In Montgomery, Alabama, a federal appeals court has made a decision to not reconsider a ruling that permits the state to uphold its prohibition on providing puberty blockers and hormones to transgender minors. The 11th U.S. Court of Appeals declined a plea by families with transgender children for the entire court to review a previous ruling that allowed the law to be implemented. This law in Alabama declares it a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, to administer puberty blockers or hormones to individuals under 19 for gender affirmation purposes. The court’s decision in January allowed Alabama to start enforcing this law. U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa stated that the court has acted rightly in enabling Alabama to safeguard the physical and psychological well-being of its minors. However, four out of the 11 judges who presided over the case dissented, with U.S. Circuit Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum describing the panel’s opinion as flawed and perilous.
Across the U.S., 25 states have implemented laws that limit or prohibit gender-affirming medical treatment for transgender youth. Some of these laws have been halted by federal courts, while others have been permitted to take effect. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to provide a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of state bans on gender-affirming care, but it has agreed to review a case from Tennessee in its upcoming term. The families advocating for transgender children had hoped that the 11th Circuit would suspend the Alabama law. Their lawyers found solace in the strong disagreements voiced by some judges. They believe that families should have the authority to make medical choices for their children, emphasizing that the banned treatments offer great benefits to the adolescents who require them.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall commended the decision, stating that it safeguards children from undergoing “life-altering chemical and surgical procedures.” Additionally, the Alabama law prohibits gender-affirming surgeries for minors, a provision that a federal judge had previously permitted to take effect after confirming that such surgeries are not conducted on minors within the state. Despite this setback, the plaintiffs’ lawyers have pledged to persist in challenging the law, asserting that measures like this should not exist in a democratic society.
