Ohio Supreme Court Takes Up Gender-Affirming Care Ban Challenge

The Ohio Supreme Court is set to decide the constitutionality of a state law that severely restricts gender-affirming care for transgender youth. This ruling will address the legality of House Bill 68, which prevents minors from accessing hormone therapy and puberty blockers.

The contentious law officially took effect in April 2024. This occurred after the Ohio House and Senate successfully voted to override a veto previously issued by Ohio Governor Mike DeWine. The court, composed of six Republican justices and one Democrat, is expected to issue its decision in the coming months.

Legal Arguments Against the Restrictions

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Ohio, and the law firm Goodwin filed a lawsuit in 2024 on behalf of two transgender girls and their families. Jordan Bock argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, emphasizing parental rights in medical decisions.

Bock stated that H.B. 68 blocks access to necessary treatments recommended by treating physicians, treatments available for other medical conditions in minors. The lawsuit highlighted the positive impact of care on the minors involved.

Bock shared poignant examples, noting that one girl, Grace, questioned if death would allow her to return as a girl. Another, Madeline Moe, wished to die to be reborn as her true self, but both thrived after receiving care.

Timeline of Legal Proceedings

The legal battle has seen several key rulings leading up to the Supreme Court review. In August 2024, a ruling allowed the ban on gender-affirming care to proceed.

However, the ACLU of Ohio appealed this decision. Subsequently, in March 2025, the Tenth District Court of Appeals issued an order for a permanent injunction against the bill.

Arguments Presented Before the High Court

During oral arguments, Ohio's Solicitor General, Marthura Sridharan, contended that children do not possess a constitutional right to gender reassignment procedures. She acknowledged parental discretion but stressed the significant risks associated with the treatments.

Sridharan argued that children face lifelong fertility loss and other serious physical and psychological consequences, both known and unknown. She asserted these risks outweigh any potential benefits of the treatment.

Conversely, Bock countered that parents, given their children's specific circumstances, hold the right to determine appropriate medical treatment. This echoes a principle voters affirmed in 2011 regarding parental rights.

Justice Questions on Patient Harm

Democratic Justice Jennifer Brunner referenced Governor DeWine’s prior discussions with families of transgender youth before his veto. She raised concerns about the evidence showing self-harm among children without access to gender-affirming care.

Justice Brunner noted that this evidence suggested children actively harm themselves when their gender dysphoria is left untreated by the care they receive.