Insights
Foundations and Fractures. Rights in Retrograde, vol. 9
Region(s)
TOPIC(s)
Type
Commentary
Author(s)
Publish Date
June 29, 2026
Share
This edition tracks legal and policy developments affecting the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ) people across regions from March to June 2026. In several jurisdictions, governments used legislation to intensify human rights restrictions—removing the right to self-identification in India, codifying escalated penalties in Senegal, and classifying LGBTIQ advocacy as an administrative offense in Belarus. In Nepal, bureaucratic inaction has quietly undone judicial gains on the right to self-identification. At the same time, courts in Europe, Latin America, Oceania, and Asia delivered targeted protections across a range of areas: family recognition, bodily autonomy, legal gender recognition, and, notably, the foundational values of the European Union itself. Viewed as a whole, these developments reflect a widening divide between institutions wielding the law to restrict and those deploying it to protect, a divide that shows no sign of narrowing.
Restricting Rights by Law and by Default
Legislation was the instrument of choice this quarter for governments moving to restrict LGBTIQ people’s human rights. And where legislatures did not act, administrative inaction obstructed access to rights.
In India, on March 30, President Droupadi Murmu gave assent to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. This action marks a significant reversal of the legal framework established by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2014 ruling NALSA v. Union of India, which recognized gender identity as a matter of personal autonomy and held that no one could be compelled to undergo medical procedures as a condition of legal recognition. The amendment removes the right to self-identification and replaces it with a process requiring verification by a medical board and approval by a District Magistrate, shifting recognition from a matter of lived experience to one governed by state institutions and biological criteria. Activists are challenging this development before the Supreme Court.
In Senegal, President Bassirou Diomaye Faye signed legislation amending Article 319 of the penal code on March 31. The law criminalizes the "promotion" of homosexuality, defined broadly to include public representation and financial support of queer human rights movements, with sentences of three to seven years. For the first time in Senegal’s legal history, the law explicitly targets ‘transsexuality’ by criminalizing any public representation or support deemed to ‘promote’ it, creating serious risks for transgender people and anyone perceived as gender nonconforming. Senegal’s penal code already criminalized consensual same-sex conduct; the new law doubles the maximum prison term to ten years, following an uptick in enforcement of the earlier Article 319, as documented in our previous edition.
In Belarus, on April 2, the Council of the Republic approved legislation introducing a new administrative offense prohibiting the distribution of information deemed to promote positive perceptions of consensual same-sex relations, gender transition, or voluntary childlessness. These are grouped, deliberately, under a heading that also references pedophilia. The framing mirrors Russia's propaganda law template and is designed to entrench stigma. Penalties include fines and, where minors are involved, up to 15 days of administrative detention. UN experts have warned that the law could restrict civic space and access to information, particularly regarding sexual and reproductive health.
Restricting Bodies and Regulating Visibility
Two European democracies limited rights and visibility this quarter, narrowing the public space in which LGBTIQ people are free to exist.
In the United Kingdom, the government announced on March 10 that the National Health Service (NHS) England would pause its existing clinical policy on feminizing and masculinizing hormones for adolescents under 18 with immediate effect, while launching a 90-day consultation on whether to end routine prescribing. The consultation period has now expired, but NHS England has not yet communicated any final decision, and the pause on new prescriptions remains in place. Previously, these treatments were available to 16 and 17-year-olds under a strict clinical review process. The government cited an independent evidence review finding "very limited and weak" evidence for clinical effectiveness. Gender-affirming healthcare specialists have contested that characterization, arguing that evidence gaps call for more rigorous research and individualized clinical judgment—not blanket policy restrictions.
Marking a further deterioration in respect for trans people’s dignity, on May 21, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission published guidance confirming that single-sex services should be organized on the basis of “biological sex,” following last year's Supreme Court ruling on the definition of "woman" under the Equality Act. The guidance means trans women should not use women-only spaces, and should instead be offered neutral alternatives. The framework does not account for intersex people, whose sex characteristics do not conform to the binary female/male categorization—a gap that the guidance leaves unaddressed.
In Portugal, on April 17, parliament approved legislation prohibiting the display of flags "of an ideological, partisan, or associative nature" on public buildings, effectively banning Pride flags from government institutions, with fines ranging from €200 to €4,000. Framed as a measure of institutional neutrality, its practical effect is to restrict the visibility of LGBTIQ people in official public life.
Courts Across Europe Deliver on Multiple Fronts
European courts were unusually active during this period, issuing rulings that touched on adoption, family recognition, legal gender recognition, and the foundational values of the EU itself. Two decisions by the Court of Justice of the European Union carry implications that extend well beyond the parties in the case.
In Croatia, a ruling by the Zagreb Administrative Court, published on April 6, confirmed that couples cannot be blocked from adoption proceedings on the basis of sexual orientation, extending prior rulings that had established access to the assessment process. The court declared that such procedures must be completed in accordance with the best interests of the child, annulling the decisions of the Ministry of Labor, Pension System, Family and Social Policy and the Croatian Institute for Social Work that effectively prevented adoption by same-sex couples.
