Ohio Appeals Court Strikes Down Trans Care Ban for Minors (1)

An Ohio appeals court struck down a Republican-backed law banning gender-affirming care for minors, ruling that it doesn’t comport with the state constitution.

In a win for the transgender plaintiffs and their parents, the Columbus-based Ohio Court of Appeals, Tenth District, said Tuesday that a 2023 law banning the treatment violates the minor plaintiffs’ rights under the Ohio Constitution’s Health Care Freedom Amendment and their parents’ right to direct their children’s health care.

Ohio Attorney General David Yost vowed to immediately appeal the decision. “This is a no brainer,” he said in an e-mailed statement, adding that he’ll also seek an order allowing the state to continue enforcing the provision during the appeal.

ACLU of Ohio legal director Freda Levenson acknowledged the state’s likely appeal, but said the group remains “committed to preventing this egregious bill from ever again taking effect.”

Judge Carly M. Edelstein, joined by Judge Michael C. Mentel, said the ban on treating minors suffering from gender dysphoria with puberty-blocking drugs and hormone therapy constituted an unconstitutional ban on a specific category of medical care.

The 2011 voter-approved constitutional amendment specifically gives people the right to make their own health-care decisions, they said.

The case is all but certain to end up in front of the state supreme court, which Republicans control 6-1.

Evidence-Based Standard

Gender-affirming care is health care, and the amendment doesn’t permit banning it, the judges said. They added that the challenged treatments currently represent the accepted, evidence-based standard of care for transgender youth.

“Having taken an oath to uphold the Ohio Constitution, the members of Ohio’s state legislature are under constitutional mandate to accord the benefit of all constitutional rights to Ohio citizens,” the judges said.

Lawmakers acted contrary to that oath “by enacting legislation that denies some Ohio citizens enjoyment of their right to choose to receive health care that follows the widely accepted guidelines and treatment protocols of the professional medical community,” they said.

Judge Julia L. Dorrian concurred in the result, saying she would reverse the lower court decision upholding the ban only to the extent that the law violates parents’ state constitutional right to purchase health care.

Dorrian also agreed that the law violates parents’ fundamental right to direct their children’s health care.

The judges didn’t weigh in on a provision that bars transgender athletes from competing on school sports teams consistent with their gender identity, or one that banned gender-affirming surgeries for youths.

The challengers are represented by the ACLU of Ohio Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, and Goodwin Procter LLP. The state defendants are represented by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office.

The case is Moe v. Yost, Ohio Ct. App., 10th Dist., No. 24-AP-000483, 3/18/25.