Skip to main content

LGBTQ + Rights

Item set

LGBTQ+ rights developed throughout the twentieth century because of significant activism by LGBTQ+ advocates. During the Cold War, a moral panic rose relating queer people to communism in the “Lavender Scare,” in which thousands of federal employees were fired on suspicion of being queer. LGBTQ+ activists used the court system and protests to advocate for their rights. Baker v. Nelson (1972) was the first same-sex marriage case to be heard by the Supreme Court, where the court declared that marriage must be between men and women due to the fundamental right to procreation (established by Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)). The Defense of Marriage Act (1996) strengthened this ruling, federally defining marriage as between a man and a woman. These policies were overturned in U.S. v. Windsor (2013) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), when the Supreme Court held that same-sex marriage was a fundamental right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Trump Era has been marked by attacks on transgender people’s access to gender-affirming healthcare, in a moral panic reflecting the Lavender Scare. In 2025, U.S. v. Skrmetti effectively dismantled children’s access to gender affirming care, leaving important healthcare decisions to the states instead of federally protecting transgender individuals.

Items

  • Kameny v. Brucker - Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (1961)
    In 1957, Army veteran Franklin E. Kameny was fired from his job as an astronomer with the U.S. Army Map Service under federal policy initiated by Executive Order 10450 (1953), which barred LGBTQ+ employees from federal employment. Kameny appealed his dismissal and the declaration of the Civil Service Commission that he was "unsuitable and ineligible for Federal employment on grounds of immoral conduct," but the Commission upheld its decision. In 1959, Kameny turned to the courts, arguing that the actions by the government were unsubstantiated by facts and that he had not received the procedural rights due him by statute and regulation. The court disagreed, and his appeal was rejected. Kameny, representing himself, petitioned the Supreme Court to have his case heard, arguing equal citizenship for the LGBTQ+ community. While the court denied his petition, Kameny's case became the first civil rights claim based on sexual orientation to be brought before the Supreme Court.
  • Baker v. Nelson (1972)
    Baker v. Nelson was the first same-sex marriage case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal from the Minnesota Supreme Court, stating that the case did not bring forward "a substantial federal question." This case and the Supreme Court's refusal to hear it reflects the lack of thought given to LGBTQ+ rights in 1972. When Minneapolis couple Richard Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license, their request was denied on the ground that they were of the same sex. They fought this decision in court, arguing, among other things, that the prohibition of same-sex marriage deprived them liberty and property without due process as well as the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court declared "the institution of marriage as a union of man and woman" based on procreation being "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
  • Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
    Later overturned by Lawrence v. Texas, this Supreme Court case ruled that the 14th Amendment did not prevent states from prohibiting sexual relations between same-sex couples.
  • Defense of Marriage Act (1996)
    The Defense of Marriage Act defined marriage federally as between a man and a woman, and allowed each state to recognize marriage based on its own definition. As a result, same-sex marriages granted under the laws of some states were not recognized by others. This law was challenged in the courts until it was effectively dismantled. In United States v. Windsor (2013), the Supreme Court found Section 3 unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause, requiring the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in jurisdictions where it was recognized. And in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court held that same-sex marriage was a fundamental right protected by the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses, requiring all states to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, superseding Section 2. The Defense of Marriage Act was formally repealed in 2022 by the Respect for Marriage Act which was signed into law by President Joe Biden.
  • Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
    This Supreme Court case struck down a Texas law that criminalized sexual relations between people of the same sex. Lawrence v. Texas ruled that all sexual relations between consenting adults is legal, confirming the right to privacy as it relates to private sexual activities.
  • Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009)
    This act of legislation was enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, creating a new federal law that criminalized the willful causing of bodily injury (or attempting to do so) because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person. It also provided funding and technical assistance to state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to help them more effectively investigate and prosecute hate crimes.
  • United States v. Windsor (2013)
    In this case, the Supreme Court found that Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court examined the argument of a same-sex couple who were married in Canada and wanted the tax benefits of marriage after one partner died. While same-sex marriage was recognized by the State of New York, the Defense of Marriage Act prevented federal recognition of their marriage. As a result of this case, the federal government was required to recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in jurisdictions where it was recognized.
  • Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
    In the landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court found that same-sex marriage was protected under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
  • Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)
    In 2012, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple due to his religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Appeals Court decided in the couple's favor, stating that Phillips' refusal violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, reversed the judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals, stating that while same-sex couples were a protected class entitled to equal access to goods and services, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Phillips' Freedom of Religion under the Free Exercise Clause by not providing a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims. Because this case did not resolve the issue of whether or not businesses could refuse to provide services for LGBTQ+ customers, it left the door open for their continued exclusion by companies and business owners.
  • Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)
    In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the ban on discrimination "because of sex" in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity. The Court ruled against employers who fired employees based on their sexual orientation and transgender status.
  • United States v. Skrmetti (2025)
    In this case, the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors to treat gender dysphoria and other related conditions, declaring that the statute did not discriminate "on the basis of sex" and therefore was not subject to judicial scrutiny. Dissenting Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan argued that the Tennessee legislation plainly discriminates on the basis of sex, because a minor's access to healthcare was dependent on their transgender identity and sex assigned at birth. Because the Supreme Court ruled that such laws are not subject to judicial scrutiny for sex discrimination, this ruling has enabled other states' restrictions on gender-affirming care for transgender individuals.