A significant legal development occurred Wednesday when the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Indiana’s ban on the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors under the age of 18. The 2-1 ruling has added to the growing list of states, primarily led by Republican legislatures, that have passed similar laws restricting access to gender-affirming medical care for minors.
This decision comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear a challenge to a similar law in Tennessee, a case that could potentially have nationwide implications regarding the enforceability of such state-level bans.
The 7th Circuit’s decision reversed a lower court’s ruling, which had temporarily blocked the law from taking effect. The appellate court’s ruling means that the law, which prohibits transgender minors from receiving puberty blockers and hormone treatments, will remain in effect as legal challenges continue.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita hailed the ruling as a major victory for the state, stating on social media, “This is a huge win for Hoosiers and will help protect our most precious gift from God – our children.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the plaintiffs who argued against the ban, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The plaintiffs, including families of transgender children and healthcare providers, contended that the law discriminates based on sex and infringes upon parents’ constitutional rights to make medical decisions for their children.
In his opinion for the majority, Circuit Judge Michael Brennan rejected both of these arguments. Judge Brennan emphasized that the law applies equally to all minors, regardless of their sex, by prohibiting gender transition procedures. He also addressed the argument about parental rights, stating that parents do not have an automatic right to access any medical treatment for their children, drawing a comparison to cases where certain medications—such as narcotics—are restricted by the state for safety reasons.
The majority opinion was supported by Senior Circuit Judge Kenneth Ripple, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan. However, Circuit Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, dissented, expressing concerns similar to those voiced by dissenting judges in similar cases across the country. In her dissent, Judge Jackson-Akiwumi argued that the ban infringes on parents’ rights to make informed medical decisions for their children, particularly when it comes to gender-affirming care.
The decision is part of a broader wave of legislation across the U.S. aimed at limiting access to gender-affirming care for minors. To date, 26 states have enacted some form of restriction or ban on the use of puberty blockers and hormones for children with gender dysphoria.
Supporters of these laws argue that they protect children from medical treatments that are experimental or unproven. On the other hand, medical professionals, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, advocate for the use of such treatments, citing evidence that they can reduce mental health issues and suicide attempts in transgender minors.
The case, K.C. v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, now stands as a critical moment in the ongoing national debate over transgender rights, medical autonomy, and the role of the state in regulating healthcare for minors. Legal experts predict that the outcome of this case, combined with the Supreme Court’s consideration of similar laws in Tennessee, could have far-reaching consequences for other states grappling with the question of gender-affirming care for minors.
Read more: