Trump Judge Blocks Indiana Trans Ban Citing "Irreparable Harm" To Trans Kids

A Trump-appointed judge has just blocked an Indiana law banning gender affirming care for transgender youth. The judge ruled that such a ban is likely unconstitutional and harms trans kids.

Late Friday afternoon, Judge Patrick Hanlon, a Trump-appointed federal judge, issued a temporary restraining order halting Indiana's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The ruling fully blocked the enforcement of the law, with Hanlon determining it likely violates the constitutional rights of equal protection under law. Hanlon pointedly stated that these bans unfairly discriminate against trans youth and that denying them necessary care could cause "irreparable harm."

This landmark decision marks Indiana as the fourth state where a gender-affirming care ban has been blocked by courts. The bill was debated in the shadow of significant protests led by the ACLU. Immediately upon it passing into law, the organization announced it would sue.

Since then, a wave of successful court challenges to anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ+ bills has swept across the country, effectively blocking a series of anti-transgender and anti-LGBTQ+ legislations. Thus far, these far-right bills targeting transgender people have not managed to secure a single court victory, signaling a hopeful trend for advocates of LGBTQ+ rights in the face of an onslaught of anti-trans legislation.

When determining if he would block the ban on gender affirming care, Hanlon considered three major factors: the equal protection clause, whether or not gender affirming care bans trigger heightened scrutiny due to unlawful sex discrimination, and whether the bans themselves would harm transgender youth. Hanlon found all three of these factors in the favor of the plaintiffs.

In determining whether the law would violate the equal protection clause, the Hanlon sought out to determine if the law unfairly discriminates on sex. He determined that it clearly did:

Page 19, Judge Hanlon’s opinion

In essence, the discriminatory nature of the law is evident as it only forbids treatments designed to support transgender youth in their transition to a sex different from their assigned birth sex. Conversely, it permits the same treatments when used to maintain alignment with their birth sex. To put it plainly, if a cisgender boy experiences gynecomastia (enlarged breasts), he can access treatment for reduction; however, this option is denied to transgender boys. Similarly, a cisgender girl can get medical assistance to suppress excessive testosterone, but transgender girls are prohibited from the same treatment. These biased regulations are wholly founded on sex, leading the judge to unequivocally rule that “sex-based classifications are not just present in S.E.A. 480’s prohibitions, they’re determinative.”

Because the bill is based on sex, the bill must be narrowly tailored and have an “exceedingly persuasive justification.” Simply being “controversial and unsettled,” as the state erroneously describes gender affirming care, does not meet that standard. Hanlon analyzed the evidence around puberty blockers and hormone therapy, nevertheless, to determine if those justifications existed.

The state attempted to defend its position by wrongly asserting that puberty blockers pose a significant harm to transgender youth, thus warranting the broad ban. The state supported its argument with supposed side effect profiles of hormone therapy and puberty blockers, and relied on supposed “similar bans” on care in several European countries. In contrast, the plaintiffs correctly countered that the state has misrepresented the benefits of gender-affirming care. They contended that these medical interventions are life-saving, as they have been shown to alleviate suicide risk, anxiety, and depression in transgender youth. The plaintiffs emphasized that denying access to these treatments would further endanger the wellbeing of trans youth.

Judge Hanlon found overwhelmingly in favor of transgender youth, stating that after viewing the evidence, there was a significant chance that the law would cause “irreparable harm” to them. Because the state used gender-based classifications, the law likely amounts to unconstitutional sex discrimination in medicine, violating the 14th amendment. Hanlon pointed out that such laws must be extremely narrowly tailored, and that the 480 is instead overly broad. Critically, Hanlon found that none of the countries ban the care and that all countries mentioned instead decided to take less restrictive approaches to gender affirming care regulations. According to the judge’s analysis of the state’s evidence:

• Finland does not ban care and still allows it for severe dysphoria.

• England still allows care under research settings.

• Sweden still allows care of trans youth in research settings and for those over 16.

• France still fully allows care.

• The Netherlands still fully allows care.

This does not include countries that have become more permissive on gender affirming care such as Spain, Malta, and Germany.

The judge finally closes off by issuing a finding of irreparable harm, granting the temporary restraining order, pointing to the fact that there is evidence puberty blockers and hormone therapy reduce distress:

Page 30-31, finding of irreparable harm,

This law is the most recent law in a string of laws targeting the LGBTQ+ community judicial demise. Two weeks ago, Florida’s own prohibition on gender-affirming care was blocked by a federal judge. Similarly, Tennessee’s restrictions on drag were ruled unconstitutional. In Indiana, a court ruled that teachers do not have a right to misgender their trans students. On the national stage, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted a transgender student in West Virginia to continue participating in sports. This evolving landscape underscores a new phase in the fight for transgender rights, a phase in which harmful laws are repeatedly toppled in courts across America due to their unconstitutional nature.

While many transgender people currently suffer under these laws, these recent developments give hope to a community that sorely needs it. As the last few gender affirming care bans move through Republican-supermajority state legislatures, these court decisions may serve to dissuade lawmakers from passing their own versions of these unconstitutional prohibitions on care.