TALLAHASSEE 鈥� Florida this week asked a federal appeals court to allow the state to restrict treatments for people with gender dysphoria while a legal battle continues to play out.
Attorneys for the state filed a 36-page motion at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a stay of a ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle that blocked restrictions Florida imposed last year on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender people.
A stay, if granted, would allow the restrictions to be in effect while the Atlanta-based appeals court considers the state鈥檚 underlying appeal of Hinkle鈥檚 decision 鈥� a process that likely will take months.
鈥淟etting the state鈥檚 laws stand pending an appeal makes the most sense,鈥� the motion, filed Wednesday, said. 鈥淲hether the state chooses to use a hammer or a scalpel to regulate gender-dysphoria treatments is a matter for the state to decide.鈥�
Hinkle last month ruled that a 2023 state law and regulations barring the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy to treat children for gender dysphoria and making it harder for transgender adults to access care were unconstitutionally discriminatory and motivated by 鈥渁nimus鈥� toward trans people. Hinkle prohibited state health officials from enforcing the law.
READ MORE: Florida ban on trans care for minors struck down
In the 101-page ruling, Hinkle wrote that 鈥済ender identity is real鈥� and likened opposition to transgender people to racism and misogyny.
鈥淭he state of Florida can regulate as needed but cannot flatly deny transgender individuals safe and effective medical treatment 鈥� treatment with medications routinely provided to others with the state鈥檚 full approval so long as the purpose is not to support the patient鈥檚 transgender identity,鈥� he wrote.
Florida quickly appealed and, in the motion filed Wednesday, disputed Hinkle鈥檚 conclusions about issues such as animus toward transgender people. The motion requested a stay 鈥渁s soon as practicable.鈥�
鈥淭he state suffers irreparable harm because its laws have been enjoined,鈥� the motion said. 鈥淎nd the state and its citizens face the prospect of risky, possible ineffective, and certainly life-altering treatments being administered.鈥�
Florida and other Republican-controlled states have approved numerous laws and regulations in recent years focused on transgender people. One of the highest-profile issues has been restricting use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors with gender dysphoria.
The federal government defines gender dysphoria clinically as 鈥渟ignificant distress that a person may feel when sex or gender assigned at birth is not the same as their identity.鈥�
In addition to banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors with gender dysphoria, the 2023 Florida law also affected transgender adults. It allowed only physicians 鈥� not nurse practitioners 鈥� to approve hormone therapy and barred the use of telehealth for new prescriptions. Opponents argued that the restrictions severely reduced access to hormone therapy for adults.
Gov. Ron DeSantis鈥� administration has long disputed arguments about the effectiveness of gender-dysphoria treatments, particularly for minors.
Wednesday鈥檚 motion also cited a ruling by a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that rejected a preliminary injunction issued by a district judge against an Alabama ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors.
鈥淭here, this (11th Circuit) court held that an Alabama statute that regulates puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as gender-dysphoria treatments didn鈥檛 violate the Equal Protection Clause (of the U.S. Constitution) or Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process,鈥� the motion said.鈥滻t explained that the statute didn鈥檛 amount to sex-based or transgender-based discrimination, and concluded that access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones treatments isn鈥檛 deeply rooted in our nation鈥檚 history and tradition, which allows states more leeway to regulate them. Those are the same constitutional issues that plaintiffs raise in their complaints (in the Florida case).鈥�
Attorneys for parents of trans children and a transgender man filed the class-action lawsuit challenging the Florida restrictions. In his ruling last month, Hinkle repeatedly questioned state policymakers鈥� decisions.
鈥淭he patients鈥� motivation is the desire to achieve the best possible medical treatment. The parents鈥� motivation is love for their children and the desire to achieve the best possible medical treatment for them. This was not the motivation of many of those involved in adoption of this statute and these rules,鈥� the judge wrote.
