“Protect the Dolls”: At the intersection of law and gender

In April 2025, the “Protect the Dolls” T-shirt, designed by Conner Ives, was elevated from catwalk to battleground through celebrities and social media, becoming a global symbol of solidarity with transgender women.

The core of the slogan – “dolls” – is rooted in American ballroom culture, where the word is used within the LGBTQ+ community as a loving and empowering term for transgender women.

The T-shirt was launched in a direct protest against the backward surge of political and legal steps for transgender rights, particularly in the US where legislation under the Trump administration has removed rights and protection for transgender people.

From a legal perspective, it is striking how transgender rights in particular divide both the political and the legal waters. In this article, we take stock of the legal landscape in the US and Europe as it has most recently evolved in 2024 and 2025.

Gender identity on paper

The key executive order entitled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” states that there are only two genders, male and female, and that gender identity is not to be recognised as a legal category. The executive order introduces binding definitions for all federal authorities and obliges them to use the term “sex” instead of “gender” in policies and documents. Public authorities are no longer allowed to use gender-neutral forms or materials that promote the concept of “gender identity”, and official documents are only allowed to state the biological sex.

The existing option to have a gender-neutral “X” marker in passports was removed and persons who applied for passports with a gender marker that matches their gender identity have been denied. Transgender men have been registered as women and transgender women as men, regardless of their physical appearance and other identity documents.

This passport policy was challenged in the federal lawsuit “Orr v. Trump” brought by seven transgender and non-binary persons. On 18 April 2025, the District Court of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction ordering the US State Department to issue updated passports to the plaintiffs in accordance with their gender identity. The Court ruled that the new passport rules would likely be found unconstitutional and emphasised that the policy was directly discriminatory.

On 17 June 2025, the Court’s injunction was extended to include, among others, all transgender people applying to have their passports issued, renewed or amended. Whether the application is for a name change, gender marker or replacement of a lost passport, the injunction requires applicants to be offered a document that reflects their gender identity or the gender-neutral option. A final decision in the lawsuit has not yet been rendered.

Gender identity behind bars

Trump’s executive order has also had consequences in the federal prison system. To comply with the biological sex order, transgender women have been denied access to women’s clothing and feminising hormones and have been transferred to male prison wards where they are subject to searches by male guards. In the case “Moe v. Trump” the District Court of Massachusetts on 26 January 2025 issued a temporary restraining order that it was illegal to transfer a transgender woman to a male prison and deprive her of treatment. A final decision in the lawsuit has not yet been rendered.

And in the case “Kingdom v. Trump”, brought by three incarcerated transgender persons on 7 March 2025, the District Court of the District of Columbia on 3 June 2025 issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of those portions of Trump’s aforementioned executive order that prohibit federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) officials from providing gender affirming hormone therapy and social accommodations to transgender persons. However, the Court’s preliminary injunction did not order the BOP to offer gender affirming surgical treatment. The Court also granted the plaintiff’s request to extend the injunction to all persons who are or would be incarcerated in BOP facilities and who have a current medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or who would receive such a diagnosis in the future. This case as well is still pending.

Gender identity in youth

The mentioned executive order, in which passport rules are now largely suspended, was followed by further initiatives, including the order “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation”, which aims to limit federal funding for gender affirming care for minors. In the days after the executive order was signed, hospitals in Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington, Colorado and Virginia, among others, stopped treating transgender youth under the age of 19. Appointments were cancelled and patients were turned away, even if they had been in treatment for several years. This practice was challenged in the case “PFLAG v. Trump”, where a number of organisations and families filed a lawsuit against the administration.

On 13 February 2025, the District Court of Maryland issued a temporary restraining order (the reasoning was not issued until 14 February 2025) against the enforcement of the executive order. The Court held that the federal government is not allowed to place conditions on federal funding that Congress has not prescribed. It was ruled that the Constitution does not authorise the President to enact, amend or repeal statutes, and the injunction against the executive order was later extended on 4 March 2025. This case as well is still pending.

In parallel, the US Supreme Court has ruled in the landmark case “United States v. Skrmetti”, where the majority (6 to 3 votes) overturned lower court rulings that had otherwise blocked Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming treatment for transgender minors. The Supreme Court held that the law of Tennessee, which prohibits medical treatments such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender youth under the age of 18, is not in breach of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and is not subject to heightened scrutiny.

