Metro Weekly

Kansas Judge Blocks State Ban on Treatments for Trans Minors

Judge finds that restrictions on transgender-related treatments for minors violate parents' right to make medical decisions for their children.

Judge Carl Folsom III – Photo: Linkedin

A Kansas judge has temporarily blocked the state from enforcing its law banning minors from accessing non-surgical transition-related treatments such as hormones or puberty blockers.

On May 15, Judge Carl Folsom III of the State District Court in Douglas County granted a temporary injunction blocking the state from enforcing the law, finding that it likely violated parents’ rights to make decisions about their children’s health and wellbeing.

In his 117-page ruling, Folsom — who was appointed by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly — wrote that transgender children were likely to suffer “irreparable harm” if the ban on transition-related hormonal treatments remained in effect. He also cited testimony asserting that gender-affirming, non-surgical treatments for minors are safe, effective, and medically credible.

Folsom did not block bans on surgical interventions for minors. Currently, only one state — Arizona — bans surgical treatments while still allowing access to hormones and puberty blockers.

Kansas is one of 26 states that currently ban or severely restrict gender-affirming treatments for minors seeking to transition. Kelly vetoed the law last year, calling it “government interference in Kansans’ private medical decisions,” but Republicans in the state legislature overrode her veto.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors, finding that states have the authority to restrict transition-related treatments in the name of protecting children. But because the lawsuit challenging Kansas’ law was filed in state court and centers on questions involving the state constitution, it is not bound by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling.

In the lawsuit, filed last year by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and law firm Ballard Spahr, two transgender teenagers and their parents argue that the state’s ban violates the Kansas Constitution. They say denying gender-affirming treatments would cause their children permanent harm. The case has yet to go to trial on its merits.

Critics of gender-affirming care argue that the off-label use of hormones and other medications is experimental and lacks sufficient scientific evidence. They also contend that some minors who medically transition may later regret it, and that many children experiencing gender dysphoria will eventually identify with their birth sex.

Supporters of the treatments argue that they are the medically recommended standard of care for people seeking to transition, and that most transgender minors continue identifying with their gender identity after transitioning. They also note that the same puberty blockers and hormonal treatments remain legal for other minors, provided they are not being used for gender transition.

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach criticized Folsom’s ruling as a “stark example of judicial activism” and vowed to appeal the decision.

“The judge invented a new constitutional right out of whole cloth,” Kobach said in a statement. “Even though the Kansas Constitution says nothing about it, the judge created a new right of parents to obtain otherwise-illegal treatments for their children.”

When the lawsuit was first filed, Kobach accused the ACLU of “twisting the meaning of the Kansas Constitution into something unrecognizable” and defended lawmakers’ authority to ban medications prescribed to assist in gender transition.

Supporters hailed the temporary injunction as a rare but significant victory for their clients.

“This is an enormous relief to our clients and families across the state of Kansas,” Harper Seldin, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Rights Project, said in a statement. “The medical care unjustly banned by this law serves as the foundation of young transgender people’s entire lives and helps give them the future all young people deserve. Any decision about this medical care should be between families and their doctors, and today’s order from the court restores that fundamental principle.”

Support Metro Weekly’s Journalism

These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!