Appeals court blocks Ohio's ban on gender-affirming care for minors
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio's ban on gender-affirming care for minors is unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked from being enforced, a three-judge panel of appellate judges ruled Tuesday. The law also banned trans women and girls from participating in female sports.
The state attorney general vowed an immediate appeal.
On Tuesday, the state's 10th District Court of Appeals reversed the decision made last summer to allow the law to go into effect after a judge found it 'reasonably limits parents' rights.' The law bans counseling, gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy for minors, unless they are already receiving such therapies and a doctor deems it risky to stop.
The litigation was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Ohio and the global law firm Goodwin, who argued the law not only denies health care to transgender children and teens, but specifically discriminates against them accessing it.
The court agreed and cited a number of flaws in the lower court's reasoning.
She said that the Ohio law does not outlaw identical drugs when they're used for other reasons, only when they're used for gender transitioning, which makes it discriminatory. She also said that a prescription ban is not a reasonable exercise of the state's power when it is weighed against the rights of parents to care for their children.
Addressing proponents' arguments that minors are not in a position to understand the long-term impacts such procedures could have on their lives, the judge said that, while they may not be, their parents are.
'Thus, in considering whether the H.B. 68 ban is reasonable, it is necessary to keep in mind that the law recognizes the maturity, experience, and capacity of parents to make difficult judgments and act in their children's best interest,' she wrote.
The ACLU called the ruling 'historic.'
'This win restores the right of trans youth in Ohio to choose vitally important health care, with the support of their families and physicians,' Freda Levenson, legal director of the ACLU of Ohio, said in a statement. 'We are gratified by the Court's decision, which soundly rejects this interference of politicians with Ohioans' bodily autonomy.'
Tuesday's ruling marked the second blow for the legislation.
Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed the law in December 2023, after touring the state to visit children's hospitals and talking to families of children with gender dysphoria. He cast his action as thoughtful, limited and 'pro-life' — citing the suicide risks associated with minors who don't get proper treatment for gender dysphoria.
DeWine simultaneously announced plans to move to administratively ban gender-affirming surgeries until a person is 18, and to position the state to better regulate and track gender-affirming treatments in both children and adults. He hoped the move would allay concerns of fellow Republicans at the Ohio Statehouse, but the administration swiftly backed off that plan after transgender adults raised serious concerns about how state regulations could impact their lives and health.
Ohio lawmakers stood their ground on the bill, easily overriding his veto — making Ohio the 23rd state to ban gender-affirming health care for trans youth.
Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a candidate to succeed DeWine next year, quickly released a statement saying that he will appeal Tuesday's ruling.
'This is a no-brainer — we are appealing that decision and will seek an immediate stay,' he said. 'There is no way I'll stop fighting to protect these unprotected children.'
Levenson acknowledged Tuesday that it's likely not the end of the legal dispute, but said her organization remained 'fervently committed' to preventing the bill from ever taking effect again.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Oklahoma inmate Richard Glossip to face new murder trial but without death penalty
Oklahoma's top prosecutor said Monday the state intends to pursue a new murder trial against inmate Richard Glossip but without the death penalty after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated his capital conviction in a rare victory for a death row prisoner. State Attorney General Gentner Drummond's decision to retry Glossip, 62, on a first-degree murder charge came out of a status conference hearing. In a news release, Drummond said, the evidence still implicates him in the 1997 murder of Oklahoma City motel owner Barry Van Treese. Glossip, a motel manager working for Van Treese, has maintained his innocence while he was on death row for almost three decades. While Drummond, a Republican, has not agreed with Glossip's innocence claims, he was supportive of the Supreme Court's ruling in February, when the majority of justices, he said, agreed "it is now an undeniable fact that he did not receive a fair trial." He said in a statement Monday that he would ensure Glossip receives an impartial one now. "While it was clear to me and to the U.S. Supreme Court that Mr. Glossip did not receive a fair trial, I have never proclaimed his innocence," Drummond said. "After the high court remanded the matter back to district court, my office thoroughly reviewed the merits of the case against Richard Glossip and concluded that sufficient evidence exists to secure a murder conviction." Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Behenna, a Democrat, had previously indicated that Glossip would not be eligible for the death penalty now if he were to be retried. Drummond said he would seek a life sentence for Glossip at his next trial. "While I cannot go back 25 years and handle the case in the proper way that would have ensured true justice, I still have a duty to seek the justice that is available today," he added. The continuation of the state's prosecution against Glossip resumes a twisting case that saw him dodge death several times with nine separate execution dates that had to be postponed. Various courts had delayed the executions as he appealed, while state corrections officials also came under scrutiny a decade ago for botched execution attempts. But Glossip's case had been championed in recent years by a bipartisan group of Oklahoma legislators after an indepe n dent report they commissioned in 2022 found that "no reasonable jury hearing the complete record would convict Glossip of first-degree murder." The report centered on the state's primary witness, Justin Sneed, who had confirmed to the report's investigators that he had discussions with multiple family members about "recanting" his testimony over an 11-year period. Investigators also said the district attorney's case file included documentation describing how the state provided Sneed information "so he could conform his testimony to match the evidence" from other witnesses. Glossip's original 1998 conviction was overturned in 2001, when a state appeals court found that the evidence against him was weak. But the state took him to trial again, and a second jury found him guilty in 2004. At Glossip's trial, Sneed, a motel handyman, admitted that he killed Van Treese, but said that it was at Glossip's direction and that he had been promised $10,000. In exchange for testifying against Glossip, Sneed received a life sentence while Glossip was given the death penalty. Prosecutors said Glossip orchestrated the plot because he was embezzling from the motel and feared being fired. The Supreme Court tossed out Glossip's capital conviction in a 5-3 ruling. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate, presumably because he was involved in the case when he was on a federal appeals court that includes Oklahoma. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority's ruling that prosecutors "knew Sneed's statements were false" and that "because Sneed's testimony was the only direct evidence of Glossip's guilt of capital murder, the jury's assessment of Sneed's credibility was necessarily determinative here." "Hence, there is a reasonable likelihood that correcting Sneed's testimony would have affected the judgment of the jury," she added. After the Supreme Court's decision, Glossip was moved off death row, but was held without bail in the Oklahoma County Detention Center on a first-degree murder charge. A next court date in Glossip's case is scheduled for June 17. Glossip's attorney, Don Knight, did not immediately comment about the prosecutors' decision, but had welcomed the Supreme Court's ruling in February that spared his longtime client from the death chamber. "He had nine execution dates, three last meals, and obviously, to finally get relief has been huge for him," Knight said, "and he's thrilled beyond words."
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Poll: Trump's latest approval rating falls
A new poll shows that President Donald Trump's approval rating has fallen after his public feud with Elon Musk over the spending bill he is trying to push through Congress. Trump's approval rating is now at 47 percent, according to the latest Daily Mail tracking poll conducted with J.L. Partners. The majority of Republicans, 59 percent, side with Trump, while just 12 percent side with Musk. Twenty-eight percent of Republicans remain unsure. Twenty-six percent of unaffiliated Americans also support Trump, with 20 percent siding with Musk. A plurality of Democrats now side with Musk, with 35 percent now backing him rather than just ten percent who support Trump. The majority of Democrats and unaffiliated Americans, each at 54 percent, are also uncertain about who to side with, suggesting room for each figure to grow their support. Despite Musk's threat on Thursday to create a new political third-party, there is still minimal support among American voters for the idea. Just four percent of voters signal support for a Musk party while 42 percent support a Democratic candidate and 35 percent support Republicans. After hardcore Trump supporters publicly called for Musk to get deported, just 30 percent of Americans support the idea while 35 percent of opposed. Musk left the White House at the end of May ending his time as a special advisor to Trump and spearheading his effort to cut government waste, fraud, and abuse with his DOGE team. But voters are increasingly skeptical about the success of his efforts. Forty-one percent view Musk's DOGE as a failure and 33 percent view it as a success.
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Florida Republicans criticize Trump's immigration arrests: ‘Unacceptable and inhumane'
A co-founder of a group for Latinas who support Donald Trump has excoriated the president on some of the immigration-related arrests being carried out by his administration, which she called 'unacceptable and inhumane'. In a statement posted on X over the weekend, Ileana Garcia wrote, 'This is not what we voted for.' The post from the Florida state senator asserted that she had supported Trump, her fellow Republican, 'through thick and thin' and understood the need to remove from the US undocumented people who had committed crimes. But she criticized how federal authorities had arrested people at immigration courts across the country despite 'credible fear of persecution claims' as the Trump White House ramped up his mass deportation campaign after his second presidency began in January. Referring to Stephen Miller, Trump's homeland security adviser and deputy chief of staff, Garcia said: 'What we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings … all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal. 'This undermines the sense of fairness and justice that the American people value.' Garcia's statement expressed solidarity with comments issued Friday by another Florida Republican: US House member Maria Elvira Salazar. In a statement, Salazar had said the Trump administration's policies had exposed thousands to deportation and seemed to disregard for the 'duty to due process that every democracy must guarantee'. Salazar's statement added that those with pending asylum claims deserved 'to go through the legal process' while urging the Trump administration to keep focused on removing 'every criminal here illegally'. Garcia alluded to how she represents Salazar's congressional district in Florida's state senate and said her Cuban refugee parents are 'now just as American, if not more so, than Stephen Miller'. 'I am deeply disappointed by these actions,' Garcia's statement said. 'And I will not stand down.' Garcia's remarks are not the first time she has gotten cross with the Trump administration. She served as a deputy press secretary for the US homeland security department during Trump's first presidency before leaving the post in March 2019, ahead of his defeat in the 2020 election to Joe Biden and her joining the Florida state senate. During his unsuccessful 2020 run, Trump's campaign launched its own official Hispanic outreach coalition and delivered multiple cease and desist letters threatening legal action against the Latinos for Trump organization who had supported his victorious first presidential run, as ABC News reported at the time. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion The Latinas for Trump organization that Garcia helped establish was affiliated with that group, and she said she was stunned to learn of the cease and desist letters in question. Garcia accused the Trump administration of having 'refused to embrace surrogates from the Latino community who did the real groundwork, took the bullets, took the insults and lost their jobs' as he ascended to the presidency. 'It's actually quite disappointing,' she said then. Trump won the Florida vote in each of his three presidential campaigns. His Mar-a-Lago resort is in the state as well.
