Advocates praise ruling that halts Idaho ban on gender-affirming care. Labrador to appeal

A federal judge in Idaho has prevented the state’s ban on some gender-affirming treatments for transgender children from taking effect Jan. 1.

U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday, six days before the controversial law’s scheduled start date. The injunction prevents enforcement of the law.

Winmill ruled that the plaintiffs — two Idaho transgender minors and their parents, who are using pseudonyms — likely will prevail in their lawsuit under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses.

“Time and again, these cases illustrate that the 14th Amendment’s primary role is to protect disfavored minorities and preserve our fundamental rights from legislative overreach,” Winmill wrote. “That was true for newly freed slaves following the Civil War. It was true in the 20th century for women, people of color, interracial couples and individuals seeking access to contraception. And it is no less true for transgender children and their parents in the 21st century.”

The Idaho Legislature passed House Bill 71, and Gov. Brad Little signed it, earlier this year. The law created a felony offense for providing puberty blockers, hormone therapies and transition-related surgeries to minors.

The two families sued Attorney General Raúl Labrador, Ada County Prosecutor Jan Bennetts and members of the Idaho Code Commission. Winmill dismissed the members of the Code Commission, who publish state laws, from the case.

Labrador plans to appeal the injunction, he said in a statement Wednesday afternoon.

“The federal judiciary once endorsed the eugenics movement and forced sterilization of intellectually disabled people,” Labrador said. “Similarly, Judge Winmill’s ruling places children at risk of irreversible harm. History will not look kindly at this decision. We are taking immediate action to appeal this decision and are confident that correction will come.”

Little and Bennetts did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

Leo Morales, executive director of the ACLU of Idaho, in a news release Wednesday said the ruling was a significant victory for Idaho transgender youth and their parents. The ACLU of Idaho, along with the American Civil Liberties Union and several other organizations, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the two Idaho families.

“This judicial decision is a much-needed ray of hope for trans people amid a yearslong onslaught against their rights to access health care and ability to navigate the world around them,” Morales said.

Idaho’s ban was just one of several challenges brought by ACLU affiliates against states’ bans on gender-affirming care. Families and medical providers in Tennessee and Kentucky in November asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that allowed bans on transgender youth’s health care to go into effect.

Ritchie Eppink, legal director for the ACLU of Idaho and an attorney at Wrest Collective representing the plaintiffs, told the Idaho Statesman that the Idaho court “weighed the arguments on both sides carefully and plainly concluded that this kind of law should not be enforced.”

“Other courts and decision makers across the United States would do well to closely heed this new Idaho decision,” he said.

In his ruling, Winmill cited the guidance of many major medical organizations that support gender-affirming care for minors.

“After carefully considering the voluminous evidence on this point, the court finds that the treatment for gender dysphoria — when provided in accordance with the guidelines published by (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health) and the Endocrine Society, and which may include medical interventions such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgeries — is safe, effective and medically necessary for some adolescents,” Winmill wrote.

Plaintiff Pam Poe, 15, “struggled with depression, anxiety and self-harm” Winmill wrote, and was diagnosed with gender dysphoria at a residential treatment facility. Her mental health has “greatly improved” since beginning treatment that would be banned under the new law, Winmill’s ruling says. The family would consider moving from Idaho if that happens.

Plaintiff Jane Doe, 16, “sometimes wished she did not even exist,” according to the complaint that started the lawsuit. She also was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and received gender-affirming care that “significantly improved” her mental health, according to the ruling. Her family also has considered moving from Idaho if the bill takes effect.

“When the bill passed,” Winmill wrote, “Jane wept in the hallway at school, and her parents had to take her home.”