Montana Supreme Court upholds lower court ruling that allows gender-affirming care for minors

HELENA, Mont. — A Montana law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors will remain temporarily blocked, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, after justices unanimously agreed with a lower court judge who ruled the law likely violates the state’s constitutional right to privacy.

The case against the Montana law is now being tried by District Court Judge Jason Marks in Missoula.

“I will never understand why my representatives are working to deprive me of my rights and the rights of other transgender children,” Phoebe Cross, a 17-year-old transgender boy and lead plaintiff, said in a statement. “Life as a trans teenager is hard enough. The last thing I and my peers need is to have our rights taken away.”

The attorney general’s office said it looks forward to defending the law, with a spokesperson noting that there have been recent scientific and legal developments that favor the state. The British government will announce this on Wednesday for an indefinite period banned puberty blockers for children with gender dysphoria, citing an unacceptable safety risk.

“By upholding the district court’s flawed decision to temporarily block a duly enacted law, the Supreme Court has jeopardized the well-being of children—who have not yet reached puberty—by authorizing experimental treatments that could allow them to deal with serious and irreversible problems. consequences will last the rest of their lives,” said spokesman Chase Scheuer.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments earlier this month over Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers, hormones or surgery for transgender minors, with observers saying it appeared the justices probably hold on the ban. The Biden administration had tried to block similar bans that exist in more than half the states.

“Because Montana’s constitutional protections are even stronger than those of their federal counterparts, transgender youth in Montana can sleep easier tonight knowing they can continue to thrive for now, without this looming threat hanging over their heads,” said Kell Olsen, attorney for Lambda Legal. .

Republican Sen. John Fuller, who sponsored the bill, said Wednesday’s decision “is a blatant example of the hyper-partisanship of the Montana Supreme Court.” He criticized the courts for upholding the “capacity to sterilize and mutilate children” and denying children protection. of unscientific and experimental drugs and surgeries that have become increasingly apparent as a danger to children.”

Fuller has not yet decided whether he will introduce a similar bill in the 2025 Legislature.

Legislative debate on Montana’s bill stalled national attention in the spring of 2023 after Republicans defeated Democratic Rep. Zooey Zephyr – the first transgender woman elected to the state legislature – had been punished for admonishing lawmakers who supported the bill.

The Montana Supreme Court “has reaffirmed what we have known all along: gender-affirming care saves lives, and like all health care decisions, this should be left up to doctors and patients,” Zephyr said Wednesday.

To notice blocked the law at the end of September 2023, just days before it was due to come into effect. He agree with transgender youththeir families and health care providers that the law is likely unconstitutional and would harm the mental and physical health of minors with gender dysphoria, rather than protecting them from experimental treatments, as advocates said.

Marks said he could only conclude that the Legislature’s intent in passing the law was “disingenuous” and that it seemed more likely that its purpose was “to prohibit an outcome determined by the Montana Legislature to be undesirable considered disguised as protection for minors’.

The law attempted to ban the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgical treatments for gender dysphoria. However, cisgender minors could still be given puberty blockers to treat early puberty or surgical procedures to treat intersex conditions, the plaintiffs argued.

Montana is one of at least 26 states that have passed a ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors most face lawsuits. Some bans have been temporarily blocked by courts, while others have come into effect. Fifteen states have introduced protections for gender-affirming medical care for minors.

In the case of Montana, transgender youth argued that the law would prohibit them from continuing to receive gender-affirming medical care, violating their constitutional rights to equal protection, the right to health care, and the right to dignity. The state Supreme Court upheld the ban based on the right to privacy, which according to court rulings includes the right to make personal medical decisions free from government interference.

Two justices argued that the court should also have clarified that discrimination based on gender identity is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

The plaintiffs’ parents argued that the law would violate their constitutional right to make medical decisions for their children, and two medical providers said it would prevent them from providing effective and necessary care to their patients.

Treatments for gender dysphoria meet the standards of care approved by major medical organizations including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, the ACLU argued in its complaint.

One of the young plaintiffs was dismissed from the lawsuit in September 2024 after turning 18.

___

This story has been corrected to show that the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on the Tennessee ban earlier this month, not in June.