Gender-Affirming Care Ban Halted by Montana Supreme Court

Gender-Affirming Care Ban Halted by Montana Supreme Court \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Montana’s Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors, citing privacy concerns under the state constitution. The case will proceed to trial in District Court. Advocates for transgender rights hailed the decision, while state officials and lawmakers criticized it as endangering children. The outcome underscores ongoing national battles over transgender healthcare.

Montana’s Gender-Affirming Care Ban: Quick Looks

• Temporary Injunction: Montana’s Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling blocking the law for now.
• Core Issue: The court found the law likely violates Montana’s constitutional right to privacy.
• National Context: Similar bans in over 26 states face lawsuits, with mixed judicial outcomes.
• Advocates vs. Opponents: LGBTQ+ groups celebrated the decision, while state officials argued the law protects children.
• Future Proceedings: The case heads to trial before District Court Judge Jason Marks.

Deep Look

The Montana Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday to temporarily block a law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. The decision aligns with a lower court ruling that found the law likely violates Montana’s constitutional right to privacy. The case now moves to trial in District Court, where Judge Jason Marks will hear arguments on the law’s constitutionality.

A Personal Fight for Rights

Phoebe Cross, a 17-year-old transgender boy and lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, spoke out against the law. “I will never understand why my representatives are working to strip me of my rights and the rights of other transgender kids,” Cross said in a statement. Cross’s sentiment reflects broader frustrations among transgender youth and their families, who argue that the law infringes on their rights to dignity, equal protection, and medical care.

The Law’s Provisions and Controversy

Montana’s law bans puberty blockers, hormone therapies, and gender-affirming surgeries for transgender minors while permitting similar treatments for cisgender youth, such as puberty blockers for early puberty or surgeries for intersex conditions. Supporters of the law claim it protects children from experimental treatments with irreversible consequences, but critics argue it unfairly targets transgender youth and risks their mental and physical health.

In blocking the law in September 2023, Judge Marks found that it would cause significant harm to minors with gender dysphoria rather than protect them. Marks also questioned the legislature’s intent, stating it appeared to be more about banning transgender outcomes than safeguarding minors.

National and International Context

The ruling comes amid a wave of legislative efforts across the U.S. to limit gender-affirming care for minors. Montana is one of at least 26 states that have enacted similar bans, many of which are tied up in lawsuits. Fifteen states, by contrast, have enacted protections for gender-affirming care.

At the national level, the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments on Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries for transgender minors, with early indications suggesting the justices may uphold the ban. Meanwhile, the British government’s indefinite ban on puberty blockers for children with gender dysphoria, announced Wednesday, has added another layer to the international debate.

Reactions to the Ruling

Supporters of the Montana law criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to block it. Attorney General spokesperson Chase Scheuer argued that experimental treatments pose risks and that the court’s decision jeopardizes children’s well-being. Republican Sen. John Fuller, the bill’s sponsor, called the ruling an example of “hyperpartisanship” and criticized the court for allowing what he termed “dangerous” and “unscientific” treatments.

Fuller hinted at the possibility of reintroducing a similar bill in the 2025 Legislature.

In contrast, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups celebrated the ruling. Kell Olsen, an attorney for Lambda Legal, emphasized the strength of Montana’s constitutional protections. “Transgender youth in Montana can sleep easier tonight knowing that they can continue to thrive for now,” Olsen said. Democratic Rep. Zooey Zephyr, Montana’s first transgender legislator, also applauded the decision, stating, “Gender-affirming care saves lives, and like all health care decisions, it should be left between doctors and patients.”

Constitutional and Medical Considerations

Montana’s constitution provides robust protections for privacy, which include personal medical decisions. The plaintiffs in the case—transgender minors, their parents, and medical providers—argue that the law violates these protections as well as rights to equal protection and dignity.

Medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, endorse gender-affirming treatments as the standard of care for gender dysphoria. These treatments aim to align an individual’s physical characteristics with their gender identity, improving mental health and overall well-being.

Critics of the law argue that prohibiting access to these treatments puts transgender youth at greater risk of depression, anxiety, and suicide. Meanwhile, proponents of the ban assert that such treatments are experimental and lack sufficient long-term safety data.

Next Steps

The Montana case will now proceed to a trial before District Court Judge Jason Marks in Missoula. The outcome could have significant implications for transgender youth in the state and may influence broader legal battles over similar laws nationwide.

In the meantime, transgender youth, their families, and advocates continue to fight for their rights in a contentious political and legal climate. As states and courts grapple with the issue, the future of gender-affirming care for minors remains uncertain but fiercely debated.

More on US News