On February 28 2025, AP News reported that Iowa became the first U.S. state to remove gender identity protections from its civil rights code when Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law a bill that opponents say will expose transgender people and other Iowans to discrimination in all aspects of daily life.
When U.S. laws targeting people because of personal characteristics that civil rights laws are designed to protect, or when rolling back such protections is tolerated by the U.S. Supreme Court to stand, that country meets the test for being unwilling or unable to protect affected persons at the national level.
In recent years, the United States has witnessed intensifying debates over state authority to weaken civil rights protections, particularly those concerning gender identity and LGBTQ+ rights.
Similar debate and legislative oppression has taken place over reproductive rights.
Iowa’s 2023-2025 legislative moves to restrict transgender protections and roll back civil rights, such as Senate File 538 which limited gender identity considerations in schools, and the recently signed law which outright erased existing civil rights in Iowa,
have sparked protests and raised urgent legal questions:
- Can a U.S. state roll back civil rights protections?
- What must it do to comply with the Constitution?
- Are there historical parallels for such actions?
These concerns resonate with broader anxieties about the United States’ treatment of marginalized groups, as explored earlier on my blog: https://morganeoger.ca/category/united-states/.
They also highlight a pressing issue: whether the legal and social environment for transgender Americans is deteriorating, shifting from marginalization to systemic exclusion.
To address these questions, we must examine the constitutional limits of state power, historical precedents for civil rights erosion, and the growing risks facing transgender individuals.
The Constitutional Limits of State Power Over Civil Rights
The U.S. Constitution imposes firm boundaries on state authority over civil rights. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that federal law overrides conflicting state statutes, preventing states from eliminating protections enshrined in federal law.
Additionally, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prevents states from passing laws that discriminate against specific groups without a legitimate, non-arbitrary justification—a legal standard that courts have historically interpreted broadly to protect marginalized groups.
Despite these safeguards, states have attempted to erode civil rights by exploiting legal loopholes, passing restrictive legislation, and reshaping the judiciary to favor their policies.
A notable example is the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965, allowing states to enact voting restrictions that disproportionately harmed Black and Indigenous communities. This ruling provided a playbook for states seeking to erode protections under the guise of states’ rights.
How Can a State Legally Remove Civil Rights Protections?
To roll back civil rights protections without immediate judicial reversal, a state must:
- Argue that no federal law explicitly protects the affected group, such as claiming gender identity is not covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).
- Frame the rollback as a neutral policy to avoid direct accusations of discrimination.
- Avoid triggering federal preemption by ensuring that state laws do not explicitly conflict with federal statutes.
- Ensure judicial backing, particularly by appointing conservative-leaning judges who may rule favorably on states’ rights arguments.
This legal strategy is currently playing out in states such as Iowa, Florida, and Texas, where legislation targeting transgender rights has been carefully crafted to appear neutral while stripping away protections.
Historical Precedents for Civil Rights Rollbacks
The United States has a long history of states removing or undermining civil rights protections, often using legal loopholes and sympathetic courts to sustain discriminatory policies.
Jim Crow Laws: A Blueprint for Reversing Rights
Following the end of Reconstruction (1865–1877), Southern states enacted Jim Crow laws, which effectively nullified civil rights gains for Black Americans. These laws imposed racial segregation, disenfranchisement, and legal barriers to economic and social participation.
The Supreme Court upheld many of these laws in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), ruling that “separate but equal” facilities were constitutional—a decision that took decades to overturn. It was not until Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that Jim Crow laws were systematically dismantled.
This historical precedent is critical today because it demonstrates how states can use legal justifications to erode civil rights protections while waiting for favorable court rulings. The removal of gender identity protections in Iowa and other states follows this pattern, carefully crafted to withstand initial legal challenges while setting the stage for broader rollbacks.
Shelby County v. Holder (2013): A Modern Example
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, eliminating federal oversight of election laws in states with histories of racial discrimination. The result was an immediate wave of voter suppression laws, including strict voter ID requirements and restrictions on mail-in voting.
This decision demonstrates how the removal of federal oversight enables states to roll back civil rights without explicitly violating the Constitution. The targeting of transgender protections in states like Iowa and Florida follows a similar legal strategy, exploiting weaknesses in judicial oversight and federal enforcement.
Where Does the U.S. Stand on the Genocide Scale targeting Transgender Americans?
In previous discussions on morganeoger.ca, I examined whether the United States is progressing along the 10 Stages of Genocide, as outlined by genocide scholar Gregory Stanton.
How Do Civil Rights Rollbacks Fit Into This Framework?
