US appeals court hears oral arguments on Florida ban on transgender care for minors
MIAMI– Florida attorneys argued before a federal appeals court on Wednesday that a lower court judge last year improperly blocked a law banning gender-affirming care for minors and restricting similar care for adults, although a pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court leads to uncertainty.
Attorneys presented oral arguments before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Miami. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is already reviewing a similar ban in Tennessee, and the conservative court’s ruling could affect laws in about two dozen other states.
Florida law prohibits transgender minors from being prescribed puberty blockers and hormonal treatments, even if their parents give permission. It also requires that transgender adults receive treatment only from a doctor and not from a registered nurse or other qualified doctor. Adults who want the treatment must be in the doctor’s room when signing the consent form.
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle had blocked the law in June, but a panel of three judges last fall, the lower court’s order against the ban was stayed while an appeal was filed, meaning the ban is currently upheld.
For minors, the only treatments at stake are puberty-blocking treatments and cross-sex hormones, for example giving testosterone to someone assigned female at birth. Those undergoing treatment when the law was passed in May 2023 were allowed to continue. An operation, which is rare in minors, was still blocked.
As part of the state’s appeal, attorney Mohammad Jazil told a three-judge appeals panel on Wednesday that Hinkle was wrong to conclude that the law was based on hostility toward transgender people by state officials and lawmakers, rather than sound medical science.
“The court itself recognizes that there are concerns about this treatment, that guardrails are appropriate and that strict regulation is appropriate,” Jazil said.
The district judge was wrong to prioritize the views of a few lawmakers over the meritorious reasons to regulate the treatment, Jazil said.
“The court relied on the statements of about seven legislators to portray the entire Florida Legislature with discriminatory hostility toward transgender people and the two independent medical boards,” Jazil said. “And I think that was wrong. That was a mistake.”
A group of Florida families represented by GLAD Law and other civil rights groups filed the first lawsuit challenging the ban. They were later joined by four adult claimants. Hinkle sided with the group, ruling that the ban is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds and motivated by purposeful discrimination against transgender people.
Adam Unikowsky, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told the justices Wednesday that Hinkle relied on more than just the statements of seven lawmakers.
“I think it considered this as one piece of circumstantial evidence in the overall evidence, along with other types of circumstantial evidence,” Unikowsky said.
As an example, Unikowsky pointed to another Florida law, signed by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis on the same day as the gender-affirming healthcare restrictions, which prevents public school employees from using their preferred pronouns if they do not correspond to that employee’s birth gender.
“And what the court inferred from that was that the purpose of the legislature was to deter people from switching,” Unikowsky said. “And it felt like it was hostile to the concept of people in transition. It just didn’t want people to do that.”
The Supreme Court heard arguments in December about Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minorsalthough the judges’ decision is not expected for several months. The case is being reviewed by a conservative-dominated court after the presidential election in which Donald Trump and his allies vowed to reverse. protections for transgender people.
Both lawyers were asked during Wednesday’s hearing whether the appeals court should wait for the Supreme Court to rule before the lower court made a decision. Jazil said the appeal process should be stayed because the laws of Florida and Tennessee are so similar. Unikowsky said the Florida case should move forward because of the differences in the legal arguments against both laws.
At least 26 states have passed laws restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, and most of those states are facing lawsuits. The states that have passed laws restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors are: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.