LGBTQ lawsuits in U.S. courts: seven cases and where they stand

What this hub covers and how entries are chosen

This hub collects lawsuits in United States federal courts that turn on LGBTQ-related legal questions. As of 23 Oct 2026 it lists seven, ordered by the year the Supreme Court decided them, from 2020 to 2026. A case appears only if its docket or an official court page could be read on that date, and every status below is stated with the date of the entry it rests on.

The seven cases come from both directions of litigation. In some, employees, parents or a business owner went to court asserting that a law, a policy or an employer's conduct treated them unequally or burdened their beliefs. In others, individuals and a state's challengers asked a court to block a state law. The entries describe what each side claimed in the words of the record and what the court did. No entry takes a position on the merits.

Public litigation involves people, and the entries name only the parties as the court record names them: public bodies, companies, state officials, and plaintiffs who sued under their own names or initials. Private accounts of individuals are not retold here. The cases are not class actions in the sense explained on the page about what a class action lawsuit is, although a decision from the Supreme Court binds lower courts well beyond the parties.

Employment: Bostock v. Clayton County

Gerald Bostock sued Clayton County, Georgia, alleging that his employer dismissed him because of his sexual orientation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Supreme Court docketed No. 17-1618 on 1 Jun 2018 after the Eleventh Circuit (No. 17-13801) ruled against him. It was argued on 8 Oct 2019 together with Altitude Express v. Zarda (No. 17-1623) and a case involving a funeral home and a transgender employee (No. 18-107).

Status: decided on 15 Jun 2020. The docket shows the judgment reversed and remanded in No. 17-1618 and affirmed in No. 17-1623, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch joined by five Justices. Justice Alito dissented, joined by Justice Thomas, and Justice Kavanaugh dissented separately. The Court held that firing a person for being gay or transgender is discrimination because of sex under Title VII.

Religion and foster care: Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

A Catholic foster care agency and several foster parents sued Philadelphia after the city stopped referring children to the agency. The agency would not certify same-sex couples as foster parents, and the city treated that as a breach of its contract and nondiscrimination rules. The plaintiffs claimed that the city's action violated the First Amendment. The Third Circuit (No. 18-2574) ruled for the city on 22 Apr 2019, and the Supreme Court docketed No. 19-123 on 25 Jul 2019.

Status: argued on 4 Nov 2020 and decided on 17 Jun 2021, with the judgment reversed and remanded. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion, and three separate opinions concurred in the judgment. The judgment issued on 19 Jul 2021.

Speech and public accommodations: 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

A Colorado web design company and its owner brought a pre-enforcement challenge to the state's anti-discrimination law. They said they wished to create wedding websites for different-sex couples only and that the law, as applied to them, would compel speech in violation of the First Amendment. The Tenth Circuit (No. 19-1413) ruled on 26 Jul 2021 and the Supreme Court docketed No. 21-476 on 28 Sep 2021.

Status: argued on 5 Dec 2022 and decided on 30 Jun 2023, judgment reversed. Justice Gorsuch wrote for six Justices, and Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. The judgment issued on 1 Aug 2023. The respondents were Colorado state officials, named in the caption as Aubrey Elenis and others.

Health care and state law: United States v. Skrmetti

Three transgender minors, their parents and a physician challenged Tennessee's Senate Bill 1, which bars health care providers from giving puberty blockers or hormones, or performing certain surgeries, for particular purposes related to gender identity. They claimed that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the United States intervened in support. Tennessee's Attorney General, Jonathan Skrmetti, is the state respondent. The Sixth Circuit (No. 23-5600) ruled on 28 Sep 2023, and the Supreme Court docketed No. 23-477 on 6 Nov 2023.

Status: argued on 4 Dec 2024 and decided on 18 Jun 2025, with the Sixth Circuit's judgment affirmed on a 6 to 3 vote. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the law classifies by age and medical use and is reviewed under rational basis, which it satisfies. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissented. The judgment issued on 21 Jul 2025.

Schools and religion: Mahmoud v. Taylor

Parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, sued the school board after it declined to let them opt their children out of classroom instruction using storybooks that include LGBTQ characters. They claimed that the refusal burdened their religious exercise under the First Amendment. The Fourth Circuit (No. 23-1890) ruled on 15 May 2024, and the Supreme Court docketed No. 24-297 on 16 Sep 2024.

Status: argued on 22 Apr 2025 and decided on 27 Jun 2025, judgment reversed and remanded, in an opinion by Justice Alito for six Justices. Justice Sotomayor dissented with Justices Kagan and Jackson. The judgment issued on 29 Jul 2025, so any further proceedings are before the lower courts.

School sports, Idaho: Little v. Hecox

Lindsay Hecox sued Idaho officials in the District of Idaho, No. 1:20-cv-00184, filed on 15 Apr 2020, challenging the state's Fairness in Women's Sports Act. The claim was brought under the Equal Protection Clause. The district court granted a preliminary injunction and the Ninth Circuit (Nos. 20-35813 and 20-35815) affirmed.

Status: the Supreme Court docket, No. 24-38, shows a suggestion of mootness filed on 2 Sep 2025, deferred on 20 Oct 2025 pending argument. The case was argued on 13 Jan 2026 and decided on 30 Jun 2026 with the Ninth Circuit's judgment reversed and remanded. The judgment issued on 3 Aug 2026. The opinion states that the case is not moot.

School sports, West Virginia: West Virginia v. B.P.J.

A student identified in the record by the initials B.P.J., through a parent, sued the West Virginia State Board of Education in the Southern District of West Virginia, No. 2:21-cv-00316, filed on 26 May 2021, over the state's Save Women's Sports Act. The claims were Title IX and equal protection. The district court granted summary judgment to the state, and the docket there shows the case terminated on 5 Jan 2023. The Fourth Circuit reversed on Title IX and sent the equal protection claim back for fact-finding.

Status: the Supreme Court docket, No. 24-43, records the judgment reversed and remanded on 30 Jun 2026, in the opinion shared with Hecox. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for six Justices, and Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, concurred in part and dissented in part. The judgment issued on 3 Aug 2026. The next entries belong to the Fourth Circuit and the district court, and none had been retrieved on 23 Oct 2026.

What these dockets do not show

Each status here comes from the Supreme Court docket or the court's own record page as read on 23 Oct 2026. Lower-court entries after a remand are not included unless stated, and CourtListener's copy of a district docket can lag the court's own system. The opinions themselves run to hundreds of pages, and the dockets listed under the sources are the place to find them.