Published September, 2026
OUTMemphis and the Use of the Americans with Disabilities Act
This resource explains the legal challenge in OUTMemphis v. Skrmetti, a Tennessee case contesting the state’s “aggravated prostitution” law, which imposes felony penalties on people who know they are living with HIV while treating otherwise identical conduct as a misdemeanor. The lawsuit argues that this HIV-specific punishment is discriminatory and violates federal disability law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The resource breaks down the case’s constitutional, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act claims and explains why OUTMemphis is significant as the first case to directly challenge a state HIV criminalization law using the ADA.
The resource also traces important developments in Tennessee, including a U.S. Department of Justice finding that the law subjected people living with HIV to harsher punishment solely because of their HIV status, legislative reforms ending sex offense registry requirements tied to the law, and settlements that removed affected people from the registry. In March 2026, a federal district court allowed the ADA claim in OUTMemphis to move forward, recognizing that the ADA can protect against disability discrimination within the criminal legal system. The resource concludes with ways advocates can use disability-rights law, litigation, and coalition-based legislative reform to challenge HIV criminalization beyond Tennessee.
This resource was produced in cooperation with Team ATAC partner, the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard University.
Copyright Information: CHLP encourages the broad use and sharing of resources. Please credit CHLP when using these materials or their content. and do not alter, adapt or present as your work without prior permission from CHLP.
Legal Disclaimer: CHLP makes an effort to ensure legal information is correct and current, but the law is regularly changing, and the accuracy of the information provided cannot be guaranteed. The legal information in a given resource may not be applicable to all situations and is not—and should not be relied upon—as a substitute for legal advice.