Fifty five years after a police raid at a popular drag bar in Greenwich Village led to the Stonewall uprising, interactions between police and queer folks can certainly appear a lot different than they did in the 1960s. The laws banning crossdressing, obscenity, and same-sex sexual relations that enabled police to harass LGBTQ people have largely been overturned in court. The pride parades that commemorate the Stonewall uprising now often have a police escort. Many police departments have hired LGBTQ community liaisons, fly rainbow Pride flags in June, and issue proclamations honoring Transgender Day of Remembrance.

Far from signs of progress, however, these symbolic gestures obscure the many ways police harassment, profiling, and violence continue to target sexual and gender minorities, with poor, Black, and transgender people often facing the worst of it. In our new report, Policing Progress: Findings from a National Survey of LGBTQ+ People’s Experiences with Law Enforcement, we found that routine and widespread mistreatment by police continues to fuel mistrust between LGBTQ people and the very law enforcement that claims to protect and serve them.

Using survey data collected by NORC at the University of Chicago, the ACLU, in collaboration with the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and the University of California, Irvine, found disparities between LGBTQ people and non-LGBTQ people, and within the LGBTQ community in reported experiences with police. As a group, LGBTQ people reported more adverse treatment by police than non-LGBTQ people. This is particularly pronounced among bisexual, transgender, and nonbinary people, who more commonly experience insulting language and physical force from the police.

More than one in four (27 percent) transgender people report experiencing physical force by police. Black transgender people were the most likely to have experienced physical force by the police among all LGBTQ people. Transgender and nonbinary respondents (45 percent and 33 percent, respectively) were significantly more likely than LGBTQ cisgender men (15 percent) to have experienced insulting language by the police.

This kind of mistreatment can range from misgendering transgender people, profiling someone as a sex worker because of their gender expression, subjecting them to needless physical searches, and even physical and sexual violence. For example, earlier this month, a transgender man won a $275,000 settlement after being forced by New York prison officials to undergo four separate and illegal genital examinations. A 2021 survey of transgender people currently held in New York prisons found an astonishing three quarters reported at least one act of sexual violence by a corrections officer.

The ACLU has combated instances of police abuse in the LGBTQ community, including in 2019, when the New York Civil Liberties Union reached a settlement with the NYPD on behalf of Linda Dominguez, a 45-year-old transgender Latina, after they charged her with “false personation” for carrying an ID with her former name (or “deadname”) on it. Officers chained her to a pipe and verbally harassed her following her arrest. Two years prior, in 2017, the ACLU of the District of Columbia settled with the Metropolitan Police Department on behalf of Lourdes Ashley Hunter, executive director and co-founder of the Trans Women of Color Collective, after police entered her home without a warrant, physically assaulted her, and left her with multiple injuries.

It’s no wonder then that our report also found widespread mistrust among LGBTQ people towards law enforcement, with the very members of the LGBTQ community that face the highest rates of victimization reporting the least willingness to seek help from police.

Only 69 percent of bisexual and 60 percent of queer people indicated that they would call the police for help in the future, compared to 80 percent of gays and lesbians and 87 percent of straight, cisgender people. Less than two-thirds of Latine LGBTQ people surveyed said they would be likely to call the police for help in the future, compared to nearly three-fourths of white LGBTQ people. Less than two-thirds of transgender respondents were likely to call the police for help in the future, compared to 82 percent of cisgender LGBQ men. Approximately one-quarter of nonbinary people were willing to call the police for help.

At the ACLU, our advocacy recommendations have centered around the multiple, concrete steps communities and local governments can take to help ensure the safety of LGBTQ people from police harassment and violence, including:

• Reducing negative encounters between police and community members. Law enforcement must end policies and practices that require or incentivize officers to engage in aggressive tactics, such as quotas for citations or arrests, stop-and-frisk, and ceasing enforcement of consensual sex work.
• Adopting specific policies and practices that ensure fair and equitable treatment of LGBTQ+ people. We urge police to place prohibitions on the use of explicitly hateful language and frisks and searches aimed at determining someone’s gender.
• Reconsidering police presence in public LGBTQ+ spaces and events, such as pride parades and festivals.
• Implementing strong oversight with meaningful community involvement to provide transparent and accessible complaint processes and require law enforcement agencies to take corrective action when complaints suggest a pattern of problems.
• Repealing existing laws that explicitly criminalize LGBTQ+ people and expression, and opposing any proposed anti-LGBTQ+ laws, including those that would criminalize necessary medical care or criminalize drag.

Many states continue to advance laws that seek to further police LGBTQ life, including efforts to censor drag performers and criminalize transgender people who use public restrooms consistent with their gender identity. As outlined in our memo, Trump on LGBTQ Rights, former President Donald Trump and the extremists behind Project 2025 want to go even further, weaponizing the federal government to criminalize gender nonconformity and ordering the Department of Justice to repeal protections for incarcerated transgender people.

But many of these problems are perpetuated at the local level–often by the very same cities and municipalities who proudly host pride parades or fly rainbow flags on their police cruisers. LGBTQ people and our allies shouldn’t be fooled by flashy but shallow shows of support or lofty social media statements from police departments about “inclusion.” More than half a century after Stonewall, communities have a duty to move past symbolism and move us closer to a future built on safety, respect, and freedom.

