FACTS:
On January 24, 2024, by veto-override, the Ohio General Assembly enacted a bill composed of two separate acts, bearing separate titles: the “Saving Ohio Adolescents from Experimentation Act,” and the “Save Women’s Sports Act” (collectively, “H.B. 68”). The first Act bans physicians from providing gender-affirming medical care for transgender adolescents, specifically including puberty blocking medication and hormone treatments, which are common and widely accepted forms of care for gender dysphoria in adolescents. The second Act prohibits Ohio schools from permitting trans girls and women to participate in girls’ or women’s athletic competitions. The Health Care Ban in particular poses an enormous threat to transgender adolescents and their families, causing many to seek medical care outside of Ohio—or even consider leaving the state.
Plaintiffs in this case are two 12-year old transgender girls, at different stages of pubertal development, and their families. Both of them will be denied this critical medical care if HB 68 goes into effect.
LEGAL THEORY:
H.B. 68 violates several provisions of the Ohio Constitution: the single-subject clause, the Health Care Freedom Amendment, and the due process and equal protection clauses.
STATUS:
The case was filed against the Ohio Attorney General, state medical board, and other officials in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on March 26, 2024. Alongside our Complaint, we filed a motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order preventing enforcement of the law, which was to take effect on April 24. The Court established a briefing schedule on April 4. Defendants opposed the TRO on April 9 and Plaintiffs filed a Reply on April 11. After a hearing on April 12, the Court entered a TRO on April 16, and set a hearing for a combined hearing on a preliminary injunction and the merits for May 16.
On April 17, Defendants filed a Motion to Clarify the TRO, which was in effect a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs filed a memo contra on April 18. On April 22, Defendants filed a mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court against the judge in this case, Judge Holbrook, claiming that (1) Common Pleas judges lack authority to issue statewide injunctions, and (2) the scope of the TRO, enjoining provisions for which the plaintiffs lack standing, was overbroad. We moved to intervene in that case. Following expedited briefing, the Supreme Court denied the writ on May 22.
On April 26 we filed a motion to extend the TRO. That same day, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss some of our claims. Over Defendants’ opposition, on April 30 the Court extended the TRO through May 20. On May 1, we filed a motion for partial summary judgment and opposition to the motion to dismiss, and also filed a motion seeking to delay the May hearing/trial and expedite briefing on the dispositive motions. On May 2 the Court held a status conference and on May 3 entered an order striking the motion to dismiss and the motion for partial summary judgement, and re-setting the case for a combined PI hearing and trial on the merits for the week of July 17, and extending the TRO through said trial.
Trial was held from July 15-19. At the end of trial, the Court ordered written closing statements on an expedited basis, to be exchanged simultaneously on July 22 with rebuttals on July 24. On August 6, the trial court entered a final judgment vacating the TRO and denying all claims. We filed a notice of appeal that same day.
On August 7, we moved the appeals court for an injunction pending appeal. Appellees opposed on August 9 and on August 12 moved for expedited briefing. The court granted the expedited briefing schedule without ruling on our motion for injunction. We filed our Appellant Brief on August 22. Appellees filed their brief on August 29 and we filed our Reply on September 3. On September 11, a panel of 10th District appellate judges heard oral argument. We await a decision.
