MIAMI — On Wednesday, Florida’s legal representatives presented arguments in front of a federal appeals court, asserting that a lower court’s decision to suspend a law prohibiting gender-affirming healthcare for minors was misguided. There is also an ongoing case at the U.S. Supreme Court concerning a similar ban in Tennessee, which could influence legislation in numerous other states, further adding to the uncertainty surrounding these laws.
During the oral arguments at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Miami, the attorneys emphasized that Florida’s law, which remains in force, forbids the prescribing of puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors even with parental consent. Furthermore, the law mandates that transgender adults receive their treatments exclusively from physicians, as opposed to other qualified practitioners like registered nurses. For adults to consent to treatment, they must do so in the presence of a doctor.
In June, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle had issued a block against the law. However, a panel of three judges decided to stay this decision last fall during the appeals process, allowing the law to continue being enforced in the interim. The restrictions primarily concern puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, which are often given to transgender individuals. Notably, those minors who were already in treatment as of May 2023 are permitted to continue their care, although surgical procedures, which are rarely performed on minors, remain prohibited.
In support of the state’s appeal, attorney Mohammad Jazil asserted during the hearing that Judge Hinkle incorrectly concluded that the law stemmed from antagonism toward transgender individuals by state officials, rather than from established medical guidelines. “The district court itself admits that there are valid concerns regarding this treatment and that appropriate regulations are necessary,” Jazil remarked. He argued that the judge wrongly prioritized the opinions of a limited number of lawmakers over valid justifications for regulating medical treatments.
Jazil criticized the notion that the remarks of a few legislators reflected the attitudes of the entire Florida Legislature and the independent medical boards. He stated, “That was an error,” emphasizing the need for a broader context in evaluating the motives behind the legislation.
The initial lawsuit contesting the ban was brought forth by a coalition of Florida families, represented by various civil rights organizations, including GLAD Law. They were subsequently joined by four adult plaintiffs. Judge Hinkle ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the ban unconstitutional due to violations of equal protection rights and evidence of intentional discrimination against transgender individuals.
Adam Unikowsky, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, countered on Wednesday that Hinkle referenced more than merely the statements of a small group of lawmakers. He stressed that those statements were just one element among many pieces of circumstantial evidence. For illustration, Unikowsky highlighted another law in Florida, enacted by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis on the same day as the regulations on gender-affirming care, which restricts public school staff from using chosen pronouns if they do not align with the individual’s sex assigned at birth.
“What the district court inferred from these actions was that the Legislature intended to dissuade individuals from transitioning,” Unikowsky noted, suggesting that the overarching goal appeared to be a reluctance towards the acceptance of transitioning.
The Supreme Court has already reviewed arguments regarding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, but a decision is not anticipated for several months. This case is under examination by a court that has shown conservative leanings in the context of a recent presidential election where promises were made to revoke protections for transgender individuals.
During the hearing, judges inquired whether the appeals process should await the Supreme Court’s final ruling. Jazil contended that delaying the Florida case was warranted because of the similarities between the Florida and Tennessee laws. Conversely, Unikowsky argued that Florida’s appeal should proceed on account of differing legal arguments posed against the two laws.
Currently, at least 26 states have enacted laws that either restrict or prohibit gender-affirming healthcare for transgender minors, and many of those states are facing ongoing legal challenges. The states that have enacted such laws include 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.
