Supreme Court of Ohio denied the state’s request to narrow the temporary restraining order against Ohio’s gender-affirming care ban for transgender youth.
Wednesday’s decision allows the case to continue in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, where a hearing is scheduled for July 15.
“This decision was the right one,” Freda Levenson, legal director of the ACLU of Ohio, said in a statement.
“The state’s demand was blatant. The scope of the temporary restraining order was necessary and appropriate to prevent constitutional violations and other irreparable harm that would result immediately if HB 68 became law. Our legal fight will continue until this cruel restriction is permanently overturned.”
The The ACLU of Ohio filed the lawsuit in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas March 26 against part of House Bill 68, which prohibits gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The lawsuit claims that HB 68 violates four sections of the Ohio Constitution – the Single Subject Principle, the health care provision, the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Provision.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two families whose 12-year-old transgender daughters will lose access to gender-affirming health care.
On April 16, Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael Holbrook issued a temporary restraining order against HB 68. In addition to preventing transgender youth from starting hormone therapy and using puberty-blocking drugs, the bill also prevents transgender athletes from playing middle and high school sports.
On April 22, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost filed the request emergency petition to the Ohio Supreme Court try to stop the restraining order, arguing that Holbrook “acted outside the scope of his authority.” He also said the order is illegal because it applies to all of Ohio, not just two plaintiffs.
“The state’s claim that this is an ’emergency situation’ because it cannot enforce an unconstitutional law is completely absurd,” Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.
“Not only does the challenged temporary injunction not create an emergency, it merely maintains the status quo in Ohio – that transgender youth have access to life-saving medical care with the support of parents and physicians.”
HB 68 was scheduled to go into effect on April 24. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine vetoed HB 68, but lawmakers voted to override his veto.
In two separate, concurring opinions, Ohio Supreme Court Justice Pat DeWine and Democratic Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Brunner took shots at each other.
“While we deny the relief sought today, this case raises an important issue: whether it is appropriate for a single judge in a single district to issue a statewide injunction that goes beyond what is necessary to provide the parties with interim relief in the case,” the judge said. DeWine asked.
“The other concurring opinion in this case is a full-throated defense of universal injunctions and threatens to prevent this court from ever addressing the issue. Unlike other consensual justices, I will reserve judgment until we are presented with a case that properly presents the issues at hand and receive the benefit of adversarial briefing.[…]This court should examine the appropriateness of issuing general injunctions to grant interim relief in an appropriate case.”
Judge DeWine was joined by Justices Patrick Fischer and Joseph Deters.
Judge Brunner, on her own initiative, disagreed with Judge DeWine’s quote regarding a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
“Stay is not an order. “The Ohio Constitution, unlike the federal constitution, contains a single-subject legislative principle that renders multi-subject legislative acts apparently unconstitutional,” Brunner wrote. “The very nature of a facial constitutional violation is such that the offending law violates the Constitution under all circumstances.”
Brunner wrote that if a law that is apparently unconstitutional cannot apply to a specific person, it cannot apply to anyone else.
“Similarly, a temporary restraining order based on a substantial likelihood that a law is apparently unconstitutional cannot be limited to the parties in the case. Moreover, when the court hearing such a complaint has jurisdiction over the State as a defendant, it has the power to prohibit the State from applying the law, regardless of its subject matter.”
Brunner then explained why she decided to write her own release in the first place.
“My colleague’s concurring opinion reads more like a political statement than a legal one, which is why I wrote this opinion piece,” Brunner concluded.
Gender-affirming care is supported by: every major medical organization in the United States. Children’s hospitals across Ohio, the Ohio Children’s Hospital Association and the Ohio Academy of Family Physicians opposed HB 68.
Follow the OCJ reporter Megan Henry on X
