A Kansas state court has temporarily halted enforcement of a law that would have banned gender-transition medical treatments for minors, marking the first major legal setback for restrictions that Republican lawmakers passed earlier this year.
State District Judge Carl Folsom III issued the injunction Friday after parents of two teenagers filed suit, arguing they retain the constitutional right to authorize medical care for their children. The decision freezes the law's enforcement for the duration of the litigation.
The Kansas legislature, controlled by Republicans, passed the measure in January despite a gubernatorial veto from Democrat Laura Kelly. The law would prohibit hormone therapies and puberty suppressants for transgender youth with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
Folsom, a Kelly appointee, found the parents had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of winning their case. In his ruling, the judge cited both the Kansas state constitution's protection of personal autonomy and the fundamental parental right to direct their children's medical treatment.
"Specifically, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail based on the right to personal autonomy set out in Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights and a parent's fundamental right to make medical decisions for their children," Folsom wrote.
The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the families, called the temporary block a major victory. "This is an enormous relief to our clients and families across the state of Kansas," ACLU attorney Harper Seldin said.
Kansas Attorney General Kris W. Kobach, a Republican, signaled he would challenge the decision. Local media reports indicate Kobach plans to appeal. Kobach characterized Folsom's ruling as "a stark example of judicial activism."
The injunction will remain in place unless a higher court reverses it. If it survives appellate review, the block would last until the case is fully resolved.
The Kansas case arrives as states continue clashing over gender-affirming care for minors. The U.S. Supreme Court last year upheld states' authority to restrict such treatments, but courts in multiple jurisdictions have found state bans conflict with their own constitutional protections or parental rights.
Author James Rodriguez: "This is a reminder that a judicial majority can't simply overturn parental decision-making rights with a single legislative vote, no matter how popular the cause might be in certain circles."
Comments