Appeals court rolls back Ohio gender affirming care law
The appeal surrounded the ban on gender-affirming pharmaceutical medical care for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The law bans transgender surgeries and hormone therapies for minors unless they are already receiving such therapies and it is deemed a risk to stop by a doctor.
The Court ruled Tuesday that the trial court erred in its favorable ruling on the law saying that the trial court did not apply 'rational basis review' to parents' claim that they had a right to provide care to their child that has been recommended by a medical professional.
'Such a sweeping and inflexible ban on parents' ability to access medical care for their children is not narrowly tailored to advance the state's articulated interest: the protection of children. Applying strict scrutiny. (The law) facially violates Ohio parents' right to substantive due process under the Due Course of Law Clause of the Ohio Constitution,' Judge Carly Edelstein wrote in her decision.
Edelstein added that the law violates the Health Care Freedom Amendment to the Ohio Constitution because it puts medical professionals in danger of discipline for providing care that is 'in accordance with the standards of care and guidelines widely accepted in the professional medical community,' and care that is being requested by parents on behalf of their children.
Ohio Attorney General David Yost immediately issued a statement on the court's decision saying he would continue to fight for the ban.
'This is a no brainer – we are appealing that decision and will seek an immediate stay. There is no way I'll stop fighting to protect these unprotected children,' Yost wrote.
Yost accused the court of going against what Ohio voters wanted when the law was passed and lawmakers agreed they wanted to limit medical inventions for minors.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
31 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Same-Sex Marriage Turnback 'Possible But Unlikely', Legal Experts Say
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Ten years after Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the Supreme Court is being asked to revisit the landmark ruling. Mathew Staver, counsel for petitioner Kim Davis, told Newsweek he believes the case could overturn Obergefell. However, several other legal experts say the widely accepted law is unlikely to be reversed. The Context The petitioner is Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk jailed in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing her religious beliefs. Davis argues Obergefell v. Hodges was wrongly decided and that her refusal was protected under the First Amendment. Under U.S. law, a party can petition the Supreme Court to review a case after lower courts have ruled against them, typically by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court is not required to hear the case—it selects only a small fraction of petitions, often those raising significant constitutional questions, resolving conflicts among lower courts, or addressing issues with broad national impact. Davis and her legal team are asking the justices to take up her case as a vehicle to reconsider Obergefell itself. What People Are Saying Newsweek asked experts to assess the petition's chances and the legal, moral, and procedural factors that could influence the Court's decision. 10 Years Of Marriage Equality By Supreme Court Could Be Reviewed 10 Years Of Marriage Equality By Supreme Court Could Be Reviewed Anthony Behar/AP Here are their exclusive responses: Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel "This case presents compelling facts for the Supreme Court to review. Kim Davis asked for a reasonable accommodation of her religious belief—to remove her name from marriage certificates. That request was granted by newly elected Governor Matt Bevin in December 2015, and in April 2016, the legislature unanimously passed a law allowing clerks to remove their names from certificates. Yet she was sued, jailed for six days, and now faces a personal judgment exceeding $360,000. "We are asking the Court to affirm her First Amendment defense and to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. We are optimistic because three current justices—Chief Justice Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito—dissented in Obergefell. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, five justices ruled that substantive due process is not grounded in the Constitution and that the Court should remain neutral when the Constitution does not expressly provide a right. Obergefell is likewise grounded in that now-rejected doctrine, and the Court should remain neutral regarding marriage as it did in 2022 regarding abortion. "We need four justices for certiorari and five to win. We believe this is the case that can overturn Obergefell." William Powell, Georgetown Law "We are confident the Supreme Court, like the court of appeals, will conclude Davis's arguments do not merit further attention. Marriage equality is settled law." Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Berkeley Law "I think it is unlikely the Court will overrule Obergefell, though it is possible. Marriage equality is deeply entrenched and widely accepted in American society. Roberts, Thomas, and Alito all dissented in Obergefell. I expect Thomas and Alito would vote to overturn. Roberts's position is uncertain, though the only dissent he ever read from the bench was in Obergefell. Justice Gorsuch wrote a dissent in Pavan v. Smith sharply criticizing Obergefell. What about Kavanaugh and Barrett? There may be the votes, but my instinct is the Court is unlikely to do so. It is not controversial in the way Roe v. Wade remained." Camilla Taylor, Lambda Legal "This case's procedural posture is simply not an appropriate one for reconsidering Obergefell. Other cases might provide a 'cooler vehicle,' but they are nowhere near ready for Supreme Court review. While the threat is some distance off, this is a Supreme Court that has shown it will casually overturn decades of precedent and upend civil rights. "If reversed, it would create a patchwork of states where same-sex marriage is legal in some places but banned in others. The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) ensures states must recognize marriages performed elsewhere and the federal government will do the same. Public opinion now enjoys broad, majoritarian support for same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy's Obergefell opinion noted that denying marriage sends the message that families are 'lesser' and 'something of which they should feel ashamed'—a stigma the government was required to address. That belief remains relevant: you shouldn't brand classes of people as lesser simply because of who they love." Ilya Somin, George Mason University "If Obergefell were overturned, most states—due to over 70% public support—would still have same-sex marriage, but perhaps eight or nine socially conservative states would not. That would raise questions about how to handle same-sex couples who married while Obergefell was in effect. RFMA requires states to recognize marriages contracted elsewhere, but in non-issuing states it would still be a hassle. "The end of Roe was unsurprising because opponents saw abortion as akin to murder. By contrast, very few opponents of same-sex marriage assign it a moral weight equal to murder. Davis's case is weaker legally because she was a public official exercising state power. Accepting her argument could open the door to refusals for interracial or interfaith marriages on religious grounds. I doubt there are five votes to overturn Obergefell, estimating no more than two or three justices might favor it, though nothing is certain." Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP "It is very unlikely the Supreme Court will revisit Obergefell soon, though challenges will continue. Roberts once compared it to Dred Scott, but reliance interests are massive. Hundreds of thousands of couples have relied on it in arranging their most intimate and important life relationships. Overruling such a decision would create popular distrust in the judiciary. Justice Scalia believed in factoring reliance interests; Justice Thomas does not. The notion of destroying marriages and undoing family relationships would be extremely difficult for the Court to justify." What Happens Next For the Supreme Court to hear the case, at least four justices must agree to grant certiorari. The Court selects only a small fraction of petitions, focusing on those with significant constitutional issues or conflicting lower-court rulings.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Zelensky Says He'll Meet With Trump After U.S.-Russia Summit Yields No Deal
When the International Criminal Court accused President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia of war crimes in 2023 and issued a warrant for his arrest, the move was largely symbolic because there was little chance he would stand trial. But it immediately jeopardized Mr. Putin's ability to travel to the more than 120 countries that have signed on to the I.C.C. They include almost every nation in Europe and dozens more in Africa, Asia and Latin America. They are all legally required to arrest Mr. Putin and send him to The Hague if he sets foot on their soil. But Mr. Putin's visit to Alaska on Friday highlighted a notable exception. To prevent the world's highest criminal court from being used to prosecute Americans, the United States has long refused to join the I.C.C., created over 20 years ago under the 1998 Rome Statute to handle accusations of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. As a result, the United States is virtually the only country in the West that Mr. Putin can visit without worrying about arrest. Only a handful of other major powers, including China, India, Russia and Israel, have abstained from becoming signatories to the court. Even before the I.C.C. warrant for Mr. Putin was issued, it had been rare for him to travel abroad. He spent the first two years of the Covid pandemic in Russia, a period of isolation that some U.S. intelligence officials speculated might have heightened his appetite for risk and influenced his decision to launch the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The I.C.C. has accused Mr. Putin of bearing criminal responsibility for the abduction and deportation of Ukrainian children after Russia launched its invasion. But the court cannot try absent defendants, and Russia, which is not a party to the I.C.C., has dismissed the warrants as 'meaningless.' Though the court has no enforcement mechanism, the symbolic weight of its arrest warrant for Mr. Putin has forced members and nonmembers alike to decide whether they are willing to take the diplomatic risk of hosting a wanted man. That risk has not been enough to stop several countries that are friendly with Moscow — or reliant on it — from welcoming Mr. Putin. Since 2023, he has made repeated visits to China, Belarus and several Central Asian countries. In September, he was given a red-carpet welcome in Mongolia, which is a party to the I.C.C. but depends on neighboring Russia for most of its fuel. Mongolia isn't the only country to have defied its obligation to the court. South Africa did so in 2015, when it allowed Omar Hassan al-Bashir, then the Sudanese president, to fly in and out of Johannesburg while he was wanted by the I.C.C. on accusations of genocide and war crimes in his country's Darfur region. Mr. Bashir remains at large, a prominent example of the court's limitations. Last year, South Africa faced a dilemma over whether to permit Mr. Putin to attend the annual summit of BRICS nations. After months of speculation, the Kremlin announced that Mr. Putin would attend remotely. Mr. Putin is one of only a few sitting leaders facing an outstanding arrest warrant from the I.C.C. Another is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, whom the court last year accused of carrying out war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. Mr. Netanyahu's office has categorically rejected what it called 'absurd and false accusations.' The United States, Israel's chief ally, also denounced the I.C.C. warrant for Mr. Netanyahu's arrest, and President Trump has since hosted the Israeli leader three times at the White House.
2 hours ago
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
McALLEN, Texas -- A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone," Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump's tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
