A federal judge in Alabama has sanctioned three attorneys involved in a legal challenge to the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, accusing them of manipulating the judicial assignment process to secure a more favorable ruling. One attorney was also referred for potential criminal investigation.
U.S. District Judge Liles Burke, based in Montgomery, issued the penalties against Carl Charles of Lambda Legal, along with Melody Eagan and Jeffrey Doss of Lightfoot, Franklin & White. He accused them of “judge shopping”—attempting to sidestep the random case assignment system to steer their lawsuit toward a judge they considered more sympathetic.
According to the ruling, the attorneys aimed to avoid Burke’s courtroom, believing his appointment under a Republican administration would make him less likely to rule in their favor. However, Burke ultimately issued a temporary injunction against Alabama’s law before a higher court later reinstated the ban.
The judge criticized the sanctioned lawyers for failing to take responsibility, stating that their actions “erode public confidence in judicial impartiality” and burden the courts with unnecessary procedural complications.
In response, Lambda Legal defended Charles, asserting that he adhered to ethical and legal standards and would be vindicated in further proceedings. Lightfoot, Franklin & White also expressed disagreement with the decision and is reviewing its options.
As part of the sanctions, Eagan and Doss were barred from further participation in the case, while Charles was fined $5,000. Additionally, Burke referred Charles for possible disciplinary action in multiple states and for a federal criminal investigation over what he described as false testimony during the inquiry.
The controversy stems from a broader legal strategy often employed by both liberal and conservative groups seeking favorable judicial rulings on contentious policy issues. The case, initially filed in different districts of Alabama, was ultimately consolidated under Burke, leading to an attempt by plaintiffs’ lawyers to refile the lawsuit elsewhere.
This legal battle is part of the ongoing national debate over transgender rights and state-level restrictions on gender-affirming care.
