Filed Date: April 11, 2022
Closed Date: April 15, 2022
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case centers around Alabama statute SB 184, which criminalizes medical professionals from providing gender-affirming care to transgender people who are under 18 years old.
On April 11, 2022, two sets of parents, on behalf of their transgender children (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), sued the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, the District Attorney for Limestone County, and the District Attorney for Lee County (collectively, “AG”), in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, Transgender Law Center, and private counsel. The Plaintiffs challenged S.B. 184, an Alabama statute that made it a felony to “engage in or cause” a transgender minor to receive any type of gender-affirming medical care, including to treat their gender dysphoria. The Plaintiffs alleged that S.B. 184 discriminated against transgender children because transgender children were denied the same types of medically necessary care provided to non-transgender children, and therefore S.B. 184 violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Plaintiffs also argued that S.B. 184 violated the Due Process Clause by (1) stripping parents of their fundamental right to parental autonomy because S.B. 184 prevented parents from seeking and obtaining medical care for their children and (2) the working of S.B. 184 was unconstitutionally vague because it “ma[de] it impossible for an ordinary person to know if and to what extent and particular conduct ‘causes’ a minor to seek prescribed treatment.” The Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent the statute from going into effect on May 8, 2022, and nominal damages.
On April 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to reassign the case to District Judge Myron H. Thompson and for a preliminary injunction. Judge Thompson had recently ruled in Darcy Corbitt, et al. v. Hal Taylor, et al. that an Alabama policy that prevented transgender people from obtaining driver licenses that reflected their gender unless they undergo surgical procedures violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause. The Plaintiffs argued that since Corbitt and this case implicated overlapping and often identical issues of law and fact, that Judge Thompson’s familiarity with both the legal issues and scientific background would best position him to rule upon the Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to prevent S.B. 184 from going into effect in a few weeks.
On Friday, April 15, 2022, Chief Judge Emily C. Marks consolidated this case with Landinsky v. Ivey, a case that raised overlapping issues, such as claims on behalf of minor children receiving gender-affirming medical treatment, and argued that the law violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Ladinsky was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, where it was assigned to United States District Judge Liles Burke.
Sometime over the weekend, both cases were voluntarily dismissed as the attorneys sought to refile in a different federal district.
On April 18, 2022, United States District Judge Liles Burke expressed concern over lawyers deciding to dismiss without prejudice two challenges to Alabama’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors that ended up in front of him as possibly giving the appearance of “judge shopping”. This claim was used by the chief judges of Alabama’s three federal district courts to launch a two-year investigation into “forum shopping” and “judge shopping” allegations against 39 lawyers involved in three challenges to the Alabama ban. On October 3, 2023, the panel found that 11 of these lawyers “purposefully attempted to circumvent the random case assignment procedures of the United States District Courts for the Northern District and Middle District of Alabama.” Judge Burke, now in charge of this investigation, asked the 11 lawyers why they should not face sanctions, and ordered the lawyers to turn over a certain document that the lawyers claimed was protected by attorney-client privilege and threatened them with being brought into custody if they did not comply. The 11 lawyers briefly filed and later withdrew a mandamus petition to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and Judge Burke backed off that order. On February 26, 2025, three attorneys were sanctioned for judge shopping.
This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Danica Fong (3/16/2025)
Ladinsky v. Ivey, Northern District of Alabama (2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63228852/parties/walker-v-marshall/
Barr, Andrew Daniel (Alabama)
Borelli, Tara Lynn (Alabama)
Charles, Carl Solomon (Alabama)
Bowdre, Alexander Barrett (Alabama)
Davis, James William (Alabama)
Charles, Carl Solomon (Alabama)
Faulks, Latisha Gotell (Alabama)
Hartnett, Kathleen Roberta (Alabama)
Inglehart, Milo Rohr (Alabama)
Picasso, Malita Vencienzo (Alabama)
Reinhardt, Elizabeth Fri (Alabama)
Strangio, Chase Bachrach (Alabama)
Swaminathan, Sruti J. (Alabama)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63228852/walker-v-marshall/
Last updated April 27, 2025, 8:27 a.m.
State / Territory: Alabama
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Special Collection(s):
Transgender Healthcare Access Cases
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 11, 2022
Closing Date: April 15, 2022
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two sets of parents on behalf of their transgender children
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
LGBTQ+: