Ohio Supreme Court reinstates law banning trans healthcare for minors
The court announced Tuesday it's granting a request from Attorney General Dave Yost to pause an appellate court decision that said House Bill 68, Ohio's law banning gender-affirming care for minors, is unconstitutional. The appeals court overturned H.B. 68 in March, arguing an injunction should be imposed against the law's provision banning certain prescriptions. Watch a previous NBC4 report on the appellate court decision in the video player above.
Yost has yet to release a statement on Tuesday's decision. The legal battle follows an August ruling from Franklin County Commons Pleas Judge Michael Holbrook that said H.B. 68 could go into effect after being on hold for several months. The ACLU then appealed Holbrook's decision on behalf of two families whose children are at risk of losing access to their healthcare.
Freda Levenson, legal director at the ACLU of Ohio, said it's 'a terrible shame that the Supreme Court of Ohio is permitting the state to evade compliance with the Ohio Constitution.'
'Our clients have suffered tangible and irreparable harm during the eight months that HB 68 has been in place, including being denied essential health care in their home state,' said Levenson. 'The court of appeals was correct that H.B. 68 violates at least two separate provisions of the Ohio Constitution.'
Yost had said in a statement at the time of the appellate court decision in March that he would seek an immediate stay, promising 'there is no way I'll stop fighting to protect these unprotected children.'
'Ohio's elected representatives properly passed legislation protecting children from irreversible chemical sex change procedures, and the trial court upheld the law,' Yost said. 'But now the 10th district court of appeals has just greenlighted these permanent medical interventions against 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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Boston Globe
38 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Critics say President Trump's push for fairness in college admissions is leaving out legacy preferences
Advertisement 'It's hard to think of a more flagrant way in which the system is rigged than legacy preferences,' Kahlenberg said. 'Rarely is a system of hereditary privilege so openly practiced without any sense of shame.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up In recent weeks, Trump has taken several actions to scrub any vestiges of race from admissions decisions, suggesting that some schools are ignoring a 2023 Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action. His administration negotiated settlements with Brown and Columbia universities that included provisions to share admissions data. Last week, Trump issued a call for colleges nationwide to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions. Trump has taken several actions to scrub any vestiges of race from admissions decisions, suggesting that some schools are ignoring a 2023 Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action. Alex Brandon/Associated Press Some are urging Trump to go further. Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., applauded the settlement with Brown requiring the university to turn a blind eye toward race — even in application essays. But 'restoring meritocracy warrants more,' said Young, who cosponsored legislation in 2023 aiming to end legacy admissions. Advertisement 'Federally accredited institutions should eliminate ALL preferences grounded in arbitrary circumstances of ancestry that students have no control over, such as legacy status,' Young said on social media. Many selective colleges consider family ties Sometimes called 'affirmative action for the rich,' the practice of legacy admissions remains widespread among elite colleges even as it faces mounting bipartisan opposition. Virginia's Republican governor signed a bill last year barring legacy admissions at public institutions, following similar measures in Colorado, California and elsewhere. Some Republicans in Congress have worked with Democrats on proposals to end it nationwide. Roughly 500 universities consider legacy status when evaluating applicants, including more than half of the nation's 100 most selective U.S. schools, according to 2023 disclosures to the federal government. A few have abandoned the policy, but it remains in place at all eight Ivy League schools. Stanford University said in July it will continue considering legacy status, even after a California law barred it at institutions that receive state financial aid. Stanford opted to withdraw from the state's student financial aid program rather than end the practice. The university said it will replace the funding with internal money — even as it begins layoffs to close a $140 million budget deficit. Stanford officials declined to comment. Last year, as part of a state transparency law, the school reported that about 14% of its new students were relatives of alumni or donors. A push for merit, but no mention of legacy admissions The executive action signed by Trump last week requires universities to turn over more information about students who apply to and are accepted to their campuses. Taxpayers 'deserve confidence in the fairness and integrity' of decisions, his memorandum said, adding that more information is needed to ensure colleges are heeding the Supreme Court's decision. Advertisement A week earlier, the Justice Department issued a memo clarifying what it considers illegal discrimination in admissions. It takes issue not only with overt racial considerations but also 'proxies' for race, including 'geographic targeting' or personal essays asking about obstacles applicants have overcome. Similar language requiring 'merit-based' admissions policies was included in the government's resolutions with Brown and Columbia universities. None of the actions made any mention of legacy admissions. Trump's silence caught the attention of the nonprofit Lawyers for Civil Rights, which has an open complaint with the Education Department alleging that Harvard University's use of donor and alumni preferences amounts to illegal racial discrimination. The group's 2023 complaint says the practice overwhelmingly benefits white students. If the Trump administration wants to make admissions a meritocracy, it should start by ending legacy preferences, said Oren Sellstrom, litigation director for the group. 