In Doe v. Surgeon General, State of Florida, (11th Cir., Aug. 26, 2024), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, allowed Florida's ban on prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors suffering from gender dysphoria to go back into effect, pending appeal of a district court injunction against enforcement of the ban. The district court had concluded that the ban was motivated by anti-transgender animus. (See prior posting.)
First, the district court likely misapplied the presumption that the legislature acted in good faith when it concluded that the prohibition and regulation provisions, and the implementing rules, were based on invidious discrimination against transgender minors and adults....
... [E]ven if the district court were correct in its animus decision, heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to invidious discrimination based on a non-suspect class, and “[n]either the Supreme Court nor this court has recognized transgender status as a quasi-suspect class.”
The majority ordered an expedited calendar for hearing of the appeal.
Judge Wilson dissented, saying in part:
First, the district court appropriately recognized the presumption of legislative good faith, but identified sufficient record evidence to support concluding that the act’s passage was based on invidious discrimination against transgender adults and minors....
The district court found that the statute is subject to intermediate scrutiny because it is (1) based on sex and (2) based on gender nonconformity.
Tallahassee Democrat reports on the decision.
