The Ohio Supreme Court has allowed a contentious law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors to go back into effect, even as legal challenges to its constitutionality continue in lower courts.
On Tuesday, the court sided with a request from Republican Attorney General Dave Yost to reinstate H.B. 68 — the law that had been temporarily blocked by a lower court in April. The move permits the state to enforce the ban while the broader legal battle plays out.
Freda Levenson, legal director of the ACLU of Ohio, condemned the decision: “It is a terrible shame that the Supreme Court of Ohio is permitting the state to evade compliance with the Ohio Constitution. Our clients have suffered tangible and irreparable harm during the eight months that H.B. 68 has been in place, including being denied essential health care in their home state.”
The Background
H.B. 68 was passed in January 2024 by Ohio’s Republican-dominated legislature. The law bans gender-affirming medical care for minors and bars transgender girls from playing on sports teams that align with their gender identity.
Despite Republican Governor Mike DeWine’s veto of the bill, the legislature swiftly overrode it, making Ohio the 24th U.S. state to prohibit trans girls and women from participating in school sports based on gender identity and the 23rd to ban gender-affirming care for minors.
The law prohibits healthcare professionals from “aiding or abetting” minors in accessing gender-affirming care and places limits on mental health professionals by requiring them to explore alternate mental health diagnoses before concluding a child has gender dysphoria.
Legal Pushback
The ACLU of Ohio, representing two families with transgender children, filed a lawsuit claiming H.B. 68 violates several provisions of the Ohio Constitution, including the equal protection clause and the Health Care Freedom Amendment. The ACLU argues that the law restricts families’ rights to make medical decisions and unfairly discriminates against trans youth.
In April 2024, a state judge issued a temporary block, citing the “single subject rule,” which prohibits Ohio laws from addressing multiple unrelated issues in one bill. H.B. 68 contains both a ban on gender-affirming care and a ban on trans student-athletes — two topics the ACLU argued should not be combined.
However, in August, that same judge ruled against the ACLU, stating that the bill’s provisions were thematically connected as they both pertain to “the regulation of transgender individuals.” The judge also held that the state had a “legitimate interest” in restricting access to such care.
Still, the legal tide seemed to shift when a three-judge panel from the Tenth District Court of Appeals ruled last month that the ban violated Ohio’s Health Care Freedom Amendment, which prohibits state interference in access to essential healthcare.
Plaintiffs presented evidence from major medical associations that consider gender-affirming care critical for the well-being of trans people. Meanwhile, the state’s defence relied on so-called “expert” witnesses with questionable credibility — a point the judges noted in dismissing their testimony.
“H.B. 68 violates at least two separate provisions of the Ohio Constitution,” Levenson reaffirmed. “We will continue to fight this extreme ban as the case goes ahead before the Supreme Court of Ohio.”
