Why It Matters
Ohio is now at the center of a major constitutional debate over parental rights, medical authority, and state regulation of healthcare for minors. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision on House Bill 68 — the state law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth — could have lasting implications for how Ohio courts interpret parental rights under the state constitution, and may influence similar legal battles unfolding across the country.
The case directly affects transgender minors and their families who say the law prevents access to treatments their physicians have recommended and that they believe are medically necessary.
What Happened
The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments last Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Ohio House Bill 68, a law that prohibits transgender minors from beginning hormone therapy or receiving puberty-blocking medication. A ruling is expected in the coming months.
The case was brought in 2024 by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Ohio, and the law firm Goodwin on behalf of two transgender girls and their families. One of the plaintiffs had already been using puberty-blocking medication when the lawsuit was filed; the other was in the process of consulting with doctors about beginning treatment.
Jordan Bock, arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs, told the court that the law prevents parents from accessing treatments their children’s own physicians have recommended — treatments that are available to minors for other medical conditions. Bock argued that parents, not the state, have the constitutional right to make those treatment decisions in consultation with their children’s doctors.
HB 68 was passed by the Ohio legislature and took effect in April 2024 after both the Ohio House and Senate voted to override a veto by Gov. Mike DeWine. The law also includes a provision barring transgender youth from participating on sports teams that correspond with their gender identity.
By the Numbers
- April 2024: The date HB 68 took effect following the veto override.
- 6 to 1: The current partisan makeup of the Ohio Supreme Court, with six Republican justices and one Democratic justice.
- August 2024: The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas rejected the plaintiffs’ initial constitutional challenge, allowing the ban to remain in force.
- March 2025: The Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed that decision and ordered a permanent injunction against the law.
- 2 plaintiffs: The case centers on two transgender girls and their families who were directly affected by the law’s restrictions at the time the suit was filed.
Zoom Out
Ohio’s legal battle over gender-affirming care restrictions for minors is part of a broad national wave of legislation and litigation. More than 20 states have enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming medical treatments for minors since 2021, and courts across the country have reached conflicting conclusions about their constitutionality.
In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, a challenge to Tennessee’s similar ban, and issued a ruling in 2024 that allowed states significant latitude in regulating such treatments. However, state constitutional challenges — like the one now before the Ohio Supreme Court — operate on separate legal grounds and may yield different outcomes depending on each state’s constitution and precedent.
Major medical organizations in the United States, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association, have issued statements supporting access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth as part of evidence-based treatment.
What’s Next
The Ohio Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in the coming months. The court’s decision will determine whether HB 68 stands as constitutional under Ohio law or whether the Tenth District’s injunction blocking the law is upheld.
If the court upholds the law, families currently affected by the ban would continue to be barred from accessing hormone therapy and puberty blockers for their transgender children within Ohio. If the court strikes down or limits the law, it could restore access to those treatments while broader federal and state legal challenges continue to develop.
Legal observers will be watching the Ohio court’s reasoning closely, particularly on the question of parental rights, as that framework could be applied to similar cases in other states.