Enjoined! We are thrilled to share that U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled this morning in federal court that the Florida ban on youth gender affirming care is likely unconstitutional. Judge Hinkle placed a partial preliminary injunction on the Florida statute and Medical Board/Osteopathic Board rules that prohibit blockers and hormone use in minors and criminalize those who provide care. This ruling affects blockers and hormones but does not address the ban on surgical procedures for youth.
The injunction is specific to the plaintiffs, but the legal implications are not fully clear right now.
Enjoined? An Injunction? Blocked? What does it all mean?
Judges enjoin a law when they issue an injunction. The law is then enjoined.
An injunction is the legal order that tells people that they can’t do something (like ban gender affirming care) or requires them to do something (like pay money to persons harmed by an action.)
From Chris Geidner’s Law Dork substack:
Although Tuesday’s ruling only directly enjoins the state from enforcing the bans against the challengers, the effect of his ruling — specifically, his finding that the bans are likely unconstitutional — would bar the state from enforcing the bans against minor care in general, Jennifer Levi, the lawyer for the plaintiffs from GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders told Law Dork.
This case, Doe V. Ladapo, is currently scheduled to go to trial on 4/15/2024. Judge Hinkle also presided over a lawsuit challenging Florida’s ban on Medicaid funding for gender affirming care. That trial has concluded, but an order has not yet been published.
The ruling for a preliminary injunction, while not a complete block to 254 or the Medical Board/Osteopathic Board rules is ground-breaking. Judge Hinkle has ruled that:
- “Gender identity is real,” and not chosen.
- “There are well-established standards of care for treatment of gender dysphoria.”
- “The overwhelming weight of medical authority supports treatment of transgender patients with GnRh agonists [blockers] and cross-sex hormones in appropriate circumstances.”
- “The clinical evidence would support, though certainly not mandate, a decision by a reasonable patient and parent, in consultation with properly trained practitioners, to use GnRH agonists at or near the onset of puberty and to use cross-sex hormones later, even when fully apprised of the current state of medical knowledge and all attendant risks. There is no rational basis for a state to categorically ban these treatments. “
Judge Hinkle bases his order on both the constitutional right to equal protection under the law and the right of parents to control a child’s medical treatment.
In the order, Judge Hinkle also confirms that arguments frequently used to support bans are baseless. Particularly beautiful is his comment regarding the assertion that gender affirming care is politically motivated:
“If ever a pot called a kettle black, it is here. The statute and the rules were an exercise in politics, not good medicine.”
You can read the entire order online – it’s 44 pages of stress relief!
We will continue to see and treat youth in Florida. While there remain unanswered questions about whether this ruling protects all Florida youth, and if it might also be applied to the restrictions to adult and telemedicine care in Florida, we celebrate today’s ruling.
Our understanding of this ruling is informed by:
LawDork
Erin Reed on Twitter (and we expect an article on her Substack soon)
News releases from participating organizations:
(note – they are all the same press release, modified slightly on each website to refer to the hosting organization)
Southern Legal Counsel’s news release
National Center For Lesbian Rights news release
Human Rights Campaign news release
GLAD’s news release
Some of our previous articles on Florida and 254:
- What 254 Does and Does Not Do
- Dr. Beal’s Response to Legislative Bans on Youth Gender Affirming Medical Care
Check In With QueerDoc!
