Judicial Watch: San Francisco Taxpayers Sue over San Francisco Discriminatory Payments to ‘Black/Latinx’ Men (‘Transgender Women’)

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced it filed a lawsuit on behalf of San Francisco taxpayers over a city program which discriminates in favor of biological black and Latino men who identify as women in the distribution of tax money. The taxpayer lawsuit was filed today against San Francisco Mayor London Breed, City Treasurer Jose Cisneros, the director of the city’s Office of Transgender Initiatives, and City Administrator Carmen Chu for violating the Equal Protection clause of the California Constitution (Phillips et al. v Breed et al. (No. 24-611915)).

Mayor Breed announced the launch of the Guaranteed Income for Trans People (GIFT) program on November 16, 2022. The mayor’s office stated in a press release that the city will “provide low-income transgender San Franciscans with $1,200 each month, up to 18 months to help address financial insecurity within trans communities.”

According to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit:

Applicants who do not identify as transgender, non-binary, gender non-conforming, or intersex are not eligible to participate in the GIFT program.

Applicants are prioritized based on their biological sex and race/ethnicity. Biological males identifying as female are given preference over biological females identifying as male, and applicants identifying as Black or Latino are given preference over applicants identifying as other races/ethnicities.

The program began disbursing funds in January 2023. GIFT payments to these participants will continue through June 2024.

Judicial Watch’s taxpayer clients allege that San Francisco is discriminating in violation of Article 1, Section 7 of the state constitution on three counts:

Transgender Status Discrimination:

Plaintiffs contend that any expenditure of taxpayer funds or taxpayer-financed resources on the GIFT program is illegal … because of the requirement that eligible participants be transgender, non-binary, gender nonconforming, or intersex is immediately suspect and presumptively invalid and cannot survive strict scrutiny review.

Sex Discrimination:

[P]laintiffs contend that any expenditure of taxpayer funds or taxpayer-financed resources on the GIFT program is illegal … because the program grants preferential treatment to biological males who identify as females …

Race/Ethnicity Discrimination:

Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that any expenditure of taxpayer funds or taxpayer-financed resources on the GIFT program is illegal … because the program grants preferential treatment to persons who identify as Black or Latino …

In conclusion, Judicial Watch’s taxpayer clients seek:

A judgment declaring any and all expenditures of taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources on the GIFT program to be illegal [and]

An injunction permanently prohibiting Defendants from expending or causing the expenditure of taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources on the GIFT program[.]

“The transgender extremists running San Francisco are illegally using taxpayer money to hand out free cash to transgender individuals based on race and sex in blatant violation of the state’s constitution,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

In October 2023, a Judicial Watch open records request forced the release of records from the City of San Francisco showing the city prioritized tax money for black and Latino transgenders (biological men) in the (GIFT) program, which also allowed illegal aliens to apply; allowed people who “engage in survival sex trades” to apply; and the use of the funds by participants was virtually unrestricted.

In December 2023, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling and allowed Judicial Watch’s historic lawsuit filed on behalf of a Minneapolis taxpayer over a teachers’ contract that provides discriminatory job protections to certain racial minorities to proceed.

In May 2022, Judicial Watch won a court battle against California’s gender quota law for corporate boards. The verdict came after a 28-day trial. The verdict followed a similar ruling in Judicial Watch’s favor in April finding California’s race, ethnicity and LGBT quotas for corporate boards unconstitutional.

The City of Asheville, NC, in January 2022 settled a Judicial Watch federal civil rights lawsuit after agreeing to remove all racially discriminatory provisions in a city-funded scholarship program. Additionally, the city agreed to remove racially discriminatory eligibility provisions in a related program that provides grants to educators.

###