Ignoring parents, Ohio judge lets ban on gender-affirming care take effect

COLUMBUS (CN) — A common pleas court judge swept aside legal challenges from the parents of transgender minors and the ACLU Tuesday and ruled Ohio's ban on gender affirming care is constitutional.

The decision from Franklin County Judge Michael Holbrook, a Republican, followed a five-day bench trial in July and rejected the civil rights groups' equal protection, due process, and other constitutional arguments.

Freda Levenson, legal director of the ACLU of Ohio, said an appeal is being prepared and lamented Holbrook's decision in a statement.

"This loss is not just devastating for our brave clients, but for the many transgender youth and their families across the state who require this critical, life-saving health care. While this decision by the court is a genuine setback, it is not the end of the road in our fight to secure the constitutional rights of transgender youth, as well as all Ohioans' right to bodily autonomy," she said.

The families and the ACLU claimed in the lawsuit that House Bill 68, which includes the Save Women's Sports Act and the health care ban, violated Ohio's "one subject rule" which precludes the passage of legislation that deals with more than one subject.

But Holbrook disagreed, finding that while the rule is mandatory, judicial enforcement is "limited" and that typically courts proceed with a presumption of constitutionality based on Ohio Supreme Court precedent that allows multifaceted laws, so long as they deal with a "common purpose."

"At first glance, there appears to be a disunity of subject matter in the act. Indeed, the substance of the act relates to parental rights with respect [to] their transgender children as well as transgender adolescents' access to gender affirming care and transgender females' access to interscholastic sports according to their gender or sex to which they identify," Holbrook wrote.

"However, the law compels this court to conclude that the act contains a common purpose or relationship; namely, the General Assembly's regulation of transgender individuals. No matter how abhorrent that may be to some, it is a 'legitimate subject' for purposes of the single subject rule under the laws of the state of Ohio at this time."

The equal protection claim brought by the ACLU and parents was given short shrift by Holbrook, who upheld the law as being reasonably related to Ohio's legitimate interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens.

"[The health care ban] is limited to minors. Moreover, the medical care banned carries with it undeniable risk and permanent outcomes. Indeed, countries once confident in the administration of gender-affirming care to minors are now reversing their position as a result of the significant inconsistencies in results and potential side effects of the care. Thus, there can be no doubt that the health care ban is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable," he wrote.

The office of Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost supported the court's decision in a statement released Tuesday afternoon.

"The attorney general applauds the trial court's decision. This case has always been about the legislature's authority to enact a law to protect our children from making irreversible medical and surgical decisions about their bodies. The law doesn't say 'no' forever; it simply says 'not now' while the child is still growing," Yost said.

The act was passed by Republican supermajorities in both the Ohio House and Senate in late January, but only after they overrode a veto from Republican Governor Mike DeWine.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in March and was granted a preliminary injunction by Holbrook to prevent enforcement, but today's decision allows the law to go into effect immediately.

Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the ACLU, lambasted Holbrook's decision in a statement made alongside that of Levenson.

"This is a devastating result for our clients and families like theirs across the state of Ohio. HB 68's ban on medical treatments for gender dysphoria remains medically baseless and genuinely dangerous to the current and future well-being of transgender youth in the state.

"We are particularly appalled the court claims the 'regulation of transgender individuals' is a legitimate subject for the legislature under the state constitution. Make no mistake — this fight is not over," she said.

Follow @@kkoeninger44

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit