A federal appeals court affirmed an Oklahoma law on Wednesday that prohibits gender-affirming care for minors. This decision aligns with a previous ruling from the Supreme Court regarding similar legislation in Tennessee.
The law, known as Oklahoma Senate Bill 613, was enacted by a Republican majority in the state legislature and signed by Governor Kevin Stitt in 2023. It makes it a felony for healthcare providers to administer treatments like puberty blockers and hormones to minors, labeling such treatments as addressing “sexual disorders.”
A pediatrician in Oklahoma City, who works with transgender youth, challenged the law, claiming it infringes on constitutional rights.
The plaintiffs—backed by organizations like Lambda Legal and the ACLU—argued that the law was passed with discriminatory intent, particularly after pandemic relief funds were withheld from OU Health.
Even when a federal judge in Tulsa declined to block the law from taking effect, he noted that issues surrounding transition-related care for minors are complex. He suggested that the state has a right to exercise caution before permitting irreversible treatments for children.
Meanwhile, an appeal is ongoing in the US Circuit Court concerning a related case, US v. Skulmetti, which upheld Tennessee’s ban on similar grounds of not being discriminatory.
The majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts argued that Tennessee’s law is based on treatment purposes rather than gender distinction, implying that states have discretionary power over medical regulations affecting children.
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel from the 10th Circuit utilized this Supreme Court precedent to declare Oklahoma’s law constitutional.
Judge Joel M. Carson noted that Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 613 and Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 are “functionally indistinguishable,” emphasizing that both laws exclude treatment based on a lack of medical diagnosis for transgender minors. Carson highlighted that the distinction does not constitute discrimination.
He acknowledged the broader implications of the decision, suggesting that there is still much debate regarding the health and welfare of minors undergoing gender transition procedures. “The disagreement over legislation remains a serious topic,” he wrote, expressing respect for the diverse viewpoints without ignoring the decisions made by elected lawmakers.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond celebrated the ruling on a social media platform, asserting that claims surrounding “gender transition” for minors have been misleading.
On the other side, lawyers for the plaintiffs described the ruling as “devastating.” In their joint statement, they condemned the Oklahoma ban as overtly discriminatory, suggesting it places political agendas above the needs of families and healthcare providers. They vowed to continue fighting for the rights and freedoms of transgender individuals and their families in Oklahoma.
