A judge has ruled in favor of HB 68, Ohio’s ban on both healthcare for transgender youth and trans female athletes participating in women’s sports in kindergarten through college.
Judge Michael Holbrook of Franklin County Common Pleas Court issued his verdict on Tuesday to immediately remove the temporary restraining order on the ban that he put into place in April.
The law will go into effect immediately; the ACLU filed an appeal the same day.
HB 68 was passed by the Ohio legislature in December. Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed the bill a few weeks later. Lawmakers returned early from their winter vacations to override DeWine’s veto in January.
The ACLU then sued the state on behalf of two families of transgender children.
Holbrook determined as a “matter of fact” that the “plaintiffs will have to leave the State of Ohio to seek gender-affirming care if the Act is enforced, and therefore will be adversely affected by its enforcement.”
Still, in his judgment, Holbrook determined that HB 68:
- Does not violate the Single Subject Rule.
- Does not violate the Health Care Freedom Amendment.
- Does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
- Does not violate the Due Course of Law Clause.
Single Subject Rule
The Ohio Constitution requires bills to be limited to a single subject to prevent the logrolling of unnatural provisions into a single bill.
Holbrook acknowledged that the “Single Subject Rule is mandatory.” Nonetheless, he concluded that courts are “to afford the General Assembly great latitude” in this area.
Although HB 68 addresses two seemingly disparate subjects – the regulation of gender-affirming care and the banning of trans female athletes – Holbrook determined the legislation to be of one subject: the General Assembly’s regulation of transgender individuals.
“No matter how abhorrent that may be to some, it is a “legitimate subject” for purposes of the Single Subject Rule under the laws of the State of Ohio at this time,” Holbrook wrote in his decision. “The recourse for those who object is not within the Court but is instead with their vote.”
Equal Protection
Holbrook concluded that “the State of Ohio has a legitimate government interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens.”
He concluded that gender-affirming care “carries with it undeniable risk and permanent outcomes,” and cited as evidence that other countries “are now reversing their position as a result of the significant inconsistencies in results and potential side effects of the care.”
He decided that HB 68 was “neither arbitrary nor unreasonable” and thus does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Due Course of Law
Finally, Holbrook found that HB 68 “reasonably limits parents’ rights to make decisions about their children’s medical care.
He further said that Ohio has a “legitimate interest” in regulating the medical profession and medical treatments.
Strikingly, Holbrook wrote that it was the General Assembly – not doctors, healthcare providers, or medical associations – that are the determining body on gender-affirming care.
“The limitation [of parents’ rights to make these healthcare decisions] is especially appropriate when the General Assembly has determined the care regulated is experimental and its risks “far outweigh any benefit at this stage of clinical study,” he wrote.
Holbrook repeated his statement that this was a matter for the ballot box, not a trial court.
“Recourse for those who are dissatisfied with the General Assembly’s determinations must be exercised through their vote as opposed to the judicial system,” he wrote.
Reactions pour in
Reactions on both sides of the case poured in swiftly.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost applauded the decision in a written statement.
“This case has always been about the legislature’s authority to enact a law to protect our children from making irreversible medical and surgical decisions about their bodies,” the statement read. “The law doesn’t say ‘no’ forever; it simply says ‘not now’ while the child is still growing.”
A statement from the ACLU of Ohio said that the organizations involved were “extremely disappointed by today’s ruling.”
ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Harper Seldin said HB 68 was still “medically baseless and genuinely dangerous to the current and future well-being of transgender youth in the state.”
ACLU of Ohio Legal Director Freda Levenson said they are “appealing immediately.”
“This loss is not just devastating for our brave clients, but for the many transgender youth and their families across the state who require this critical, life-saving health care,” she said. “While this decision by the court is a genuine setback, it is not the end of the road in our fight to secure the constitutional rights of transgender youth, as well as all Ohioans’ right to bodily autonomy. We are appealing immediately.”
Dara Adkison, executive director of TransOhio, called the decision a “cruel farce and a slap in the face of what we know to be true.”
“Medical choices for youth belong between parents, youth and their personal healthcare providers,” Adkison posted on X (formerly Twitter). “And trans women and girls belong in sports with their peers,” they said. “Despite repeated attempts to reduce and restrict access to support systems and public spaces for trans, nonbinary, intersex and gender nonconforming youth, transgender Ohioans cannot be legislated away. Our youth deserve so much better from our courts, government and elected officials.”
Representatives from Equality Ohio, the statewide LGBTQ+ advocacy and legal aid organization, expressed their commitment to supporting Ohio’s trans community.
“Despite today’s ruling upholding House Bill 68, we remain steadfast that transgender youth, like all young people, deserve every opportunity to thrive, including access to essential healthcare,” Micah Mitchell, policy manager at Equality Ohio, said in a statement.
Senate Democratic Leader Nickie J. Antonio (D-Lakewood) said the decision represents a step backwards for Ohio.
“This law disregards the professional guidance of medical experts and the lived experiences of transgender individuals and upends parental rights while endangering the health and well-being of our youth,” Antonio said in a statement. “As I’ve stated repeatedly, Ohioans have time and again told us that they don’t want the government involved in their personal medical decisions. I believe this ruling is wrong on the merits, and it clearly defies the will of the majority of Ohioans.”
Via a statement from Trans Allies of Ohio, Ohio parents of trans youth also denounced the decision, and highlighted the potential harm of this verdict:
- “I am worried that more children will attempt suicide now that they no longer have access to gender-affirming medical care,” said Sam Shim, Ohio parent of a transgender youth and board member at The Buckeye Flame.
- “My child likely would not be here today if she had not been able to access gender affirming care as a minor. I’m devastated that children I know and love will be denied this most basic of human rights,” said Minna Zelch, Ohio parent of a transgender young adult.
- “My child has lived as her authentic self far longer than she’s been on this planet. Imagine stripping away the only life she’s ever known,” said Kat Scaligone, Ohio parent of a transgender youth. 🔥
This piece has been updated to reflect that the ACLU filed notice of an appeal on the same day.
IGNITE ACTION
- To register to vote or to check your voter eligibility status in the state of Ohio, click here.
- To find contact information for your Ohio state representative, click here.
- To find contact information for your Ohio senator, click here.
- To learn more about TransOhio’s emergency relocation fund, click here.
- If you are a young LGBTQ+ person in crisis, please contact the Trevor Project: 866-4-U-Trevor.
- If you are an transgender adult in need of immediate help, contact the National Trans Lifeline: 877-565-8860
Know an LGBTQ+ Ohio story we should cover? TELL US!
Submit a story!
