House Bill 142 (HB 142) is a 2017 law that was enacted in the state of North Carolina that repealed House Bill 2. The bill states that all "state agencies, boards, offices, departments, institutions, branches of government, including The University of North Carolina and the North Carolina Community College System, and political subdivisions of the State, are preempted from regulation of access to multiple occupancy restrooms, showers, or changing facilities, except in accordance with an act of the General Assembly." It also enacted that no local government in this state may enact or amend an ordinance regulating private employment practices or regulating public accommodations until December 1, 2020.[1]
| House Bill 142 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| North Carolina House of Representatives | North Carolina Senate | |||||||||||||||
| Ayes | Noes | Excused absents | Total | Ayes | Noes | Excused absents | Total | |||||||||
| % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |||||||||
| Republican caucus | 40 | 54.05% | 33 | 44.59% | 1 | 1.35% | 118 | 100% | 23 | 65.71% | 10 | 28.57% | 2 | 5.71% | 48 | 100% |
| Democratic caucus | 30 | 65.22% | 15 | 32.61% | 1 | 2.17% | 9 | 60% | 6 | 40% | 0 | 0% | ||||
| Total | 70 | 59.32% | 48 | 40.68% | 2 | 1.69% | 32 | 66.67% | 16 | 33.34% | 2 | 4.17% | ||||
On March 30, 2017, the North Carolina Senate passed HB 142, with 32 ayes, 16 noes, and 2 excused absents. That same day, the North Carolina House of Representatives passed HB 142, with 70 ayes, 48 noes, and 2 excused absents, which Governor Roy Cooper signed into law that very day, becoming Ch. SL 2017-4.[2]
Carcaño v. Cooper is a landmark legal case challenging the constitutionality of North Carolina's House Bill 2 (HB 2) and its replacement, House Bill 142 (HB 142). The case, originally filed in March 2016 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal, sought to overturn the provisions of HB 2, which required individuals to use public bathrooms corresponding to the sex on their birth certificates and restricted local governments from passing anti-discrimination ordinances.[3] [4] The plaintiffs, including Joaquín Carcaño, a transgender man and employee of the University of North Carolina, amended their lawsuit in 2017 to challenge the constitutionality of HB 142.
They argued that the new law continued to harm transgender individuals by preventing local governments from protecting them from discrimination and by leaving the status of bathroom access for transgender people in legal limbo. The lawsuit claimed that HB 142 violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.[5] U.S. District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder presided over the case. In October 2018, Judge Schroeder ruled that the plaintiffs could proceed with their challenge to HB 142, allowing the case to move forward. The lawsuit focused on the restrictions placed on local governments and the impact on transgender individuals' rights.
In July 2019, a settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and the state. Under the terms of the settlement, North Carolina agreed that nothing in HB 142 would prevent transgender individuals from lawfully using public facilities that correspond with their gender identity. The settlement also stated that executive branch agencies, including the University of North Carolina, could not bar transgender individuals from using such facilities.[6] The settlement in Carcaño v. Cooper was seen as a partial victory for LGBTQ+ rights advocates. While it clarified that transgender individuals in North Carolina could use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity, it did not fully overturn the restrictions on local non-discrimination ordinances imposed by HB 142. The case highlighted ongoing legal and social struggles over LGBTQ+ rights in the state and the broader United States.
Kadel v. Folwell is an ongoing legal case challenging the exclusion of coverage for gender-affirming care under North Carolina's State Health Plan for state employees. The lawsuit, filed in 2019 by several transgender individuals represented by Lambda Legal and the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF), argues that the exclusion of gender-affirming care from the health plan violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 2016, the North Carolina State Health Plan, which provides health insurance for state employees, including teachers and government workers, removed coverage for gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy and surgeries, for transgender individuals. This exclusion was reintroduced by State Treasurer Dale Folwell, who oversees the health plan, after it had briefly been included in 2017.[7]
The plaintiffs in the case include several transgender state employees and their dependents who were denied coverage for medically necessary gender-affirming care under the health plan. They contend that the exclusion discriminates against them on the basis of sex and transgender status, thereby violating their constitutional rights and federal law.[8] The lawsuit asserts that the exclusion of gender-affirming care violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against transgender individuals. The plaintiffs also argue that the exclusion violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, by imposing unequal terms and conditions of employment on transgender employees.
In addition, the plaintiffs claim that the exclusion violates the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which prohibits discrimination in health care programs and activities that receive federal funding, under Section 1557 of the ACA.[9] U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs presides over the case. In 2020, Judge Biggs denied a motion by the defendants to dismiss the case, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the exclusion of coverage for gender-affirming care could constitute sex discrimination under both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII.[10] As of 2024, the case is still ongoing, with the plaintiffs seeking a ruling that would require the State Health Plan to cover gender-affirming care for transgender employees and their dependents.[11]
United States v. State of North Carolina was a significant legal case in which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the state of North Carolina in response to the enactment of House Bill 2 (HB 2), also known as the "Bathroom Bill." The lawsuit was part of the broader legal and political conflict over the rights of transgender individuals and the extent of state power to regulate public accommodations based on gender identity. House Bill 2, signed into law by Governor Pat McCrory in March 2016, required individuals to use public bathrooms that corresponded with the sex listed on their birth certificates, rather than their gender identity. The bill also preempted local governments from enacting non-discrimination ordinances that provided protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. The law sparked nationwide controversy and led to economic boycotts, protests, and widespread criticism from civil rights organizations.
In response to the law, the U.S. Department of Justice under Attorney General Loretta Lynch sent a letter to Governor McCrory on May 4, 2016, stating that HB 2 violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, as well as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities. The DOJ gave the state a deadline to confirm that it would not enforce the law, but North Carolina refused to comply.[12] On May 9, 2016, the DOJ filed a lawsuit against the state of North Carolina, Governor Pat McCrory, and several state agencies, alleging that HB 2 violated federal civil rights laws. The lawsuit argued that the law discriminated against transgender individuals by denying them access to public facilities consistent with their gender identity and by perpetuating a hostile environment for LGBTQ+ people.[13]
North Carolina, in turn, filed a countersuit on the same day, seeking a declaratory judgment that HB 2 was lawful and did not violate federal law. The state argued that the federal government was overstepping its authority by attempting to redefine "sex" under Title VII and Title IX to include gender identity.[14] The legal battle was closely watched and became a focal point of the national debate over transgender rights. However, before the case could be resolved in court, the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 142 (HB 142) in March 2017, which repealed HB 2 but placed a moratorium on local governments enacting new non-discrimination ordinances until December 2020.[15] Following the repeal, on April 14, 2017, the United States Department of Justice issued a two-sentence court filing that said it had dropped its lawsuit against the state of North Carolina over House Bill 2 because the North Carolina legislature had replaced House Bill 2 with House Bill 142.[16] The dismissal did not address the merits of the case, leaving some aspects of the legal questions unresolved.[17] [18]