The Ohio Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of an Ohio law banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth.
The court heard oral arguments last Tuesday in a case challenging Ohio House Bill 68 and a decision will be made in the coming months. The court is made up of six Republicans and one Democratic justice.
The law — which prevents transgender youth from starting hormone therapy and puberty blockers — took effect in April 2024 after the Ohio House and the Senate voted to override Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine’s veto.
“H.B. 68 prevents parents from accessing treatment that they and their children believe is necessary, that is recommended by the minors’ treating physicians, and that is available for minors with other medical conditions,” said Jordan Bock, arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Ohio, and the law firm Goodwin filed a lawsuit in 2024 on behalf of two transgender girls and their families. One of the girls was already using puberty-blocking medication and the other was meeting with doctors about starting the process when the lawsuit was filed.
“Grace questioned whether dying would allow her to return as a girl,” Bock said. “And Madeline Moe told her parents that she wished she could die and just be reborn. But after being able to live as girls, they thrived.”
The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas rejected the plaintiff’s challenge to the law in August 2024, allowing the gender-affirming care ban to go into effect. The ACLU of Ohio appealed the decision and the Tenth District Court of Appeals ordered a permanent injunction to be entered against the bill in March 2025.
Gender-affirming care is supported by every major medical organization in the United States.
“It does not mean there is a right answer in any particular case, but it is the parents that have the right to decide, given the girls’ own circumstances, whether treatment is appropriate,” Bock said.
Bock argued the ban goes against the Health Care Freedom Amendment Ohio voters approved in 2011.
Ohio’s Solicitor General Marthura Sridharan, however, argued children do not have a constitutional right to obtain gender reassignment procedures.
“Parents have discretion to govern the medical treatment of their children,” she said during oral arguments. “Even if there are some benefits to treating gender dysphoria through gender reassignment medications, well, that is not overridden by the significant risks and the significant costs.”
Sridharan mentioned Chloe Cole, who started transitioning at 12 and began detransitioning at 16.
“Children would write away their fertility for life,” Sridharan said. “They suffer other serious physical consequences and on top of that, there’s significant known and unknown psychological risks.”
Democratic Ohio Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Brunner mentioned how DeWine spent time talking with families of transgender youth before he vetoed the bill.
“I’m only bringing that up for the reason that the evidence to the kids showed that there are children who actually harm themselves without the care that they get based upon their gender dysphoria,” she said.