Two transgender Kansans sue after state voids updated IDs, up to 1,700 affected

Two transgender Kansans filed suit in Douglas County District Court Friday challenging a new state law that the plaintiffs say immediately invalidated their driver’s licenses and strips transgender Kansans of the ability to obtain identity documents that reflect their gender. The complaint seeks a ruling that the statute is unconstitutional and asks the court to block enforcement while the case proceeds.

The plaintiffs, identified by pseudonyms Daniel Doe and Matthew Moe, say they and other transgender people received letters from the Kansas Department of Revenue’s Division of Vehicles informing them that licenses with updated gender markers “will no longer be valid,” effective immediately. The suit is brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Kansas and Ballard Spahr LLP.

The law, enacted after the Republican-led Legislature overrode Governor Laura Kelly’s veto, is identified in some sources as Senate Bill 244 and in others as the House Substitute for Senate Bill 244. It not only invalidates driver’s licenses and birth certificates that were previously updated to reflect gender identity but also bars future updates of those markers. The statute also includes a private right of action allowing civil suits by “aggrieved” individuals who claim someone is using a restroom inconsistent with that person’s sex, and it restricts restroom access in many government-owned or leased buildings.

Reporting on the scale of the action varies. One syndication headline described the law as having invalidated the licenses and certificates of about 1,700 people, while another account said “more than 1,000.” State and advocacy statements have used broader language, saying the law affects hundreds of transgender Kansans who received immediate notice. The Detroit News noted affected residents will need to obtain and pay for new driver’s licenses.

The complaint frames the law as an attack on core state constitutional protections, alleging violations of personal autonomy, privacy, equal protection, due process and free expression. It asserts the statute “deprives transgender Kansans of their ability to operate vehicles or utilize their identification with no notice or opportunity to be heard,” and warns that forcing people to present identification that does not match their gender identity will expose them to harassment and violence.

“The Act targets transgender Kansans across multiple, unrelated domains of their lives,” the complaint states. It adds that “This sweeping law restricts transgender individuals from obtaining driver’s licenses reflecting their gender identity and bans transgender people from accessing restrooms or other single-sex spaces in a range of public places including libraries, courthouses, state parks, hospitals, and interstate rest stops,” language quoted in court filings.

Monica Bennett, legal director of the ACLU of Kansas, said in the organization’s press release, “This legislation is a direct attack on the dignity and humanity of transgender Kansans. It undermines our state’s strong constitutional protections against government overreach and persecution.”

Public-health and community advocates warn the law’s immediate effects extend beyond administrative inconvenience. Restricting bathroom access at hospitals and other health settings can deter people from seeking care, undermine privacy during clinical encounters, and exacerbate mental-health stressors already elevated among transgender communities. Advocacy groups say needing to repeatedly disclose a transgender status when presenting identification increases risk of discrimination and violence, and imposes financial burdens on low-income residents required to replace documents.

The plaintiffs are asking the Douglas County court to declare the statute unconstitutional and to issue a temporary injunction blocking enforcement. The case sets up a fast-moving legal and social confrontation in Kansas over identity, safety and access to public services as state officials and civil-rights groups prepare for litigation.