Kansas judge denies temporary restraining order that would block anti-trans law
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Judge denies ACLU restraining order; court cites lack of supporting evidence.
- State agrees to delay enforcement actions on licenses and restrooms until March 26.
- Judge schedules case management conference for March 18.
A Douglas County judge says he hasn’t been presented with evidence to justify blocking Kansas’ new state law policing transgender identity in government-owned restrooms and on state identification documents.
In a six-page ruling issued on Tuesday, District Court Judge James McCabria denied the American Civil Liberties Union’s motion for a restraining order that would have prevented the law from being enforced on a temporary basis.
However, Attorney General Kris Kobach told McCabria at a hearing on Friday that the state would voluntarily refrain from invalidating anyone else’s driver’s licenses or adjudicating complaints about restroom usage until March 26, a month after the law took effect.
A temporary restraining order would have formalized that moratorium for up to 14 days and could have been extended at the judge’s discretion.
“After three hours of argument, over a hundred pages of briefing and exhibits, reviewing dozens of cases cited by the parties and its own research . . . the conclusion became self-evident — this Court simply does not have the information the law requires to enter Temporary Restraining Order at this stage of the proceedings,” McCabria wrote.
The judge, an appointee of former Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, asserted that acting hastily to invalidate a state law “risks the appearance of either political bias or lack of appreciation for the value and importance of the full, fair deliberative process in such circumstances.”
He found that ACLU staff attorney Harper Seldin fell short on the first two elements necessary to justify a temporary restraining order — demonstrating a likelihood of the plaintiff’s success based on the merits of the claim and showing that there would be immediate, irreparable harm if the court did not intervene.
“Each side tells the Court ‘harm will happen’ to their side no matter what the Court does,” McCabria wrote. “But the Court cannot fairly analyze important concepts like injury to personal autonomy, informational privacy or equality under the law (or even determine whether they apply) without examining well-developed factual scenarios that have been subjected to challenge and debate.”
Judge touts Kansans’ tolerance
The new law, which was enacted by Republican supermajorities in the Legislature over Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto, violates multiple provisions of the Kansas Constitution, the ACLU argues.
The law establishes penalties for people who don’t use restrooms on government property in accordance with their sex assigned at birth. It also prohibits state agencies from updating the gender markers on driver’s licenses and birth certificates and requires anyone who has amended that information on their documents to surrender them for replacement at their own cost.
The legal challenge was brought on behalf of two trans men who live in Lawrence and are identified under pseudonyms in court filings as Daniel Doe and Matthew Moe.
Kobach, who urged the Legislature to pass the law, is leading its defense on behalf of the state.
“The Attorney General says the restroom component of the Act was necessary to protect Kansans from encounters that invade their sense of security, privacy and tradition. No examples of actual encounters have been offered to the Court,” McCabria wrote.
“Plaintiffs say that obeying the law will lead to encounters that invade not only their sense of self but also the sense of security and privacy of those they will encounter in the assigned restroom. No examples of actual encounters with others having occurred or ongoing were presented to the Court,” he added.
Arguments put forward by both sides about the driver’s license and birth certificate provisions of the law were similarly unsatisfactory to the judge.
“In hearing the arguments of each side, the Court is struck by a basic assumption each side makes about the other — that our ‘lesser angels’ drive our choices,” McCabria wrote.
“Yet, the very paucity of actual examples that either side has put forward in any of the arguments suggests the opposite — that the vast majority of Kansans are tolerant, understanding, accepting and generally supportive of each other and that the vast majority of transgender persons have experienced this as Kansans.”
McCabria ordered attorneys for both parties to appear in court next Wednesday at 9 a.m. for a case management conference.
This story was originally published March 11, 2026 at 11:09 AM.
