For the time being, transgender youth in Idaho can continue to officially receive gender-affirming treatment after a federal judge on Tuesday prevented the enactment of controversial laws until the case is resolved.
Idaho Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 71 into law in April, and it was expected to go into effect on January 1st.
Idaho doctors who prescribe hormones, puberty blockers, and other therapies to transgender children would have been punished by the law with a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison prior to Tuesday’s decision.
Idaho doctors prepare for the effects of the upcoming gender-affirming treatment restrictions.
However, the parents of two trans teenagers receiving gender-affirming treatment filed a lawsuit against the state of Idaho and were successful in getting the court to halt the enforcement of the law.
The plaintiffs claim that House Bill 71 violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law in Poe v. Labrador. Federal Judge B. Lynn Winmill granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction on Tuesday, delaying the implementation of the law until the dispute is resolved.
Attorney General Raúl Labrador, Ada County Prosecutor Jan Bennetts, and Idaho Code Commission members are named in the lawsuit. The code committee members were released from the petition by Winmill on Tuesday.
Winmill ruled that House Bill 71 likely violates the 14th Amendment and that the plaintiffs’ claims have “a strong likelihood” of winning in court.
“These circumstances repeatedly show that the 14th Amendment’s main function is to protect marginalized minorities and safeguard our fundamental rights from legislative overreach,” Winmill said in the ruling. “That was true for formerly freed slaves after the Civil War. For women, people of color, interracial couples, and people who wanted access to contraception in the 20th century, it was true. And in the twenty-first century, it holds true for transgender parents and children as well.”
Winmill addressed opponents of the decision who may claim that his decision to block the legislation is “anti-democratic.” However, he claimed that his role in the court reflects the operation of a constitutional republic.
The 14th Amendment’s drafters “fully understood and intended that the amendment would restrain state legislatures from passing laws that denied equal protection of the laws or invaded the fundamental rights of individuals,” he said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Idaho, Weitz Collective, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP firms, Groombridge, Wu, Baughman, and Stone filed the lawsuit, along with the two Idaho parents and Stone & Stone.
Leo Morales, executive director of the ACLU of Idaho, stated in an emailed statement that “this victory is important for Idaho transgender children and their families and will have an immediate positive impact on their daily lives.” In the midst of a long-running assault on their right to access healthcare and the freedom to move about the world, this judicial decision is much-needed hope for trans people. Transgender people shouldn’t be denied access to medically sound healthcare because everyone should be free to live and thrive in their true selves.