Emily Greytak, ACLU; Jordan Grasso, University of California, Irvine; and Stefan Vogler, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign contributed to this article.

Today, the Supreme Court declined to issue a ruling in Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States. Instead, it sent the case back down to the lower courts where anti-abortion extremists will continue to fight to strip pregnant people of the basic right to emergency care, including when their life is at risk.

While the court’s decision temporarily restores the ability of doctors in Idaho to provide emergency abortions required under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act —EMTALA— by dismissing the case without affirming once and for all that pregnant people have a right to the emergency abortion care they need to protect their health and lives, the court continues to put pregnant patients at unnecessary risk.

Below, we break down why the case matters, and what happens next.

EMTALA requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to patients in emergency situations. Since it was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, the federal government–across Democratic and Republican administrations–has consistently recognized that EMTALA requires hospitals to provide emergency abortion care to any patient who needs it. For nearly 40 years, EMTALA has been a crucial tool in guaranteeing the right to emergency care for pregnant patients in need.

Although the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade did not diminish these longstanding federal protections, extremist politicians still tried to prevent people experiencing emergency pregnancy complications from getting care in emergency rooms. In this case, Idaho, which has a near total abortion ban, went all the way to the Supreme Court for the power to criminalize emergency abortions required under EMTALA.

The ACLU and the Cooley Law Firm filed a friend-of-the-court brief in defense of EMTALA. We explained that the law clearly requires hospitals to provide emergency abortion care, regardless of state abortion bans like Idaho’s and others, and that pregnant people cannot be excluded from EMTALA’s protections. The court’s concurring opinion authored by Justice Elena Kagan, and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in part, echoes the arguments we laid out in our brief.

The Supreme Court had the opportunity to affirm that every pregnant person in this country is entitled to the emergency care they need to protect their health and lives, and it failed to do so. The court’s refusal to safeguard the right to emergency abortion care–and put an unequivocal end to extremist attacks by anti-abortion politicians on this essential health care –puts pregnant patients at risk and devalues equality under the law.

Two Years Post-Roe: Life in the Aftermath

Two Years Post-Roe: Life in the Aftermath

On this episode, we’re going back into our archives to share an episode that unfortunately still has deep resonance today. Last year, we asked you what a year without Roe has been like in your lives and you responded in droves. Today, with abortio...

On this episode, we’re going back into our archives to share an episode that unfortunately still has deep resonance today. Last year, we asked you what a year without Roe has been like in your lives and you responded in droves. Today, with abortio...

Visit this episode

Importantly, the court’s order does nothing to stop the chaos and confusion unleashed by abortion bans across the country, which still prevent providers from giving appropriate medical care to patients when they need it most. While the court’s order does provide a temporary reprieve for pregnant patients in Idaho facing medical emergencies, it also allows extremist politicians in the case to continue to fight to put doctors in jail simply for providing essential care. And, alarmingly, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, wrote a dissenting opinion that provides a roadmap for just how they would strip pregnant people of the right to emergency abortion care should this case return to the Supreme Court.

The dissenting opinion also indicates a willingness to endorse an extreme strategy to give legal rights to embryos and fetuses that will override the rights of the pregnant person, and could lead not only to a national abortion ban, but bans on other forms of reproductive health care like fertility treatment and birth control.

This case proves that this battle is far from over. Extremist politicians are coming for our reproductive freedom and will not stop until abortion, including emergency abortion, is banned in all 50 states. They already went all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to put doctors in jail for providing life-and health-saving emergency abortion care, and they will do it again if we let them.

At the ACLU, we’ll continue to use every tool at our disposal to fight attacks on our bodily autonomy. We urge Congress to act now and pass federal protections for abortion rights that will end extreme bans in states and protect access to care nationwide.

"In many rural communities, public schools are the largest employers, and, often, these schools are the last vestige of public infrastructure that engages the people of a given community. Therefore, the role of the teacher in a small town is often outsized. We believe that rural America is approaching a very tough intersection—a crossroads where the undermining of public institutions meets what is a very real rural teacher shortage."

There are many faces of rural: from remote Indigenous reservations in the West, to small towns in the Great Plains and Midwest, to the Mississippi Delta and Southern "Black Belt," to Appalachia and New England. Rural can look different in each state: a town of a few thousand people, or tiny communities located several hours or even days from the nearest city, as is the case in parts of Alaska. Meeting the needs of nearly 10 million children is a challenge and an obligation that demands and deserves collective attention across the United States. Fulfilling that obligation requires educators, policymakers, caregivers, students, citizens, and employers to deepen our understanding of rural education issues and to move beyond simplistic and often harmful notions about rural schools and their communities.

The recalled bookcase is unstable if it is not anchored to the wall, posing tip-over and entrapment hazards that can result in death or serious injuries to children.

The training wheel assembly knob can loosen and detach from the bicycle, posing fall and injury hazards to the riders.

The toy trunk storage chests do not contain a lid support feature or ventilation holes, posing entrapment and suffocation hazards.

The vacuums can short circuit during or after charging the battery, posing a fire hazard.

The lithium-ion battery in the power banks can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

A power interruption in the heat pump can result in the product providing heat when the power resumes, despite the thermostat being in cooling mode, posing a risk of excessive heat exposure to consumers.