A federal judge has overturned key provisions of a new Florida law that bars minors whose gender identity differs from their sex at birth from receiving certain medical treatments, such as puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.
Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida enjoined defendants including the state’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, from enforcing parts of Senate Bill 254, which bars certain medical care options for transgender minors and also restricts options for transgender adults. Hinkle’s opinion found that multiple provisions of the bill violated constitutional protections.
“Gender identity is real,” he said in the June 11 opinion. “Those whose gender identity does not match their natal sex often suffer gender dysphoria. … Florida has adopted a statute and rules that ban gender-affirming care for minors even when medically appropriate. The ban is unconstitutional.”
A spokeswoman for the Florida Governor’s Office said the decision would be appealed, vowing that Gov. Ron DeSantis would ensure that the state’s children would not be “chemically or physically mutilated.”
“Through their elected representatives, the people of Florida acted to protect children in this state, and the court was wrong to override their wishes,” Julia Friedland, the governor’s deputy press secretary, said in an email to the Florida Record. “We disagree with the court’s erroneous rulings on the law, on the facts and on the science. As we’ve seen here in Florida, the United Kingdom and across Europe, there is no quality evidence to support the chemical and physical mutilation of children.”
Such procedures lead to life-altering damage to minors, she said, adding that future generations would look back at the practice in horror.
The opinion in the case of Doe v. Ladapo concluded that SB 254 and Board of Medicine regulations were characterized by animus and disapproval of transgender people. Consequently, the provisions violate the plaintiffs’ equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.
“The state of Florida can regulate as needed but cannot flatly deny transgender individuals safe and effective medical treatment – treatment with medications routinely provided to others with the state’s full approval so long as the purpose is not to support the patient’s transgender identity,” Hinkle’s opinion states.
The opinion also certified two classes and a subclass as part of the class-action lawsuit. One includes all transgender adults seeking gender-affirming care with puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, while another consists of transgender minors seeking the same treatment and their parents.
A subclass included all transgender minors who are barred by the statute from obtaining treatment using puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.
Defendants in an overlapping case have acknowledged that preventing people from pursuing a transgender identity is not a legitimate state interest, though they contend that the statute is a legitimate and constitutional regulation of medical care, the opinion says.
Plaintiffs in the case expressed relief at the outcome of the Doe case in district court.
“This ruling means I won’t have to watch my daughter needlessly suffer because I can’t get her the care she needs,” one anonymous parent said in a prepared statement. “Seeing Susan’s fear about this ban has been one of the hardest experiences we’ve endured as parents.”