv-02482, is now poised to test the resilience of legal protections for transgender Americans at a pivotal moment.
Meanwhile, in Michigan, Attorney General Dana Nessel issued a pointed warning to hospitals across the state, urging them not to comply with the Trump administration’s newly announced ban on transgender healthcare. As reported by The Advocate, Nessel declared, "My Department will be considering all of our options if they violate Michigan law." She described the federal decision as "likely illegal," signaling her readiness to defend state-level protections for transgender individuals against what she sees as federal overreach.
Nessel’s remarks underscore a growing trend among state officials who are pushing back against federal policies they perceive as discriminatory. In Michigan, state law offers its own set of protections for transgender residents, and Nessel made it clear that her office would not hesitate to take action against any hospital that chooses to follow the federal ban at the expense of state law. Her intervention comes at a time when hospitals, caught between conflicting legal mandates, face mounting uncertainty about how to proceed.
The clash between state and federal authorities is emblematic of the broader political divide over transgender rights. While the Trump administration has justified its policy shifts as a matter of enforcement discretion—a prerogative traditionally granted to federal agencies—opponents argue that these changes amount to a targeted rollback of hard-won civil rights. For many advocates, the stakes are not merely legal but existential: the ability to work, access healthcare, and live free from discrimination.
Employment law experts caution that the current legal environment is fraught with uncertainty. Courts must grapple with unresolved questions about the appropriate level of scrutiny for Equal Protection claims in transgender bias cases, as well as the limits of agency discretion. As attorney Lauren Kelleher of Brown Goldstein & Levy explained to Bloomberg Law, the Supreme Court has yet to clarify these standards, leaving lower courts—and the litigants before them—navigating uncharted territory.
What’s clear is that the legal and political battles over transgender rights are far from settled. As FreeState Justice’s lawsuit advances and state officials like Dana Nessel prepare to defend local protections, the coming months are likely to see even more contentious debates—and, perhaps, landmark decisions that will shape the future of civil rights in America.
For transgender individuals and their allies, the outcome of these cases could mean the difference between full participation in public life and a return to the margins. As the courts weigh the arguments and the nation looks on, the stakes could hardly be higher.