A simmering legal battle in San Francisco is putting Mayor London Breed and the city's Guaranteed Income for Trans People (GIFT) program under the microscope. Launched by Breed in 2022, the program aimed to provide financial support to low-income transgender individuals, offering $1,200 monthly for up to 18 months. Currently, the program is reportedly assisting an estimated 55 people. However, Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, has filed a lawsuit against the program, accusing it of discrimination based on sex, race, and transgender status. "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," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement obtained by Judicial Watch.

The organization claims that the program unlawfully favors biologically male trans women—particularly those identifying as Black or Latino—over other demographic groups. The GIFT program, according to Judicial Watch's lawsuit, should notably not to exclude non-transgender, non-binary, gender non-conforming, or intersex individuals in its reach. The case, Phillips et al. v Breed et al. (No. 24-611915), alleges that GIFT violates the Equal Protection clause of the California Constitution by discriminating on the grounds of transgender status, sex, and race/ethnicity.

This legal challenge is not operating in isolation. The GIFT program has already faced a previous lawsuit from the group Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, in which fringe mayoral candidate and January 6 participant Ellen Lee Zhou is a plaintiff. Moreover, just last week, Judicial Watch took the Oakland Unified School District to court over an event they claim discriminated against white kids, as reported by SFist. The lawsuit intends to seek an injunction to shut down the GIFT program, though how it will unfold remains to be seen given that the initiative is set to sunset this coming August.

Previous legal victories lend some weight to Judicial Watch's recent actions. In May 2022, they successfully challenged California's gender quota law for corporate boards. Additionally, a lawsuit on behalf of a Minneapolis taxpayer proceeded after victory in the Minnesota Court of Appeals. These precedents suggest that Judicial Watch's case against the GIFT program may well find traction within the legal system, despite its overview to garner mixed reactions within the community.

With disbursements intended to continue through June 2024, the outcome of this lawsuit could significantly impact both the beneficiaries of the GIFT program and the broader discourse surrounding state-funded initiatives aimed at supporting marginalized groups.