14-05-2025
District Court strikes down ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth
The Missoula County Court House pictured on December 20, 2020.
A Montana District Court struck down a law on Tuesday banning gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth.
Missoula County District Court Judge Jason Marks permanently enjoined SB 99, from the 2023 Legislative session, and declined to hear remaining claims from the plaintiffs in the case, Cross et al vs. State of Montana.
The lawsuit was filed by a coalition of minors and providers as well as the American Civil Liberties Union. In 2024 the Montana Supreme Court upheld an injunction against the law being put into place.
'I will never understand why my representatives worked so hard to strip me of my rights and the rights of other transgender kids,' Phoebe Cross, a 17-year-old transgender boy who was a plaintiff in the case, said in a release. 'It's great that the courts, including the Montana Supreme Court, have seen this law for what it was, discriminatory, and today have thrown it out for good. Just living as a trans teenager is difficult enough, the last thing me and my peers need is to have our rights taken away.'
Mark's order said SB 99 was discriminatory, prevented trans people from accessing medical information and that it infringed on the plaintiffs' right to privacy, among other issues the court found with the law.
The law would have banned the use of treatments like puberty blockers and surgeries, which are gender-affirming care. The law also would not have banned the same sort of treatment for cisgender children.
'The Montana Constitution protects the privacy and dignity of all Montanans,' Akilah Deernose, ACLU-MT Executive Director said in a release. 'In the face of those protections, cruel and inhumane laws like SB 99 will always fail. Today's decision should be a powerful message to those that seek to marginalize and harass transgender Montanans.'
Defendants in the case also pointed to 'detransitioners' as an argument to support their case that the law was protecting minors. The court said it would lead to 'absurd' results.
'Under Defendants' reasoning, the State could infringe on minors' fundamental rights whenever any minor was protected at the expense of the majority of minors,' the order reads. 'For example, the State could categorically ban all influenza vaccines for all minors in an effort to protect the small percentage of minors who experience allergic reactions to that vaccine. This line of reasoning would lead to absurd results.'
The court also said the state's interest in the case was 'political and ideological.'
Lambda Legal, which helped bring the lawsuit, also pointed to another case it's supporting, with the U.S. Supreme Court expected to soon rule on U.S. v. Skrmetti. That case challenges a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth, saying the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The state could appeal the decision to the Montana Supreme Court, but representatives from the AG's office did not respond to a request for comment about the ruling.
May13CrossOrder
