Higdon considers the discrimination built into state "Romeo and Juliet" laws -- laws that offer an exception to statutory rape laws is the defendant is close in age to the minor victim, usually within three years. Some states, however (e.g., Texas, Alabama, and California), restrict this exception to acts between opposite sexes, meaning that gay teens face "felony convictions, large fines and mandatory sex offender registration -- penalties that would not attach had the victim been the opposite gender." For obvious reasons the author finds this inequitable treatment cruel, and that it qualifies as "invidious discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause."

Transgender youth face a number of obstacles when considering their options for transitioning. The author reviews some of the legal variables associated with the three scenarios of parental agreement, parental disagreement between themselves about transitioning, and when both parents oppose the process. While this discussion may not be as in-depth as some would like, it can serve as an accessible means to frame one's deeper investigation of the issues.

The civil commitment process, mental health evaluators, and widely held notions of appropriate sexual behavior jeopardize the personal autonomy of heterosexual girls and homosexual boys in the state’s care. This article focuses on the failure of Florida courts to play a watchdog role over diagnoses of “conduct disorder” in civil commitment proceedings, and urges child advocates take action to protect the autonomy of vulnerable minors.

Caudillo v. Lubbock Independent School District became the first case in which a court, when applying the Equal Access Act (EAA), has upheld a school district’s ban of a gay/straight alliance (GSA) from meeting on school grounds. The author of this note questions the validity of the courts reasoning on a number of grounds including: 1) an outright ban did not meet the “least restrictive method” test of protecting students from sexually explicit material, 2) access was denied based upon speculative misconduct (i.e. the meetings were inherently based on sex and sexual activity), and 3) the court incorrectly applied the “well-being exception” to the EAA, thereby creating a “heckler’s veto” (i.e. the school district contended that the GSA was excluded to protect its members from harassment).

This article questions the reasoning of Caudillo v. Lubbock Independent School District, [311 F. Supp. 2d 550 (N.D. Tex. 2004)], in which the court upheld the school district’s decision not to allow Gay And Proud (GAP) Youth to meet on school grounds. The author contends that the school district violated both the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act. The author argues that the court’s reasoning “represents a strong departure from the First Amendment and Equal Access Act jurisprudence on student speech in school settings…[and] establishes a discriminatory and unconstitutional precedent.”

In 1920 Harvard College venomously pursued students it thought were homosexual. It convened a secret court, "tried" about twenty students, and expelled seven undergraduates. Targeting both gays and friends of gays, Harvard was unsatisfied with expelling the men, but afterward displayed a "relentless commitment to hunting these men down and sabotaging their efforts to finish school, find work, and self-actualize." The harassment continued for decades, as when Harvard tried to derail the 1953 elevation of Joseph Lumbard to the federal appeals court. Several committed suicide as a result. Ronner situates this horrific episode alongside the Salem witch hunts, and the post-9/11 climate to show that "the malevolent forces that propel witch hunts are omnipresent and can spring into action at any time."

This contribution collects and annotates materials related to LGBT youth (defined as "falling somewhere between the ages of ten and twenty"). The citations were collected "to assist practitioners, policymakers, and scholars working on issues affecting queer youth."