Litigation Over LGBTQ Rights in the US Shifts Toward Institutional Authority Battles in 2026

• Legal challenges to state laws governing LGBTQ issues, particularly gender-affirming care for minors, will persist.

• Court proceedings will likely focus on two main questions vis-à-vis LGBTQ issues: where regulatory authority resides and to what extent constitutional rights can be limited when their exercise is perceived to infringe on the constitutional rights of LBGTQ individuals or groups.

• This approach will result in a fragmented legal environment in which access to care and related services for the LGBTQ community varies significantly by state and by institution.

• Individuals who are transitioning, especially minors, may face interruptions in medical treatment or need to seek care outside of their home state.

Recent court decisions illustrate a broad shift in US LGBTQ-related litigation in 2026, in which disputes are increasingly centered on the limits of institutional authority rather than the scope of underlying civil rights. The shift is evident in recent rulings that test the boundaries of state authority over professional conduct and speech.

On March 31, 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors implicates the First Amendment and must be subjected to strict scrutiny. The Court concluded that the law restricts speech based on viewpoint by permitting counseling that affirms a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity while prohibiting counseling aimed at changing the minor patient’s orientation or gender identity. Rather than upholding the statute as a routine exercise of state authority over licensed professionals, the Court sent the case back to lower courts with instructions to apply a more demanding legal standard.

The decision does not automatically invalidate similar laws nationwide, but it significantly complicates their defense. For years, states have argued that such bans leverage their power to regulate professional conduct and do not impinge on free speech. The Court’s reasoning in Chiles signals increasing skepticism toward that distinction, suggesting that even within therapeutic settings, communication itself may be constitutionally protected.

The ruling fits within a broader pattern in the US in which the Court has expanded First Amendment protections while showing greater deference to state authority in regulating medical treatment. In United States v. Skrmetti (2025), for example, the Court upheld a state ban on certain gender-affirming treatments for minors, underscoring a willingness to scrutinize laws framed as speech restrictions and to allow legislatures significant latitude in defining permissible care. 

A parallel dispute before the Colorado Supreme Court highlights the growing role of institutions in shaping access to care. In April 2026, the court heard arguments in a case involving Children’s Hospital Colorado, which curtailed certain gender-affirming treatments for minors. Plaintiffs argue that the hospital’s actions violate state anti-discrimination laws. In contrast, the hospital contends that continuing to provide care could expose it to severe federal penalties, as a December 2025 declaration by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has threatened federal funding cuts for institutions providing such care. Complicating matters further, a federal court recently invalidated the underlying federal directive that threatened funding cuts, casting doubt on the legal basis for the hospital’s initial decision. Even so, the episode demonstrates how access to care can be shaped as much by perceived legal risk as by formal policy.

Taken together, the two cases reveal a striking asymmetry. US courts appear increasingly willing to protect speech claims brought by opponents of LGBTQ-inclusive regulations, while access to gender-affirming care is being shaped through a combination of legislative action, federal pressure, and institutional caution. 

This divergence over LGBTQ rights reflects a broader shift in the legal landscape. Rather than resolving disputes through sweeping constitutional rulings, courts are increasingly focused on defining the boundaries of authorities: between states and professionals, between federal and state governments, and between public regulation and private institutional decision-making. For LGBTQ individuals, the result is a system in which formal legal protections may exist alongside practical barriers that limit their effect.

In the healthcare context, the outcome of the Colorado Supreme Court case could determine whether anti-discrimination principles impose enforceable obligations on providers, even in the face of federal pressure, or whether institutions retain broad discretion to scale back services when legal and financial risks escalate.

LGBTQ individuals, particularly those seeking gender-affirming care or recognition of their gender identity, are likely to face a complicated social and legal landscape in the US for the foreseeable future. To further complicate the situation, Executive Order 14168, directing federal agencies to recognize only two sexes (male and female), has blocked the issuance of an ‘X’ marker on U.S. passports and federal identification documents. The order strictly mandates the federal government to define sex as an unchangeable male-female binary assigned at birth and directs federal insurance programs (such as Medicaid) to exclude gender-affirming care. Healthcare providers and institutions will likely continue to operate in a fluid regulatory environment. 

Learn more about leveraging global intelligence to stay ahead of risks to your people and operations.