By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
Transgender flag button and judge's gavel
The ban interferes with parental rights, according to a state-level court.
A state-level court in Ohio has overturned a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth.
Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.
A three-judge panel of the Tenth District Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the ban violates the Ohio constitution. The constitution upholds residents' "right to choose to receive health care that follows the widely accepted guidelines and treatment protocols of the professional medical community in the United States," Judge Carly Edelstein wrote for the panel. "We are duty-bound to secure the enjoyment of this right to all who are deprived of it by state action."
The judges sent the case back to the trial court, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, and directed that court to issue a permanent injunction stopping enforcement of the ban on administration of puberty blockers and other hormone therapies to minors for the purpose of gender transition.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, however, said he would appeal and ask for a stay of the Tenth District’s ruling.
Ohio legislators approved the ban, part of House Bill 68, in January 2024 by overriding Republican Gov. Mike DeWine’s veto. “Were I to sign House Bill 68, or were House Bill 68 to become law, Ohio would be saying that the state, that the government knows better what is medically best for a child than the two people who love that child the most: their parents,” DeWine said in vetoing the bill. But the legislature’s Republican supermajority overrode him.
Two families with trans children filed suit against the ban. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, its Ohio affiliate, and the law firm of Goodwin Procter. They argued that HB 68 violated the state constitution’s single-subject rule for legislation, as it also included restrictions on sports participation by trans youth, and that the ban on puberty blockers and hormonal treatment endangered trans young people. The suit did not address the sports restrictions or a ban on gender-affirming surgery for minors, which is rare.
Franklin County Judge Michael J. Holbrook issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the ban on pharmaceutical treatment last April, but he reversed himself in August, letting it go into effect. In the latter decision, he said the parents should use the legislative process, not the courts, to oppose the ban.
The appeals court judges weren’t having that. Upholding the ban “would not just be detrimental for the parents of transgender minors,” Judge Carly Edelstein wrote for the panel. “It would be disastrous for all parents seeking access to modern medical care for their children. Surely, the force of this fundamental right is not handcuffed to the 19th century medical practices of bloodletting, purging, and the rampant prescribing of alcohol, cocaine, and opiate-based medicines.”
Judge Julia Dorrian concurred, writing, “I would find that H.B. 68’s complete ban on the prescription of puberty blocking and cross-sex hormone drugs to assist minors with gender transition is not narrowly tailored to promote the state’s compelling interest in protecting children.”
While the state presented experts who disagreed with the prevailing medical consensus that this treatment is a positive thing for trans minors, “the state did not present, and the trial court did not find, any contrary evidence-based standards accepted by any nationally or internationally recognized professional medical groups,” Edelstein continued.
“The testimony of parent-appellants confirmed they have made the decision to access gender-affirming care for their children after discussions with and observations of their child, thorough research, counseling, and consultation with a doctor. So long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children, ‘there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent’s children,’” she added, quoting a U.S. Supreme Court decision on parental rights. “Yet, in enacting a categorical ban on the use of puberty blockers and hormones ‘for the purpose of assisting the minor individual with gender transition,’ the Ohio General Assembly has done precisely that.”
The court did not rule on violation of the single-subject regulation, with Edelstein saying it is a moot point.
The attorneys for the plaintiffs praised the ruling. “Today, we celebrate this win not only for our brave plaintiffs, but for all LGBTQ+ Ohioans and their families,” Freda Levenson, legal director at the ACLU of Ohio, said in a press release. “This win restores the right of trans youth in Ohio to choose vitally important health care, with the support of their families and physicians. We are gratified by the Court’s decision, which soundly rejects this interference of politicians with Ohioans’ bodily autonomy. Although this litigation will likely not end here, we remain fervently committed to preventing this egregious bill from ever again taking effect. The path towards protecting the rights and civil liberties of trans Ohioans goes on, and we will continue to hold the torch.”
Yost quickly issued a statement saying he would appeal the ruling. The next step would be the Ohio Supreme Court. He also said the treatments banned by the law are irreversible, which they are not.
“This is a no brainer — we are appealing that decision and will seek an immediate stay,” Yost said. “There is no way I’ll stop fighting to protect these unprotected children. Ohio’s elected representatives properly passed legislation protecting children from irreversible chemical sex change procedures, and the trial court upheld the law. But now the 10th district court of appeals has just greenlighted these permanent medical interventions against minors.”
