Moody’s closely watched ruling marks the first time a federal court has ruled on the legality of such restrictions, which have been adopted by a growing number of state legislatures in recent years. As of June 20, at least 20 more states have enacted bans or bans on gender-affirming care, according to data compiled by the ACLU. Florida’s effort to limit such care for trans youth also severely restricts access to transition-related care for adults.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said in a statement posted on Twitter that in his ruling “Judge Moody missed what many know: There is no scientific evidence that any child will benefit from these procedures, while the consequences are devastating and often permanent. We will appeal to the Eighth Circuit.”
Few medical organizations have raised concerns about gender-affirming care, but leading medical associations, including the World Health Organization, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society, all recommends transgender youth to access this class. in health care.
So far, the ruling only affects Arkansas. But its impact is expected to extend further, especially if it is appealed, said Holly Dickson, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “Certainly, this should be illustrated not only by the courts, but by lawmakers across the country who are thinking about these restrictions and whether they should enforce them,” Dickson said.
It is the first federal court to rule on a categorical ban on gender-affirming care and follows rulings in Florida, Alabama and Indiana that have blocked enforcement of the bans while challenges against them continue.
Moody has temporarily blocked the law from taking effect. In his decision on Tuesday, he wrote: “Rather than protecting children or protecting medical ethics, the evidence shows that illicit medical care improves the mental health and well-being of patients and that, through prohibiting it, the state undermines the interests it claims to develop.”
The trial was closely watched by many activists, lawmakers, legal advocates and trans people across the country. Shortly after the complaint was filed in May 2021, the Department of Justice submitted a statement of interest in support of the plaintiffs, saying the case “involves significant federal interests.”
Before 2020, not a single state had introduced legislation banning gender-affirming care, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonpartisan think tank that tracks LGBTQ policy. When Arkansas passed its ban in 2021, it was considered the strictest anti-trans law in the country. Called the Save Adolescents From Experimentation (SAFE) Act, the ban was intended to stop doctors from providing “gender transition” treatments, including hormones, puberty blockers and surgeries, to those under 18. It was originally vetoed by former governor Asa Hutchinson (R). ), calling it “widespread government overreach” (a Republican supermajority successfully overrode his veto).
But these restrictions, as well as other restrictions on transitional care, have since gained steam. Two states, Arizona and Alabama, passed similar bans last year. In the first six months of 2023, nearly 34 states have introduced more than 100 different gender-based care restrictions in their legislatures, according to the ACLU. In some states, such as Texas and Florida, state officials have also tried to restrict access to gender-affirming care through executive action and state medical boards.
Conservative lawmakers and activists argue that these restrictions are necessary to protect minors, with many calling gender-affirming treatments “experimental” and “irreversible.” In court documents, Arkansas questions whether “children can actually consent” to such procedures. But last year, some states proposed to move the age threshold for gender-affirming acceptance higher: In Oklahoma, a bill would make providing this care to trans people lower in 26 which is a crime.
These bills note that these procedures remain legal – including genital surgeries and breast augmentation for minors – as long as they are not used to treat gender dysmorphia. In its challenge to the Arkansas ban, the ACLU argued that this selective ban was discriminatory.
In response to increasing efforts to outlaw such care, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement in August 2022 pushing against “widespread disinformation” fueled by extremists.
“There is strong consensus among the world’s leading medical organizations that evidence-based, gender-affirming care for transgender children and adolescents is medically necessary and appropriate. . It can even save lives,” the group’s president wrote. “Pediatricians will not remain silent as these lies are perpetrated against our patients and peers.”
Plaintiffs in the Arkansas case include a doctor who provides gender-affirming care in the state, as well as four transgender youths and their families. Dylan Brandt, 17, and his mother Joanna Brandt of Greenwood, Ark., were among them.
Their battle against the law began when it was still a bill in committee, the Brandts told The Washington Post in an interview before the decision. In legal filings, Dylan, who came out as trans when he was in middle school, described a long, considered process that included a consultation with a therapist, psychiatrist, social worker and a chaplain.
But when the Brandts testified in front of lawmakers, they didn’t seem interested in what they had to say: “Really lost, honestly,” Dylan said.
They joined the ACLU lawsuit in part because they didn’t feel the same pressure other families did to downsize, Joanna Brandt said. He owns his own business, and he “chooses to believe” that his participation in the legal challenge will not affect it. But, “if for some reason it’s done, it’s a worthwhile cause.”
“Mostly and generally I’m not a fan of being told what to do, and this is the epitome of being told what to do,” Joanna Brandt said.
Complainants who spoke to The Post noted that the case is not their only concern when it comes to trans rights.
Sabrina Jennen’s parents say they are frustrated by how much misinformation about gender-affirming care has proliferated in the past two years, as well as the abuse of similar restrictions that have been introduced since then. in Arkansas itself. Beyond the landmark ruling, they are concerned that the Arkansas legislature will continue to set new standards for restricting trans rights this year.
Regardless, they know the decision will continue to shape their family for years — and that they’ll be in this fight for a long time, said Sabrina’s father, Aaron Jennen.
“We are not blind to the fact that whatever the decision is, it will be appealed, and that it will continue for some time,” Jennen said. This is “just one step in a process.”
