London, 14 May 2025 – We are preparing to challenge the lawfulness of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) decision to publish its interim guidance titled “An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment.”
This is the first legal action challenging the unlawful EHRC interim guidance that seeks to “regulate” the private lives of trans people—but it will certainly not be the last. The LGBTQI+ community stands united against any attempt to reverse progress.
This should serve as a warning to any employers or service providers considering the implementation of the EHRC’s discriminatory policy agenda.
Update as of 16 May: This action is separate from those brought by the Good Law Project and TransLucent.
“The EHRC will be sued if it doesn’t back down — and so will you”
The Gender Recognition Act 2004 was enacted to provide clarity and certainty regarding gender recognition and its interaction with anti-discrimination law. It aimed to ensure that individuals with a gender recognition certificate would receive strengthened anti-discrimination and privacy protections in their acquired gender. The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Scottish Ministers cannot overturn that intent, nor can it claim to settle the construction of gendered language in all contexts. In fact, the court introduced clarity without certainty. It should be approached with caution, not exploited.
However, the EHRC appears to have taken this opportunity to advance a regressive policy agenda. Its interim publication presents a series of controversial positions, including the wholesale acceptance of the redefinition of gender/sex under the Equality Act 2010 based on outdated concepts rooted in the historical subordination of trans people — concepts the Court referred to as "biological sex," but which we identify more accurately as “1975-sexes”, referring to definitions of legal status inherited from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
1975, that was half a century ago. It should be noted Ministers continue to have the power to amend primary legislation to ensure the use of modern, inclusive language, in line with the purpose of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010.
One EHRC Commissioner, Akua Reindorf KC, was overheard in the Supreme Court building plotting with activists from other hate groups about the next steps to take once the judgment was delivered. Reindorf confided that a majority of the EHRC board had rejected her legal advice and policy initiatives, and she expressed the perverse hope that the situation would change following the ruling. She believed that winning the case would help her gain the board’s trust, which in turn would allow her to behave as though she had a free pass to pursue policies rooted in hostility toward trans people.
This is one of the factual grounds for the challenge.
The fact that EHRC decision-making was influenced by ideology rather than impartial legal reasoning raises serious questions about the institution’s credibility and independence.
In light of the lack of transparency surrounding the publication and the uncertainty regarding its legal foundation, we are actively exploring legal avenues to challenge this decision.
We believe the EHRC’s interim guidance is not only legally questionable but also ethically indefensible. Its contents:
Misinterpret or misrepresent the Supreme Court’s judgment;
Encourage employers and service providers to discriminate against trans people through so-called “per policy” exclusions;
Promote a hostile environment in which trans people are denied equal access to basic facilities and services;
Discourage inclusive design and best practices in workplace and public accommodations;
Risk violating trans people’s rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights;
Exacerbate socioeconomic inequality faced by trans people.
The EHRC was once a watchdog of equality and human rights. Its recent actions mark a departure from that mandate. We call on Parliament, the media, and the public to scrutinise this shift, and to stand with those whose rights, dignity, and safety are being put at risk.
The letter before claim to the EHRC from Ashley is available: here.
Media enquiry: Ashleeee 🌊🪭 - bluesky
Crowdfunding: No, we don't need donations at this stage.
Note to ally organisations: we are not coordinating with any other potential claimants. You should pursue your own actions. However, feel free to reach out to us.
The author is a former lawyer and specialises in intellectual property, international trade, and public law. She is an entrepreneur helping to make the world more sustainable.