In a lawsuit challenging Alabama’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, the plaintiffs have requested a federal judge to dismiss Alabama’s request for an immediate end to the constitutional challenge. The plaintiffs, including the United States government and transgender youth, argue that Attorney General Steve Marshall has not demonstrated the absence of material factual disputes, as required for summary judgment.In a lawsuit challenging Alabama’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, the plaintiffs have requested a federal judge to dismiss Alabama’s request for an immediate end to the constitutional challenge. The plaintiffs, including the United States government and transgender youth, argue that Attorney General Steve Marshall has not demonstrated the absence of material factual disputes, as required for summary judgment. According to the plaintiffs, Marshall’s motion rests on contested facts and underscores the necessity for a trial. They maintain that the state has not sufficiently proven that the ban does not cause irreparable harm to transgender youth.
The American and transgender youth have asked a federal judge to deny Alabama’s request to immediately end their constitutional challenge to the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
Alabama was not entitled to summary judgment because Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) failed to show that there was no genuine dispute as to material fact, the U.S. and the plaintiffs argued in separate briefs filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
Marshall’s argument in support of the motion “rests on disputed facts and serves only to illustrate why a trial is necessary,” transgender minors and their parents …
