Why It Matters
A new lawsuit in Kentucky is challenging the state’s 6% sales tax on menstrual products, arguing that taxing tampons and pads while exempting comparable products used by men constitutes unconstitutional sex discrimination. The case could have significant implications for tax policy not only in Kentucky but across the 18 states that still levy similar taxes on period products.
For Kentucky women managing menstrual health conditions, the financial burden is not trivial. Those with conditions like polycystic ovary syndrome can spend as much as $50 per month on period supplies alone — costs that advocates argue the state has no rational basis to tax.
What Happened
Two Kentucky women, Alexandria Baldon and Skylar Davis, filed a lawsuit on March 9, 2026, in Jefferson Circuit Court in Louisville, asking the court to strike down Kentucky’s sales tax on tampons, menstrual pads, and other period products as unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs argue that Kentucky’s decision to tax menstrual products while exempting medical devices, colostomy supplies, prescription medications, and erectile dysfunction drugs — products used predominantly or exclusively by men — amounts to sex-based discrimination with no rational legal justification.
Baldon, a first-year law student at Northern Kentucky University’s Salmon P. Chase College of Law and a Louisville native currently residing in Cold Spring, has polycystic ovary syndrome. Her condition causes heavy menstrual periods, requiring higher-capacity and more expensive products. Davis is also named as a plaintiff, and both women describe spending significant portions of every month either actively managing menstrual bleeding or dealing with related medical symptoms.
The suit names Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman’s office as a defendant. A spokeswoman for Coleman’s office confirmed the lawsuit had been received and was under review.
The Legal Argument
The lawsuit contends that Kentucky’s tampon tax violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as equal protection guarantees contained in the Kentucky Constitution.
The plaintiffs describe the tax as “arbitrary and irrational,” pointing to the state’s existing framework of sales tax exemptions as evidence of selective treatment. Their complaint states that Kentucky “made a deliberate choice to exempt from sales tax the products that people need because of how their bodies work,” but excluded menstrual products from that same consideration.
“While a man in Kentucky can buy Viagra tax-free, a woman cannot buy a tampon or menstrual pad without being taxed,” the lawsuit states directly.
Period Law, a national advocacy organization focused on eliminating taxes on menstrual products, confirmed through its founder and executive director Laura Strausfeld that this is the first known legal challenge in Kentucky to target the so-called “tampon tax.”
By the Numbers
- 6% — Kentucky’s current sales tax rate applied to tampons, pads, and menstrual products
- 18 — the number of U.S. states that still levy a sales tax on period products, according to Period Law
- $50 — the approximate monthly cost Baldon reports spending on menstrual products due to her polycystic ovary syndrome
- March 9, 2026 — the date the lawsuit was filed in Jefferson Circuit Court
- 32 — the number of U.S. states that have already eliminated or never imposed a sales tax on menstrual products
Zoom Out
The push to eliminate taxes on period products has gained momentum nationally over the past decade. More than 30 states have now removed or exempted menstrual products from sales tax, often citing the same equal protection and public health arguments raised in the Kentucky suit.
States including Florida, Illinois, and New York have repealed their tampon taxes through legislative action in recent years, with some state legislatures framing the exemptions as matters of basic health equity. Litigation-based approaches, like the one filed in Kentucky, represent a newer and less common strategy, though advocates say court challenges may accelerate change in states where legislative efforts have stalled.
Kentucky’s legislature has not passed a menstrual product tax exemption despite previous advocacy efforts, making the courts a more direct path for challengers in the state.
What’s Next
The lawsuit now proceeds through Jefferson Circuit Court, where a judge will determine whether the constitutional challenge can move forward. Attorney General Russell Coleman’s office will likely file a formal response outlining the state’s legal position on the tax.
If the court rules in the plaintiffs’ favor, Kentucky would be required to repeal the 6% sales tax on menstrual products. A ruling against the plaintiffs could be appealed through Kentucky’s appellate court system, potentially reaching the Kentucky Supreme Court. Legal observers expect the case to draw national attention given its constitutional framing and the broader ongoing debate over menstrual equity across the United States.