On April 21, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that Hungary violated EU law by adopting its 2021 law banning portrayals of diverse gender identities and sexual orientations in media and education, framed as a child protection measure. The Court found breaches of the freedom to provide services, the Charter's prohibition on discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation, respect for human dignity, and the General Data Protection Regulation, on the grounds that the law required platforms to verify users' ages and process consent data in ways incompatible with EU data protection rules. Most significantly, the Court found a standalone infringement of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, which enumerates the foundational values of the EU: human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. Since its adoption in 2021, the law has produced cascading effects on queer life in Hungary—bans on Pride events, criminal proceedings against Pride organizers and public officials, and successive restrictions on queer visibility in education, media, and civic space. Hungary must repeal the law or face enforcement measures.
On March 12, the CJEU issued a second landmark ruling in case C-43/24 (Shipova), holding that EU member states must provide legal gender recognition procedures for nationals who have exercised their right to free movement. The case was brought by a trans woman from Bulgaria living in Italy who had been denied recognition of her gender on Bulgarian documents for nearly a decade—a refusal that Bulgaria's Supreme Court formally entrenched in 2023 by declaring that courts lacked the authority to change gender entries in the civil registry. The CJEU found the ban incompatible with freedom of movement and the right to private life, and held that national courts are not bound by their supreme courts' decisions where those decisions run contrary to EU law.
In Ukraine, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision in mid-March, which recognized the same-sex couple Zorian Kis and Tymur Levchuk as a de facto family, building on prior precedent and establishing a binding reference for lower courts. The ruling lands in a fractured legislative landscape: parliament has failed to pass a civil partnerships bill for three years, leaving same-sex couples without a statutory recognition framework, while a separate draft civil code recodification would move in the opposite direction by defining de facto family unions exclusively as different-sex partnerships. The Supreme Court ruling creates precedent in the absence of legislation—but either of those legislative tracks, if adopted, would determine whether that precedent is built upon or unconstitutionally overridden. The civil code provision, if passed, would also conflict with Ukraine's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and complicate its EU accession process.
In Greece, on March 20, the Council of State upheld the constitutionality of Law 5089/2024, which had introduced marriage equality and same-sex adoption rights in February 2024. The challenge had been brought by Greek Orthodox nationalist organizations, who argued that the law altered the traditional concept of family and harmed adopted children. The court's plenary held that institutions such as marriage and family "are not static but evolve with society" and that adoption by same-sex couples does not violate constitutional protection of the best interests of the child.
On March 31, the Bucharest Tribunal confirmed a final ruling requiring Romanian authorities to issue a new birth certificate to Arian Mirzarafie-Ahi reflecting his gender identity. Mirzarafie-Ahi is a trans man whose gender was legally recognized in the United Kingdom prior to Brexit. Authorities in Romania had refused to update his birth certificate accordingly. The ruling, originally delivered by the District 6 Court of Bucharest and upheld on appeal, translates the CJEU's 2024 jurisprudence on mutual recognition of legal gender recognition into concrete domestic action—and carries particular weight given that Romania had resisted implementing an earlier CJEU ruling on same-sex partner recognition for eight years.
Legal Developments in the Americas
Legal developments across the Americas this quarter moved in both directions. Courts issued rulings on legal gender recognition, trans health, and gender-based violence, drawing on constitutional rights and international standards to engage the substance of the claims before them. In Brazil, a regulatory decision by the medical establishment moved the other way.
On March 10, Ecuador’s Constitutional Court issued decision 4‑24‑CN/26, holding that people under 18 cannot be automatically refused a request to modify their gender marker on identity documents solely because they are minors. The case arose from the civil registry’s denial of a request filed by the parents of a 15‑year‑old trans boy to change his name and gender marker, based on a rule limiting such changes to adults. The Court held that applying an absolute age requirement is unconstitutional where it ignores adolescents’ evolving capacities and right to be heard. Instead, it required an individualized assessment grounded in the best interests of the child, progressive autonomy, and psychosocial evaluations of maturity, with the accompaniment of legal representatives. Outright submitted an amicus brief in this case in January 2025.
Chile's Supreme Court intervened on May 12 to order the processing of a request to rectify the birth certificate of a 14-year-old trans girl, reversing lower court rulings that had dismissed the request as inadmissible, and establishing that Chile's legal gender recognition framework sets no age limit.
On March 24, Peru's Supreme Court unanimously confirmed the unconstitutionality of a Supreme Decree that had classified transgender identities as mental disorders by incorporating outdated ICD-10 diagnostic codes into the national health insurance plan, requiring trans people to receive a psychiatric diagnosis to access healthcare. The court applied the doctrine of "suspect classification"—established by the Inter-American Court's Advisory Opinion OC-24/17—and found that the state could not demonstrate a compelling justification for the measure. The court grounded its reasoning in the moral philosophy of Mill, Bentham, and Rawls, concluding that "there is no reason for a society to sponsor the suffering of minorities through legal provisions that result in discrimination and stigmatization." Outright International also submitted an amicus brief in this case.