The majority found that the law does not distinguish on the basis of gender in a way that requires a higher level of scrutiny. Instead, the US Supreme Court applied the so-called “rational basis” standard of review and found that the state had a legitimate interest in regulating the medical treatment of minors and that the ban was reasonably and objectively related to that purpose. The Court took into account the state’s arguments about the “experimental” nature of the treatment in question and concerns about possible irreversible effects on adolescents.

The dissenting justices warned that the ruling invites legislatures to hide blatant discrimination behind seemingly neutral wording and highlighted the harm it causes to transgender children and their families. The ruling does not address the President’s executive orders directly but may impact the equality-based arguments invoked in pending cases.

Gender identity in uniform

At the same time, Trump’s executive orders have enabled the reinstatement of a ban on transgender persons in the military. The executive order “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” highlights that gender dysphoria and identification with a gender other than the one at birth compromises discipline and honesty and prevents the maintenance of military standards. On 26 February 2025, the US Department of Defense issued a ban that excludes anyone from serving who has gender dysphoria or has undergone treatment.

This was subsequently challenged in the District Court of Western District of Washington by both current and potential transgender soldiers in the case “Shilling v. Trump”, where on 27 March 2025, the Court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the implementation of the executive order. After an appeals court refused to stay the preliminary injunction ruling, the Trump administration filed an emergency petition with the US Supreme Court to have the preliminary injunction stayed. On 6 May 2025, the US Supreme Court granted this request without giving reasons for its decision. The three Democratic-appointed justices indicated that they would have denied the application. The case is still pending before the federal courts.

One Constitution, many courts – a fragmented legal system

As shown, the US legal system is facing significant internal challenges, also when it comes to transgender rights. Executive orders have rolled back significant rights in a battle for what the Trump administration calls “biological reality”, while courts at various levels roll back or pause the orders. The US Supreme Court, however, appears for now to be taking a president-friendly approach.

As an outside observer, one gets the impression that the outcome, and thus the rights of the specific person, depends on the specific justices. By Danish standards, this creates a completely inconsistent and fragmented legal situation for transgender persons in the US. 

In both of the cases recently decided by the US Supreme Court – “United States v. Skrmetti” prohibiting gender affirmative treatment of minors and “Shilling v. Trump” on transgender people’s access to the military – the majority have either actively or tacitly supported the course set by Trump’s executive orders, while in a number of other cases, lower federal courts have sought to protect the rights of transgender persons based on the provisions of the Constitution on equality and freedom.

Further uncertainty about the decisions of the Court in the face of executive orders was added to the picture with the US Supreme Court’s ruling in the case “Trump v. CASA” where, on 27 June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled on the scope of preliminary injunctions against a different executive order that does not concern transgender people. The conservative majority of the Supreme Court concluded that federal courts generally do not have the authority to issue such universal injunctions, i.e. injunctions that apply to others than the specific plaintiffs. As mentioned, the case concerned a different executive order, but the ruling gives indications of the increasing level of conflict, also within the US legal system.

Legal kaleidoscopes and value-based political fault lines in Europe

The evolution of transgender rights in Europe has been less tumultuous, but more consistent and predictable. At the forefront, as so often, are the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), whose case law is seen to uphold the protection of transgender rights. On a national level, new legislation in Hungary has pulled in the opposite direction. Court decisions from national courts also illustrate that legal protection in Europe is still far from uniform.

In the following, we highlight some of the latest and most significant developments on the European continent.

Luxembourg lines

In several recent cases, the CJEU has addressed the rights of transgender persons.

The CJEU only has jurisdiction to hear cases within the area of EU law, and the EU can only regulate in areas where Member States have ceded competence. Therefore, transgender people’s rights are often protected through the EU legal system through other rules, such as data protection or free movement rules. This development is well known within other fundamental rights as well. But perhaps Hungary’s controversial anti-LGBTQ+ laws have paved the way for a breakthrough in EU rights enforcement in this area.

Rights through the back door

In the Mirin case (C-4/23), the CJEU, on 4 October 2024, ruled that a Romanian national who had a gender and name change recognised in the United Kingdom before Brexit was entitled to have the same changes recognised in Romania. The refusal of recognition constituted an obstacle to the person’s rights under free movement rules and Member States were therefore obliged to accept the changed status. The judgment is based on the Treaty provisions on citizenship and free movement of persons and recognises that gender identity is part of the personal status that must be respected across borders.

