The 11th Circuit Court vacated a preliminary injunction against an Alabama law that made using puberty blockers or hormone treatments on minors illegal.

Alabama’s Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act was passed last year and was almost immediately enjoined by a judge. The basis of the injunction was that prohibiting parents from certain medical decisions for their children violated their constitutional rights and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The lower court agreed with this contention and prevented the law from going into effect.

The 11th Circuit held that the injunction was invalid. Not just invalid, but based on very flimsy legal reasoning.

Shortly after the Act was signed into law, a group of transgender minors, their parents, and other concerned individuals
challenged the Act’s constitutionality, claiming that it violates the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As part of that lawsuit, the district court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining Alabama from enforcing
section 4(a)(1)–(3) of the Act pending trial, having determined that the plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on both of the aforementioned claims. Specifically, as to the due process claim, the district court held that there is a constitutional right to “treat [one’s]
children with transitioning medications subject to medically accepted standards” and that the restrictions of section 4(a)(1)–(3) likely impermissibly infringe upon that constitutional right. As to the equal protection claim, the district court held that section
4(a)(1)–(3) classifies on the basis of sex by classifying on the basis of gender nonconformity and likely amounts to unlawful discrimination under the intermediate scrutiny standard applicable to sexbased classifications.

There are a number of legal infirmities the Circuit Court identified. First and foremost is that they disagreed with the District Court that the case was likely to succeed on its merits. Parents do not have an unlimited right to make decisions for their children, including medical decisions. And especially medical decisions based upon experimental treatments, even if physicians believe that the treatment is warranted.

Since even advocates for gender-affirming care admit that the data is sparse, such care is prima facia experimental. Further, there are known harms associated with the “care,” and evidence suggests that most children desist in their gender dysphoria. Hence the state has a rational basis for the law, and that is the standard by which such cases are decided.

It is not the Court’s role to determine whether the lawmakers are right; the Court’s role is to decide whether they have a right to make a decision. The 11th Circuit held that the legislature did have a legitimate interest in the issue.

The Court blew away the Equal Protection Claim easily. There simply was no argument about whether the law discriminated on the basis of any protected class. It simply held that using certain treatments known to be risky may be outlawed by legislatures.

On review, we hold that the district court abused its discretion in issuing this preliminary injunction because it applied the wrong standard of scrutiny. The plaintiffs have not presented any authority that supports the existence of a constitutional right to“treat [one’s] children with transitioning medications subject to medically accepted standards.” Nor have they shown that section 4(a)(1)–(3) classifies on the basis of sex or any other protected characteristic. Accordingly, section 4(a)(1)–(3) is subject only to rational basis review. Because the district court erred by reviewing the statute under a heightened standard of scrutiny, its determination that the plaintiffs have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits cannot stand. We therefore vacate the preliminary injunction

There are a lot of interesting  components to this case, but of course the most important one is this: the argument for preliminary injunctions looked weak to the 11th Circuit.

The way things work with Circuit Courts is a bit weird; their decisions affect regions of the country, and not the entire United States. The 11th Circuit has jurisdiction over Florida, Alabama and Georgia, so their decision only effects those states. Other Circuit Courts can decide differently.

It’s a pretty big victory for skeptics of using hormones and puberty blockers. It is not, however, a blowout. As expected, for the foreseeable future this issue will be fought out state by state.

Still, this means that at least states have been affirmed in their right to regulate these procedures. That’s a victory.