'These deeply unmeritocratic preferences simply reward students based on who their parents are. It's hard to imagine anything more unfair or contrary to basic merit principles,' he said. Few Americans support legacy or donor preferences Colleges defend the practice by saying it builds community and encourages families to become donors. Some backers say it increasingly helps nonwhite students as campuses become more diverse. Then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat, urged colleges to rethink legacy preferences in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, saying it expanded 'privilege instead of opportunity.' Some feared it would drive up white enrollment as affirmative action ended. Georgetown University reviewed the policy but kept it in place this year after concluding the pool of legacy applicants had a similar makeup to the wider admissions pool. Advertisement An AP-NORC poll in 2023 found that most Americans have a dim view of legacy and donor preferences, with few saying either should play a strong role in decisions. Universities are required to tell the federal government whether they consider legacy status, but they don't have to divulge how far it tips the scale or how many legacy students they admit. Among the 20 most selective universities that say they employ the practice, none would tell The Associated Press what percentage of their incoming class has a family connection to alumni or donors. Trump's blitz to root out racial preferences has hinged on the argument that it undermines merit. New scrutiny is needed to ensure colleges are following the Supreme Court's order and 'recruiting and training capable future doctors, engineers, scientists' and other workers, he said in his executive action. That argument sends the message that minority students are 'intellectually suspect until proven otherwise,' said Justin Driver, a Yale law professor with a forthcoming book on affirmative action. He worries Trump's latest actions will intimidate colleges into limiting minority enrollment to avoid raising the suspicion of the government. 'I believe that the United States confronts a lot of problems today,' Driver said. 'Too many Black students on first-rate college campuses is not among them.'
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Why in the world is Trump punishing Moldova with tariffs?
President Trump's tariff blasts continue. The White House released its latest list on July 31 and it is clear that no nation is safe — not allies, enemies, neighbors or distant lands. No menacing power escapes the vigilance of the president's team, ever alert to those 'ripping off' the United States of America. Case in point: Moldova. Dominating both sides of the Dniester River — well, one side actually — this Eastern European colossus of 2.3 million people (about the size of Houston) could inflict mortal damage on the American economy. In 2024 alone, the U.S. bought nearly $136 million (with an 'm') worth of goods from the Moldovans, whereas they bought only $51 million from us. With the U.S. economy valued at more than $30 trillion (with a 'T') we could probably only bear such abuse for … well, forever. In a July 9 letter to Moldovan President Maia Sandu, Trump made clear that America will not be bullied by Moldova any longer. He imposed a tariff of 25 percent on every bottle of wine or fruit juice the Moldovans force us to buy. Calling the deficit with Moldova a 'major threat to our Economy and, indeed, our National Security!' the president warned of even higher tariffs if Moldova retaliates or tries to send goods into the U.S. through transshipment. The letter accuses Moldova of taking advantage of us for 'many years.' Tariff rates are one of Trump's favorite weapons, employed under the dubious premise that the U.S. faces a trade deficit 'emergency.' The legality of such action aside — the Supreme Court has yet to rule — the president uses this weapon for a variety of non-economic goals. He has threatened Canada for indicating it might recognize a Palestinian state, and Brazil to try to save former President Jair Bolsonaro from prosecution. Moldova has committed no such offenses — at least none charged — but Trump wants trade with Moldova and a host of other countries to be based on 'reciprocity.' Whatever the precipitating dynamics, punishing Moldova for its involvement in international trade serves no reasonable Western security or broader policy interests. It undermines them. Sandwiched between Ukraine and Romania, Moldova has a long history of not being a country. The people of this region, who were unwillingly traded between Romania and Russia for nearly a century, gained independence from a collapsing Soviet Union in 1991. With a population that is 75 percent Moldovan-Romanian, some within the Russian and Ukrainian minorities feared the country's absorption into neighboring Romania. During a brief internal war in 1992, Moscow positioned a 'peacekeeping force' on the eastern side of Dniester River to guard the self-proclaimed state of Transnistria — which is still there, not recognized even by Russia. This force is small, locally recruited and considered less than formidable. But it is part of a sustained campaign by Moscow to prevent Moldova from embracing the West. This same motive drove Vladimir Putin to unleash a brutal invasion and occupation of much larger Ukraine. If victorious there, he is unlikely to be more accommodating toward Moldova. Moldova is the poorest country in Europe, and its elected leaders and population have been seeking stability. After Russia invaded Ukraine, Moldova applied to join the EU. It was quickly granted candidate status, and negotiations for membership began. In 2024, the country reelected pro-EU President Sandu and in a referendum enshrined the