In Mexico, on April 13, a court found the assailant of trans activist, sex worker, and journalist Natalia Lane guilty of attempted femicide—the first conviction of this kind in Mexico involving a trans sex worker. The ruling recognizes gender-based motivations for the violence and represents a step toward accountability in a country where trans women, particularly those who are sex workers, face high rates of violence with near-total impunity.
Not all developments in the region came through courts, and not all moved in the right direction. In Brazil, the Federal Council of Medicine issued Resolution No. 2,455/2026 in May 2026, establishing standards for the treatment of intersex persons under the pathologizing framing of “disorders of sexual development”—language that intersex activists have explicitly rejected in favor of “intersex” or “variations of sex characteristics.” The resolution replaces a 2003 regulation but preserves its essential structure: it affirms the need for “early investigation” and “proper sex determination,” legitimizing medical urgency even in the absence of concrete health risks, and stops short of prohibiting medically unnecessary, nonconsensual surgeries on intersex infants and children. Intersexo Brasil characterized the resolution as one that “changes the language but not the structure of power,” warning that its pathologizing framework obstructs collective recognition and political articulation among intersex people, and that it continues to authorize the conditions under which intersex genital mutilation can occur. In response, activists partnered with Congressmember Erika Hilton to present a bill seeking to suspend the resolution.
Incremental Progress: Asia, Oceania, and Africa
Courts and administrative bodies across Asia, Oceania, and Africa expanded protections in specific areas this quarter: on gender recognition, reproductive rights, blood donation, and the formal removal of colonial-era criminal prohibitions. The scale of these developments varied considerably—from incremental administrative reforms to a landmark ruling on marriage equality.
On May 13, the Osaka High Court in Japan held that the country’s family register system, which permits only female or male gender entries, violates the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution, the equality provision. The case was brought by a nonbinary person registered as female. The court directed reform through the legislative process rather than ordering a specific remedy, but its finding that the current system conflicts with the principle of equality was welcomed by advocates as an important step toward recognition.
India's Kerala High Court, on May 15, allowed a transgender man to cryopreserve his oocytes after a private fertility center refused the procedure, grounding the ruling in Article 21 of the Constitution and holding that the right to life includes the right to reproduction. The court also emphasized that the government has an obligation to ensure trans people receive information about fertility preservation before beginning gender-affirming procedures.
In New Zealand, updated blood donation criteria took effect on May 4, replacing a policy that excluded gay and bisexual men with a behavior-based screening process focused on risk factors regardless of the donor's sexual orientation. The change ends a discriminatory practice that had treated sexual orientation as a proxy for health risk, rather than assessing the actual behavior of individual donors.
In Botswana, on March 26, the Attorney General formally removed criminal prohibitions on consensual same-sex conduct from the penal code, implementing court rulings from 2019 and 2021–over six years after the High Court first struck down Botswana’s colonial-era unnatural offenses laws. The national organization LEGABIBO welcomed the change as "a necessary and long-overdue step," noting that the provisions' continued presence in the statute had perpetuated stigma and sanctioned informal discrimination even after they were declared unconstitutional.
In Kenya, Court of Appeal Judge Katwa Kigen stated on April 28—during interviews for his candidacy to the Supreme Court—that while Kenya's Constitution prohibits same-sex marriage, it "inherently acknowledges that you can have a same-sex family" and does not explicitly exclude the possibility of same-sex family structures. The statement does not constitute a formal ruling, and “unnatural offences” remain criminalized under Kenyan law. Its significance lies in both its substance—constitutional law does not foreclose same-sex family recognition—and its forum: a Supreme Court candidacy interview, where such articulations carry particular weight.
On June 18, Nepal's Supreme Court issued a binding order directing the government to ensure equal marriage rights for same-sex couples and to update the civil code to remove discriminatory language—the fourth such ruling over nearly two decades of litigation on the same question. The decision provides more legal certainty than its predecessors, which had produced uneven implementation and left couples dependent on the discretion of local officials. Whether this ruling translates into durable administrative practice remains, as it has before, the central question.
Conclusion
The period documented in this edition saw legal tools deployed with unusual ambition on both sides of a widening divide. Governments in Senegal, India, and Belarus moved to restrict the rights of LGBTIQ people through legislation that is difficult to reverse by entrenching new limits in criminal law, reversing foundational court rulings, and equating advocacy with administrative offense. Nepal's experience illustrated how administrative inaction can achieve similar results without a single legislative act.Against that, courts across multiple jurisdictions issued rulings of notable depth. The CJEU's invocation of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union is not merely a legal precedent; it is a statement about what the European Union is, and about the limits of what member states may do within it. Courts in Peru, Ecuador, Japan, and India were similarly willing to engage foundational legal principles—constitutional rights, philosophical frameworks, international standards—rather than limit themselves to technical remedies. Progress remains incremental and often delayed in implementation, as Botswana's experience shows. But the record of this period confirms that legal advocacy for LGBTIQ human rights is operating at a scale that matches the scale of the attacks it confronts.
Take Action
When you support our research, you support a growing global movement and celebrate LGBTIQ lives everywhere.
Donate Now