Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday against the state’s ban on gender-transition treatments for minors.
The number of states enacting limits on treatments such as surgeries has grown in recent months, with states like Nebraska and Texas adopting guardrails. Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed a ban into law last month on puberty blockers and hormones for transgender minors.
Hinkle, who was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton, asserted in the Doe v. Lapado opinion that “gender identity is real.” In his view, “the overwhelming weight of medical authority supports treatment of transgender patients with GnRH agonists and cross-sex hormones in appropriate circumstances.”
DeSantis and Republicans in the state legislature have pushed back on that assertion, citing the growing body of medical evidence that suggests procedures such as puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone treatments are causing lifelong medical difficulties such as diminished bone density, infertility, and other forms of sexual dysfunction.
In late April, the Florida house Health and Human Services committee issued subpoenas to two medical organizations in an investigation on whether adopting and endorsing “gender-affirming care” as the standard of care for minors suffering from gender dysphoria is medically justified.
“I find, based on the record now before the court, that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that they have obtained appropriate medical care for their children to this point,” Hinkle wrote.
The plaintiffs in this case — seven parents of transgender children — argued before the court that “banning treatment with GnRH agonists and cross-sex hormones violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.”
Hinkle pointed to a case — Brandt v. Rutledge — where the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a preliminary injunction against enforcement of an Arkansas statute identical in relevant respects to the Florida ban.
The judge found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the equal-protection claim and were also likely to succeed on a separate assertion of parental rights under the Due Process Clause.
The decision is likely to be appealed. With a growing number of bans in various parts of the country, the Supreme Court may have to decide the constitutionality of these bans as well as adjacent limits, such as bans on transgender women participating in female sporting competitions.
National Review reached out to the Florida governor’s office for comment but did not hear back by press time.