Hairdressers Could Be Sued Under This Anti-Transgender Bill
A proposed anti-trans law in Arkansas could potentially permit parents to sue hairdressers for giving minors a gender-nonconforming haircut.
A proposed bill in Arkansas would criminalize anyone who is believed to have supported the social transition of transgender youth.
The bill’s prohibitions are so broad, in fact, that it could lead to the prosecution of hairdressers who give youth haircuts that don’t conform to stereotypical gender norms.
Under the Vulnerable Youth Protection Act, any person found to have affirmed the gender identity of a minor that does not match the minor’s assigned sex at birth could be sued by that minor or their parents for at least $10,000, plus compensatory damages and attorney’s fees, for up to 20 years afterward.
The amount for which a person can be sued can rise to $10 million if a person who was once a transgender-identifying youth undergoes medical transition-related procedures and later regrets their choice.
The bill applies not only to Arkansas residents but also allows individuals living in other states to be sued if they encourage a youth to socially or medically transition.
The measure does have a grandfather clause for minors who began transition-related treatments before June 1, 2025, and who have completed at least 12 therapy sessions over a six-month period.
However, the bill also contains a provision asserting that even if a lower court strikes down the law as unconstitutional, the law can be enforced if a higher court rules in favor of the law — a power granted to the state that has no basis in legal precedent.
The bill allows transgender minors or their parents to sue anyone who assists them in obtaining surgical or hormonal treatments that would allow them to transition or present as a gender that does not match their assigned sex at birth.
This provision attempts to circumvent a standing court ruling that found an Arkansas law barring doctors from prescribing gender-affirming treatments to minors, which was previously struck down as unconstitutional in 2023.
The bill defines social transition broadly as “any act by which a minor adopts or espouses a gender identity that differs from the minor’s biological sex,” including “changes in clothing, pronouns, hairstyle, and name.”
As reported by Mira Lazine of Erin in the Morning, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas has condemned the proposed bill as a form of government overreach and “state-mandated bullying” that infringes on constitutional rights, including “free speech, religious exercise, due process, and equal protection.”
Technically, the bill does not criminalize anything, due to the injunction halting the state from enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care, but is an attempt to chill speech or actions by threatening lawsuits against people who affirm transgender identity as real or valid.
It also unfairly conflates gender-affirming care with “castration, sterilization, or mutilation,” failing to take into account the fact that not every transgender person pursues surgery as part of their medical transition.
“HB1668 is so broadly written that it could lead to lawsuits against anyone who supports a transgender minor in any way,” the ACLU of Arkansas wrote in a statement.
“Hairdressers who cut a trans teen’s hair, teachers who use a student’s chosen name, and nonprofits that offer support could all face frivolous lawsuits. These cases would be extremely unlikely to hold up in court, but the bill’s intent is to scare people into silence and deter them from providing respect, dignity, and care to LGBTQ youth.”
At a hearing before the Arkansas House Judiciary Committee on March 18, Justin Brascher, the senior assistant attorney general for intergovernmental affairs for the Arkansas Attorney General’s Office, expressed concerns that, as currently drafted, the bill would likely infringe on the free speech rights of certain individuals, which are guaranteed by the first amendment.
“Particularly as it comes to the conduct that other individuals are allowed to have towards minors that can be deemed to be aiding in their social transitioning — things like a haircut, even clothing, or even the use of pronouns,” Brascher said. “That’s all speech. And so our concern there is that when you are criminalizing or, in this case, providing a civil cause of action for certain forms of speech, that has to pass a very, very high constitutional bar, and we have to be able to defend that in court. And we think of this bill as it currently is, we can’t do that.”
The bill’s lead sponsor, Rep. Mary Bentley (R-Perryville) — who has a history of introducing various anti-LGBTQ bills — indicated during the hearing that she would be willing to work with the Attorney General’s Office to amend the bill so that it doesn’t infringe on protected speech.
Several lawmakers on the committee appeared to be willing to support the bill with respect to the provisions regarding medical transition, to which the Attorney General’s Office did not appear to object.
However, Evelyn Rios Stafford, a justice of the peace from Washington County, and the only out transgender elected official in Arkansas, testified against the bill, noting that under its broad provisions, a person like her could be prosecuted for simply observing, during a brief introduction or conversation with the parent of a transgender child, “It seems like you’re very proud of your [child].”
Rios Stafford echoed concerns expressed by the ACLU, noting that she had heard from people in Washington County with concerns about how the proposed measure would be enforced.
“I’ve heard from hairdressers in our community, who are concerned about this bill, who are concerned that, if a parent comes in with a 17-year-old, and says, ‘I’d like my child to get a boys’ haircut, or get a pixie cut,’ or anything like that, that the hairdresser needs to be worried for the next 15 or 20 years about potentially being sued, maybe by the other parent, who wasn’t there at that time, who might have a different opinion,” Rios Stafford said. “It might be two parents who are estranged from each other, and might want to use this in a divorce proceeding, or some case like that.
“To me, this bill creates compelled speech,” she added, “which is something I thought that the majority of the legislature was trying to get away from. It opens the door to frivolous lawsuits, and it creates confusion among the public about what is protected by the First Amendment, and what isn’t.”
Support Metro Weekly’s Journalism
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.