The removal of legal protections for transgender individuals aligns with multiple stages of the genocide model:
- Stage 3: Discrimination – Laws that exclude transgender people from civil rights protections create a legal foundation for systemic inequality.
- Stage 5: Polarization – Political narratives frame transgender rights as a cultural battle, increasing hostility and justifying government intervention.
- Stage 6: Preparation – States passing laws that criminalize gender-affirming care and restrict transgender identity are actively preparing for further repression.
- Stage 7: Persecution – The denial of medical care, employment protections, and legal recognition constitutes a form of state-backed persecution.
If these legislative trends continue without meaningful resistance, the next stages—violence and erasure—become increasingly viable.
Is the U.S. Becoming Unsafe for Transgender People?
The removal of gender identity protections raises the pressing question: Is the United States becoming a legally and socially hostile environment for transgender individuals?
The increasing criminalization of gender-affirming care, the restriction of identity documentation, and the normalization of anti-trans rhetoric suggest that the U.S. is systematically creating a hostile environment where transgender people:
- Face greater legal discrimination and fewer avenues for recourse.
- Are forced to migrate to safer states or leave the country entirely.
- Must conceal their identities to avoid persecution.
The parallels with other historical rollbacks of rights—whether Jim Crow laws, antisemitic policies in Nazi Germany, or anti-LGBTQ+ laws in authoritarian regimes—are impossible to ignore. The ongoing legal attacks do not need to reach the level of outright violence to constitute serious human rights violations.
Conclusion: The Urgent Need for Resistance
The United States is at a critical juncture. While states can modify state-level protections, they cannot override federal civil rights law without violating the Constitution. However, history has demonstrated that incremental legal rollbacks can be just as effective as outright repeal in eroding rights.
The fight for transgender rights must come from the courts, federal intervention, and grassroots activism. Without resistance, the legal door is closing for transgender Americans, making exile, erasure, or persecution a real possibility.
This is not merely a legal debate—it is a matter of human dignity, survival, and justice. Oppression does not always begin with violent crackdowns. More often, it starts quietly, through legal changes that strip protections one step at a time.What will we do when the legal doors have fully closed? Because if we wait until then, it may already be too late.
Canada should immediately pause the Safe Third Country Agreement for all persons persecuted or unprotected by the U.S. because of who they are or who they love. IRCC should apply Canadian human rights tests to all persons seeking our country’s protection from the U.S. and its governments.
What will we do when the legal doors have fully closed? Because if we wait until then, it may already be too late. And so, what can we do today before the U.S. attack on Transgender existance goes even further and it becomes too late to act?
Update:
List of U.S. states criminalizing reproductive choices and gender-affirming care is growing, as several U.S. states have enacted laws imposing criminal penalties related to abortion and gender-affirming care.
Here’s an overview:
Abortion:
Following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, numerous states implemented restrictive abortion laws with criminal penalties for providers:
- Alabama: Performing an abortion is a Class A felony, punishable by 10 to 99 years or life imprisonment. Attempting to perform an abortion is a Class C felony, with imprisonment ranging from 1 year and 1 day to 10 years.
- Arkansas: Performing or attempting to perform an abortion is an unclassified felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $100,000.
- Oklahoma: Performing an abortion is a felony, punishable by 2 to 5 years imprisonment.
- Texas: Performing an abortion resulting in the death of an unborn child is a first-degree felony, punishable by 5 to 99 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000. Otherwise, it’s a second-degree felony, punishable by 2 to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000.
Notably, these laws typically target providers, not patients. However, there have been instances where individuals faced charges related to their pregnancy outcomes. For example, in Ohio, a woman was charged with “abusing a corpse” after experiencing a miscarriage at home, though the charges were later dismissed.
Gender-Affirming Care:
Several states have enacted laws criminalizing gender-affirming care for minors:
- Alabama: Since May 8, 2022, providing gender-affirming care to individuals under 19 is a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. While parts of the law were temporarily blocked, as of August 21, 2023, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed enforcement to proceed pending further court decisions.
- Florida: In 2023, Florida enacted Senate Bill 254, prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors and imposing criminal penalties on providers. The law also includes provisions affecting custody arrangements if a child is believed to be receiving such care.
- Texas: In 2023, Texas passed Senate Bill 14, banning gender-affirming care for minors and imposing penalties on providers. The Texas Attorney General has initiated legal actions against doctors alleged to have provided such care, seeking to revoke medical licenses and impose substantial fines.
These developments reflect a broader national trend of increasing legal restrictions on both abortion and gender-affirming care, with significant implications for healthcare providers and recipients.
Morgane Oger 
Leave a comment