
Appeals court blocks Ohio's ban on gender-affirming care for minors
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 10th District Court of Appeals reversed a lower court judge's decision last summer to allow the law to go into effect, after finding 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 appellate court agreed, in a 2-1 majority opinion written by Judge Carly Edelstein, and cited a number of flaws in the lower court's reasoning.
The judge 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 police 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 who serves as the Legislature 's lawyer, 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 that Tuesday's ruling was likely not the end of the legal dispute, but she said in a statement that 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

Rhyl Journal
15 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Hegseth says the Pentagon has contingency plans to invade Greenland if necessary
Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee repeatedly got into heated exchanges with Mr Hegseth, with some of the toughest lines of questioning coming from military veterans as many demanded yes or no answers and he tried to avoid direct responses about his actions as Pentagon chief. In one back-and-forth, Mr Hegseth did provide an eyebrow-raising answer when Representative Adam Smith asked whether the Pentagon has plans to take Greenland or Panama by force if necessary. 'Our job at the Defence Department is to have plans for any contingency,' Mr Hegseth said several times. It is not unusual for the Pentagon to draw up contingency plans for conflicts that have not arisen, but his handling of the questions prompted a Republican lawmaker to step in a few minutes later. Representative Mike Turner asked: 'It is not your testimony today that there are plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading Greenland, correct?' As Mr Hegseth started to repeat his answer about contingency plans, Mr Turner added emphatically, 'I sure as hell hope that is not your testimony.' 'We look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats,' Mr Hegseth responded. Time and again, officials pressed Mr Hegseth to answer questions he has avoided for months, including during the two previous days of hearings on Capitol Hill. And frustration boiled over. 'You're an embarrassment to this country. You're unfit to lead,' Salud Carbajal snapped, the California Democrat's voice rising. 'You should just get the hell out.' President Donald Trump has said multiple times that he wants to take control of the strategic, mineral-rich island nation of Greenland, long a US ally. Those remarks have been met with flat rejections from Greenland's leaders. 'Greenland is not for sale,' Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland's representative to the US, said on Thursday at a forum in Washington sponsored by the Arctic Institute. In an effort not to show the Pentagon's hand on its routine effort to have plans for everything, Mr Hegseth danced around the direct question from Mr Smith, leading to the confusion. 'Speaking on behalf of the American people, I don't think the American people voted for President Trump because they were hoping we would invade Greenland,' Mr Smith said. Mr Hegseth's use of two Signal chats to discuss plans for US strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen with other US leaders as well as members of his family prompted dizzying exchanges with representatives. He was pressed multiple times over whether or not he shared classified information and if he should face accountability if he did. Mr Hegseth argued that the classification markings of any information about those military operations could not be discussed. That became a quick trap, as Mr Hegseth has asserted that nothing he posted — on strike times and munitions dropped in March — was classified. His questioner, Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and Marine veteran, jumped on the disparity. 'You can very well disclose whether or not it was classified,' Mr Moulton said. 'What's not classified is that it was an incredible, successful mission,' Mr Hegseth responded. A Pentagon watchdog report on his Signal use is expected soon. Mr Moulton then asked Mr Hegseth whether he would hold himself accountable if the inspector general finds that he placed classified information on Signal, a commercially available app. Mr Hegseth would not directly say, only noting that he serves 'at the pleasure of the president'.

Leader Live
20 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Hegseth says the Pentagon has contingency plans to invade Greenland if necessary
Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee repeatedly got into heated exchanges with Mr Hegseth, with some of the toughest lines of questioning coming from military veterans as many demanded yes or no answers and he tried to avoid direct responses about his actions as Pentagon chief. In one back-and-forth, Mr Hegseth did provide an eyebrow-raising answer when Representative Adam Smith asked whether the Pentagon has plans to take Greenland or Panama by force if necessary. 'Our job at the Defence Department is to have plans for any contingency,' Mr Hegseth said several times. It is not unusual for the Pentagon to draw up contingency plans for conflicts that have not arisen, but his handling of the questions prompted a Republican lawmaker to step in a few minutes later. Representative Mike Turner asked: 'It is not your testimony today that there are plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading Greenland, correct?' As Mr Hegseth started to repeat his answer about contingency plans, Mr Turner added emphatically, 'I sure as hell hope that is not your testimony.' 'We look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats,' Mr Hegseth responded. Time and again, officials pressed Mr Hegseth to answer questions he has avoided for months, including during the two previous days of hearings on Capitol Hill. And frustration boiled over. 'You're an embarrassment to this country. You're unfit to lead,' Salud Carbajal snapped, the California Democrat's voice rising. 'You should just get the hell out.' President Donald Trump has said multiple times that he wants to take control of the strategic, mineral-rich island nation of Greenland, long a US ally. Those remarks have been met with flat rejections from Greenland's leaders. 'Greenland is not for sale,' Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland's representative to the US, said on Thursday at a forum in Washington sponsored by the Arctic Institute. In an effort not to show the Pentagon's hand on its routine effort to have plans for everything, Mr Hegseth danced around the direct question from Mr Smith, leading to the confusion. 'Speaking on behalf of the American people, I don't think the American people voted for President Trump because they were hoping we would invade Greenland,' Mr Smith said. Mr Hegseth's use of two Signal chats to discuss plans for US strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen with other US leaders as well as members of his family prompted dizzying exchanges with representatives. He was pressed multiple times over whether or not he shared classified information and if he should face accountability if he did. Mr Hegseth argued that the classification markings of any information about those military operations could not be discussed. That became a quick trap, as Mr Hegseth has asserted that nothing he posted — on strike times and munitions dropped in March — was classified. His questioner, Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and Marine veteran, jumped on the disparity. 'You can very well disclose whether or not it was classified,' Mr Moulton said. 'What's not classified is that it was an incredible, successful mission,' Mr Hegseth responded. A Pentagon watchdog report on his Signal use is expected soon. Mr Moulton then asked Mr Hegseth whether he would hold himself accountable if the inspector general finds that he placed classified information on Signal, a commercially available app. Mr Hegseth would not directly say, only noting that he serves 'at the pleasure of the president'.


The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Hegseth says the Pentagon has contingency plans to invade Greenland if necessary
Pete Hegseth fields questions from the House Armed Services Committee (J Scott Applewhite/AP) In one back-and-forth, Mr Hegseth did provide an eyebrow-raising answer when Representative Adam Smith asked whether the Pentagon has plans to take Greenland or Panama by force if necessary. 'Our job at the Defence Department is to have plans for any contingency,' Mr Hegseth said several times. It is not unusual for the Pentagon to draw up contingency plans for conflicts that have not arisen, but his handling of the questions prompted a Republican lawmaker to step in a few minutes later. Representative Mike Turner asked: 'It is not your testimony today that there are plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading Greenland, correct?' As Mr Hegseth started to repeat his answer about contingency plans, Mr Turner added emphatically, 'I sure as hell hope that is not your testimony.' 'We look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats,' Mr Hegseth responded. Time and again, officials pressed Mr Hegseth to answer questions he has avoided for months, including during the two previous days of hearings on Capitol Hill. And frustration boiled over. 'You're an embarrassment to this country. You're unfit to lead,' Salud Carbajal snapped, the California Democrat's voice rising. 'You should just get the hell out.' President Donald Trump has said multiple times that he wants to take control of the strategic, mineral-rich island nation of Greenland, long a US ally. Those remarks have been met with flat rejections from Greenland's leaders. Donald Trump has repeatedly said he wants to take control of the strategic, mineral-rich island nation of Greenland (Alex Brandon/AP) 'Greenland is not for sale,' Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland's representative to the US, said on Thursday at a forum in Washington sponsored by the Arctic Institute. In an effort not to show the Pentagon's hand on its routine effort to have plans for everything, Mr Hegseth danced around the direct question from Mr Smith, leading to the confusion. 'Speaking on behalf of the American people, I don't think the American people voted for President Trump because they were hoping we would invade Greenland,' Mr Smith said. Mr Hegseth's use of two Signal chats to discuss plans for US strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen with other US leaders as well as members of his family prompted dizzying exchanges with representatives. He was pressed multiple times over whether or not he shared classified information and if he should face accountability if he did. Mr Hegseth argued that the classification markings of any information about those military operations could not be discussed. That became a quick trap, as Mr Hegseth has asserted that nothing he posted — on strike times and munitions dropped in March — was classified. His questioner, Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and Marine veteran, jumped on the disparity. 'You can very well disclose whether or not it was classified,' Mr Moulton said. 'What's not classified is that it was an incredible, successful mission,' Mr Hegseth responded. A Pentagon watchdog report on his Signal use is expected soon. Mr Moulton then asked Mr Hegseth whether he would hold himself accountable if the inspector general finds that he placed classified information on Signal, a commercially available app. Mr Hegseth would not directly say, only noting that he serves 'at the pleasure of the president'.