In Doe v. Ladapo, (ND FL, June 11, 2024), a Florida federal district court in a 105-page opinion held unconstitutional many of the provisions in Florida law that ban gender-affirming care for minors and regulate it for adults. The court, analyzing equal protection and substantive due process challenges, said in part:
The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear….
For some, the denial that transgender identity is real—the opposition to transgender individuals and to their freedom to live their lives—is not different in kind or intensity from the animus that has attended racism and misogyny, less as time has passed but still today. And some transgender opponents invoke religion to support their position, just as some once invoked religion to support their racism or misogyny. Transgender opponents are of course free to hold their beliefs. But they are not free to discriminate against transgender individuals just for being transgender. In time, discrimination against transgender individuals will diminish, just as racism and misogyny have diminished. To paraphrase a civil-rights advocate from an earlier time, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice…..
This record includes overwhelming evidence that the House sponsors and a significant number of other House members were motivated by anti-transgender animus. This is clear from their own animus-based statements and from the failure of other members to call them out…..
Banning gender-affirming care for minors across the board in all circumstances, rather than appropriately regulating such care, is not sufficiently related to the legitimate state interest in safeguarding health.
The ban on care for minors does not survive intermediate scrutiny….
[T]here are some, including the Governor and quite a few members of the Florida Legislature, who believe transgenderism—and thus gender-affirming care—is morally wrong. Enforcing this moral view is not, however, a legitimate state interest that can sustain this statute, even under rational-basis scrutiny….
[W]hether based on morals, religion, unmoored hatred, or anything else, prohibiting or impeding a person from conforming to the person’s gender identity rather than to the person’s natal sex is not a legitimate state interest…..
In addition to invalidating the ban on care for minors, the court also struck down various unnecessary limits placed on gender affirming care for adults.
The Hill reports on the decision and says that the state will appeal it.