country's 'European course' in its constitution — despite massive Russian interference and disinformation. The EU has not been cowed by Moscow and developed a generous aid and development package. Most Moldovan goods enter the world's largest trading bloc duty-free, a policy that was further extended to agricultural products last month. Under President Biden, the U.S. had been similarly supportive, providing more than $400 million in military and humanitarian aid in part to help reduce the country's dependence on Russian gas. Trump sees no need for aid to Moldova, or indeed for most foreign assistance. Other moves supporting Trump's 'America First' orientation also penalize Moldova. Eliminating the U.S. Agency for International Development meant the loss of virtually all projects in Moldova — including for democracy promotion and economic and energy development. At the same time, cutting resources for election monitoring and an independent press leaves the field open for Russian interference. Such indifference, along with Trump's shifting attitude toward Ukraine and transactional foreign policy, leaves Moldova exposed. A study by the Stimson Center concluded, 'With a White House that seems increasingly eager to align its perspectives with Moscow at the expense of traditional allies, its willingness to support Moldova's democratic transformation in the face of Russian opposition is now uncertain.' Neighboring Romania, a member of both the EU and NATO, has a huge stake in the fate of Moldova. An intimidated or occupied satellite country — a second Belarus — on the Alliance's more than 400-mile border would dramatically change the strategic equation. This should get Washington's attention — at least of those willing to honor the American commitment to NATO. Preserving an independent and economically healthy Moldova thus serves European and American interests. Increasing the cost of doing business with the U.S. and damaging democratic efforts there does not. Supporting Moldova costs the U.S. very little. Excusing a tiny trade deficit to a strategically important democracy does not make Americans suckers. Helping Moldova does not require a military commitment. The country has been cooperating with NATO but is constitutionally neutral. Rather than punishing the country, the U.S. could and should offer support. This could be based on a view of the geopolitical map — or, even better, from an appreciation of a resilient people's desire for democratic choice. Ronald H. Linden is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Pittsburgh, where he directed the Center for European Studies and the Center for Russian and East European Studies.
Fast Company
2 hours ago
- Fast Company
AI-generated errors set back this murder case in an Australian Supreme Court
A senior lawyer in Australia has apologized to a judge for filing submissions in a murder case that included fake quotes and nonexistent case judgments generated by artificial intelligence. The blunder in the Supreme Court of Victoria state is another in a litany of mishaps AI has caused in justice systems around the world. Defense lawyer Rishi Nathwani, who holds the prestigious legal title of King's Counsel, took 'full responsibility' for filing incorrect information in submissions in the case of a teenager charged with murder, according to court documents seen by The Associated Press on Friday. 'We are deeply sorry and embarrassed for what occurred,' Nathwani told Justice James Elliott on Wednesday, on behalf of the defense team. The AI-generated errors caused a 24-hour delay in resolving a case that Elliott had hoped to conclude on Wednesday. Elliott ruled on Thursday that Nathwani's client, who cannot be identified because he is a minor, was not guilty of murder because of mental impairment. 'At the risk of understatement, the manner in which these events have unfolded is unsatisfactory,' Elliott told lawyers on Thursday. 'The ability of the court to rely upon the accuracy of submissions made by counsel is fundamental to the due administration of justice,' Elliott added. The fake submissions included fabricated quotes from a speech to the state legislature and nonexistent case citations purportedly from the Supreme Court. The errors were discovered by Elliott's associates, who couldn't find the cases and requested that defense lawyers provide copies. The lawyers admitted the citations 'do not exist' and that the submission contained 'fictitious quotes,' court documents say. The lawyers explained they checked that the initial citations were accurate and wrongly assumed the others would also be correct. The submissions were also sent to prosecutor Daniel Porceddu, who didn't check their accuracy. The judge noted that the Supreme Court released guidelines last year for how lawyers use AI. 'It is not acceptable for artificial intelligence to be used unless the product of that use is independently and thoroughly verified,' Elliott said. The court documents do not identify the generative artificial intelligence system used by the lawyers. In a comparable case in the United States in 2023, a federal judge imposed $5,000 fines on two lawyers and a law firm after ChatGPT was blamed for their submission of fictitious legal research in an aviation injury claim. Judge P. Kevin Castel said they acted in bad faith. But he credited their apologies and remedial steps taken in explaining why harsher sanctions were not necessary to ensure they or others won't again let artificial intelligence tools prompt them to produce fake legal history in their arguments. Later that year, more fictitious court rulings invented by AI were cited in legal papers filed by lawyers for Michael Cohen, a former personal lawyer for U.S. President Donald Trump. Cohen took the blame, saying he didn't realize that the Google tool he was using for legal research was also capable of so-called AI hallucinations. British High Court Justice Victoria Sharp warned in June that providing false material as if it were genuine could be considered contempt of court or, in the 'most egregious cases,' perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