In the Mousse case (C-394/23), in which the French railway company SNCF Connect required customers to indicate their gender (“Monsieur” or “Madame”) when purchasing tickets online, the CJEU ruled on 9 January 2025 that this was not necessary for the contractual relationship entered into when purchasing a train ticket and that the requirement was therefore contrary to the data minimisation principle of the GDPR. Thus, data protection rules were used to ensure trans and gender-neutral individuals’ right not to be forced into binary gender categories.

In the Deldits case (C-247/23), a transgender refugee’s request to correct the refugee’s gender in the Hungarian asylum register was denied due to lack of proof of gender reassignment surgery. On 13 March 2025, the CJEU ruled that this constituted a breach of the GDPR because the gender is personal data that must be rectifiable under Article 16 of the GDPR. The surgical intervention requirement was not in line with the Regulation’s data minimisation requirements and the right to accurate recording. The ruling shows that transgender asylum seekers’ gender identity is also protected under EU law.

Trumpism in Budapest

A possible breakthrough in EU law emerges in the pending case Commission v. Hungary (C-769/22), in which the Commission has brought infringement proceedings against Hungary for its so-called anti-LGBTQ+ law, which restricts young people’s access to content that portrays or discusses gender identity and sexual orientation. 

In her Opinion of 5 June 2025, Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta concluded that Hungary’s legislation breaches not only secondary law and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, but also Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which sets out the fundamental values of the EU. She argues, in line with the European Commission, that Article 2 can apply independently as a basis for infringement. 

In the Opinion, the Advocate General stated, inter alia: 

“I am of the view that LGBTI persons deserving equal respect in Member States is not open to contestation through dialogue. Disrespect and marginalisation of a group in a society are the ‘red lines’ imposed by the values of equality, human dignity and respect for human rights.”

She further stated:

“How equality of LGBTI persons is to be implemented may differ and be discussed, but the principled choice to prohibit discrimination on the ground of sex or sexual orientation is firmly rooted in the EU constitutional framework. That is so, even if LGBTI issues are socially sensitive. If the protected ground was replaced by a less socially contested ground, such as skin colour or religion, the negation of equality by legislation such as that at issue in the present case would be obvious.”

If the CJEU follows this line, it will be the first time that the CJEU in a judgment will base its decision directly and independently on the Union’s values clause. The date on which the CJEU will render its decision in the case remains unknown.

The Advocate General’s Opinion in the infringement proceedings against Hungary is in stark contrast to the national developments taking place in Hungary at the same time. This is a development that also contrasts with trends in the rest of Europe. 

During its EU Council Presidency in the second half of 2024, Hungary launched the slogan “Make Europe Great Again,” mirroring both the tone and direction of Donald Trump’s political rhetoric. As a recent example of the direction in Hungary, the Parliament in April 2025 passed a constitutional amendment stating that there are only two genders – male and female – and that a person’s gender is determined at birth.

The legislation is officially justified by a desire to protect children, but in practice it has resulted in far-reaching restrictions on transgender people’s rights and visibility in the public sphere. In this context, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government appears as the EU’s problem child, actively challenging the Union’s fundamental values and positioning itself at the crossroads between national sovereignty and European legal integration.

Strasbourg standards

The ECtHR in Strasbourg has also ruled in a number of recent cases concerning the rights of transgender people. The ECtHR has held on numerous occasions that states cannot make decisions based solely on stereotypes about transgender people. In several cases, the ECtHR has found that such decisions were in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to private and family life.

In Savinovskikh and Others v. Russia (case 16206/19), it was found to be in breach of Article 8 to terminate a custody and foster care relationship with reference to the gender identity of the foster parents. On 9 July 2024, the Court found that the decision was not based on a concrete assessment of the child’s best interests, but on prejudice. Therefore, Russia had breached the applicant’s right to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR.

In W.W. v. Poland (case 31842/20), Poland was on 11 July 2024 found to have breached Article 8 of the ECHR on, inter alia, the right to private life by placing a transgender woman in male prisons, despite her gender status and physical transition. The case concerned the lack of recognition of her gender identity and the risk of abuse.

In T.H. v. Czech Republic (case 33037/22), the Czech Republic’s requirement of irreversible sterilisation as a condition for legal gender reassignment was on 12 June 2025 deemed a breach of Article 8 on, inter alia, the right to private life. The Court ruled that such a requirement constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to respect for private life.

