The Courier-Journal (Louisville)
Appeals court upholds ban on gender-affirming care
Panel reversed injunction issued in summer
Kentucky’s new law banning gender-affirming care for transgender kids will continue to stay in effect, as a federal appeals court Thursday reversed a lower court injunction on the ban issued this summer.
The ACLU of Kentucky filed the lawsuit in early May on behalf of transgender children and their parents to block portions of Senate Bill 150 — a wideranging bill targeting trans youth — that banned physicians from providing puberty blockers and hormone therapy to those under 18 years of age.
While U.S. District Judge David Hale issued a temporary injunction on the law in late June — only to stay his own own injunction two weeks later — the 2-1 decision Thursday evening of the 6th Circuit reversed that decision and remanded the case back to the lower court. The decision also upheld Tennessee’s new ban on gender-affirming care for transgender kids, as the court had combined cases from both states challenging the constitutionality of the laws.
Hale’s previous injunction stated that the treatments barred by Kentucky’s SB 150 “are medically appropriate and necessary for some transgender children under the evidence-based standard of care accepted by all major medical organizations in the United States” — a win for parents who said the law singled out trans kids by blocking access to medical care that cisgender kids can receive and unjustly limited their right to make medical decisions for their children.
However, the 6th Circuit majority ruled that judges should not step in to reverse legislative actions about such treatments for “a relatively new diagnosis with ever-shifting approaches to care over the last decade or two.”
“Under these circumstances, it is difficult for anyone to be sure about predicting the long-term consequences of abandoning age limits of any sort for these treatments,” Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote in the majority opinion. “That is precisely the kind of situation in which life-tenured judges construing a difficult-to-amend Constitution should be humble and careful about announcing new substantive due process or equal protection rights that limit accountable elected officials from sorting out these medical, social, and policy challenges.”
The dissenting opinion of Judge Helene N. White stated that these specific provisions of SB 150 “discriminate based on sex and gender conformity and intrude on the well-established province of parents to make medical decisions for their minor children.”
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, whose office defended the law in the case, issued a statement praising the ruling to uphold a bill that “protects kids from permanent, invasive harm caused by puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.” He also criticized Gov. Andy Beshear, his opponent in the November gubernatorial election, for previously vetoing it.
“These gender interventions, billed as medical care, cause permanent harm to vulnerable children and their health,” Cameron said. “Despite full-throated denials by Governor Beshear and his far-left activists, our children would still be under attack without SB 150. Andy Beshear won’t protect our kids, but I will, and I am proud to carry the mantle for this important law.”
The Beshear administration did not
“Under these circumstances, it is difficult for anyone to be sure about predicting the long-term consequences of abandoning age limits of any sort for these treatments.”
Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton
immediately respond to an email late Thursday seeking comment.
While Beshear has said he opposes gender reassignment surgery for kids, he said his veto of SB 150 was because it “tears away the freedom of parents to do what those parents believe is best for their kids and instead has big government making those decisions for everyone, even if the parents disagree.”
Corey Shapiro, the ACLU of Kentucky’s legal director, said the plaintiffs are disappointed with the court’s majority ruling that “ignored the extensive evidence from the actual medical experts and the trial court who all agreed that this care is medically necessary, effective, and appropriate.”
“While it is disheartening that the panel believes it is constitutional for the government to prohibit transgender youth from accessing such necessary health care, this is only a temporary setback,” Shapiro said. “We will continue fighting to restore that care permanently in the commonwealth.”