Denmark and the UK draw their own lines

In the national legal systems across Europe, the rights of transgender people are more varying. In addition to the particularly far-reaching developments in Hungary mentioned above, other European countries such as the UK and Denmark have also made their mark with rulings in 2024 and 2025 that, without going in the same direction as Hungary, draw certain legal lines on the issue of gender identity and rights protection.

Female gender, male prison – the Danish Supreme Court weighs the competing interests

In Denmark, the Supreme Court, on 10 September 2024, ruled in the case A v. Directorate of Prisons and Probation (BS-60551/2023-HJR), which concerned the placing of a transgender woman serving a custodial sentence in a male prison. The woman had a legal gender reassignment while serving her sentence and identified as female. However, this did not cause her to be relocated to the prison in Jyderup, which is now a women's prison, and she remained subject to search by male staff. The Supreme Court attributed significance to the sentenced person’s biological sex and previous sexual offence and found that prison security outweighed the consideration of the individual’s gender identity. The measure was therefore not in breach of, inter alia, Article 3 of the ECHR on inhuman and degrading treatment or Article 8 on the right to private life.

“Woman” written in chromosomes – biology prevails in the UK Supreme Court

In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court handed down a highly publicised ruling in the case “For Women Scotland” which concerned the scope of the term “woman” in Scottish equality law. The Scottish Government had passed an amendment to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which allowed transgender women with legal gender reassignment to be included in the count of women on public boards.

The organisation For Women Scotland brought the case, arguing that the term “woman” in the UK Equality Act 2010 only covers persons of the biological female sex. The Supreme Court agreed with the organisation and ruled that it is not possible for Scottish law to extend the definition of “woman” to include transgender women without conflicting with the Equality Act. The ruling means that transgender women – even with legal gender reassignment – are not necessarily covered by the concept of women in equality law and thus not protected by affirmative action measures aimed at women. 

Patrick Hodge, Deputy President of the Supreme Court, stated the following when delivering the Court’s judgment: 

“But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another – it is not.”

Despite this attempt to keep the Supreme Court out of the values battle that motivated the lawsuit, the ruling has been widely criticised. For example, transgender former judge Victoria McCloud has stated that she will seek to take the case to the ECtHR, arguing that the ruling undermines transgender people’s access to effective law enforcement.

The ruling has also been met with criticism internationally. On 22 May 2025, for example, a number of UN Special Rapporteurs stated the following:

 “But it may be used to justify exclusionary policies that further stigmatise and marginalise an already vulnerable population, as well as human rights defenders working to protect and promote transgender rights. We are deeply concerned that the application of this judgment may lead to increased discrimination and exclusion of transgender women in various sectors, including the workplace, at a critical time when employers should be striving to foster and maintain inclusive environments for all employees.”

Tectonic shifts in the legal landscape

Developments in both the US and Europe show that transgender rights, perhaps more than any other fundamental rights in recent years, have caused highly charged value-based political battles in national and international courts.

In the US, executive orders from the Trump administration have significantly curtailed the rights previously enjoyed by transgender persons. Federal courts have responded by setting significant limits as to how far these executive orders can go. The Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority have then rolled back and to a greater extent upheld the president’s executive orders. As a result, transgender persons in the US are currently in an unusually precarious position in terms of due process of law, where fundamental rights seem to depend largely on shifting political winds and the composition of the courts.

In Europe, the picture is different. The CJEU and the ECtHR, in their case law and within their jurisdiction, have contributed to a more predictable and progressive development of the legal protection of transgender rights. However, national legislation and court decisions, including in the UK, Denmark and Hungary, also show that the level of protection – as in so many areas of Europe’s many legal systems – is fragmented, complex and continues to vary significantly from country to country.

In other words, the temperature of the legal landscape for transgender rights in the Western world is unusually kaleidoscopic right now. The legal lines are flexible and move in different directions. While some jurisdictions continue to expand protection and emphasise the principle of individual dignity, others are moving towards a state of the law where biological sex and traditional perceptions of gender are upheld in legislation and then by courts. In other words, the legal landscape reflects the very different value-based political perceptions of what equal treatment and respect for gender identity means in practice.

It is worth remembering that while the “Protect the Dolls” campaign plays on strong symbols and identity politics, and while transgender rights often become part of the debate about wokeness and cultural divides, the actual lawsuits are about much more than value-based politics. Disputes, such as access to the military or the right to medical treatment, have concrete and tangible consequences for the people they affect.