Appeals court partially overturns Ohio ban on transgender care for minors
A three-judge panel for Ohio's 10th District Court of Appeals reversed an August judgment that allowed House Bill 68 to take effect after a district court temporarily halted the measure's enforcement last spring. The ruling sends the case back to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
The law, which Republican Gov. Mike DeWine initially vetoed before Ohio's GOP-led Legislature voted to override him, bans transition-related care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, for minors. It also bars transgender student-athletes from joining girls' and women's sports teams.
Two 12-year-old transgender girls, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), its Ohio affiliate and the law firm Goodwin, sued the state in March 2024, arguing that House Bill 68's health care restrictions put their and other trans youths' health and well-being 'at risk of severe and irreversible harm.'
DeWine, in vetoing the bill, said similarly that his decision was 'about protecting human life.'
'Many parents have told me that their child would not have survived — would be dead today — if they had not received the treatment they received from one of Ohio's children's hospitals,' he said at the time. A January 2024 executive order signed by DeWine bans gender-affirming surgeries for minors in Ohio.
Tuesday's ruling again prevents House Bill 68's restrictions on gender-affirming care from taking effect. The plaintiffs in their appeal did not challenge the law's prohibition on surgical care and have not claimed they would be harmed by its restrictions on school sports.
'This win restores the right of trans youth in Ohio to choose vitally important health care, with the support of their families and physicians. We are gratified by the Court's decision, which soundly rejects this interference of politicians with Ohioans' bodily autonomy,' said Freda Levenson, legal director at the ACLU of Ohio. 'Although this litigation will likely not end here, we remain fervently committed to preventing this egregious bill from ever again taking effect.'
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) said he plans to appeal the court's decision.
'This is a no brainer — we are appealing that decision and will seek an immediate stay. There is no way I'll stop fighting to protect these unprotected children,' he said in a statement.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's attack on in-state tuition for Dreamers is bad law — and worse policy
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Other surveys — by the Advertisement Among the targets of the administration's hostility, none elicits more sympathy from the public than the so‑called Dreamers — young people brought here unlawfully as children, who have grown up as Americans in everything but paperwork. (According to Gallup, Advertisement In lawsuits filed this spring against Texas, Minnesota, and Kentucky, the Justice Department maintains that offering in‑state tuition to students without legal immigration status — even if they were brought here as small children and essentially grew up American — violates federal law. In reality, it is the administration's assault that distorts federal law. It is also a brazen power grab that tramples states' rights, to say nothing of basic decency. Beginning in 2001, Democratic and Republican legislatures decided that if young people grow up in a state, are educated in its schools, and want to pursue higher education within its borders, it makes no sense to penalize them financially merely because of their immigration status. If there are good reasons to give a break on tuition to local students who want to go to a local college, what difference does it make whether they have a passport, a green card, or neither? Yet on April 28, President Trump Advertisement But that isn't true. Federal law does not say that undocumented immigrants must be excluded from any in-state tuition benefit. It Accordingly, the states that offer reduced tuition to undocumented immigrants condition the offer on criteria other than residency. States that offer in‑state tuition to undocumented students are acting not just humanely but rationally. Such policies reflect the common-sense principle that justifies giving a tuition break to any local student: It is in every state's interest to help its homegrown young people be as successful and well educated as possible. Lower tuition makes higher education more affordable, which in turn boosts the number of local families that can send their kids to college, which in turn expands the state's population of educated adults. A more educated population strengthens the state's economy, since college graduates are more likely to be employed and to earn higher incomes. For states like Massachusetts, which suffers from high outmigration, a particularly strong argument for the in-state tuition break is that graduates of public institutions are more likely to Advertisement None of these arguments has any logical connection to immigration or citizenship. They apply with equal force to those born abroad and to those born locally. And it is irrelevant whether those born abroad were brought to America by parents who had immigration visas or by parents who didn't. Dreamers aren't freeloaders. Like their families, they pay taxes — property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, and even the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare benefits, for which they are ineligible. (In 2022, according to the latest estimate from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented immigrants Aside from the Trumpian hard core, most Americans sympathize with the plight of undocumented immigrants who grew up in this country and have known no other home. That explains why (as Gallup reports) 85 percent of them would like Congress to make it possible for them to acquire citizenship. It also explains why in-state tuition for Dreamers has bipartisan support: The states that have enacted such policies include Oklahoma, Kentucky, California, and New York. Advertisement The Trump administration's lawsuits deserve to be dismissed on their legal merits, but they also deserve to be reviled as one more example of MAGA malevolence, which is grounded in nothing except a desire to hurt immigrants — Few Americans have any desire to punish young people who have done nothing wrong. The cruelty at the heart of Trump's immigration policy may thrill his base, but it repels a far larger America unwilling to abandon its values. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's cuts threaten to rip research up by the roots
The chain saw approach to medical research funding is not just reckless — it's shortsighted. The families of the richest 2 percent also get cancer and other deadly diseases, and no amount of money can buy a cure that doesn't exist. Advertisement Dennis E. Noonan Wellesley Thank you for Kara Miller's article on the challenges of long-term research in the face of the Trump administration's cuts ( Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up While only a small fraction of original ideas achieve success as envisioned, scientists consistently persevere with passion for their ideas. The research environment overall, however, brings waves of advances. Unlike the business and dealmaking mind-set of the current administration's so-called leaders, scientists are not self-promoters by type. They struggle for funding over years, driven by their passion for making a difference for the world. Advertisement The most telling risk inherent in the Trump cuts is the potential impact on global competition. As Miller points out, for decades some of the world's best minds have come here, with the United States having benefited. But more recently, greater global tools and competition have prompted serious foreign competition for the best minds — and for the opportunities to control future technologies. The administration's cuts would put the United States more than a generation behind in our children's and grandchildren's future world. Larry Kennedy Jacksonville, Fla. I weep when I see what the Trump administration is doing to our country and our world. Kara Miller's article on the savaging of basic science — 'research aimed at understanding rather than commercializing' — is but one example. This type of research may have no application right away. However, over 20 or 30 years, many dozens of applications may emerge, often covering many different fields. The original development rarely occurs in business laboratories because there is no immediate payoff. It is therefore essential that government continue to fund basic science. As Miller points out, a stable flow of funding is essential for the production of a continuing stream of research results. Disruption of the Trumpian kind has several undesirable results: Besides stopping the flow of original ideas, over the long term it will reduce our capacity to learn from and absorb ideas produced in other countries. We have seen mid-career scientists being welcomed by other countries while the paths of early-career scientists have been demolished. American politicians, Republican and Democratic alike, must stand up to the president and say, 'Basic research is the seed corn for 'Making America Great Again.' It must not be destroyed.' They should then act and vote accordingly in Congress. Advertisement Martin G. Evans Cambridge The writer is a professor emeritus at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.
4 hours ago
Execution date set for man who abducted woman from insurance office, killed her
A man who abducted a woman from a Florida insurance office and killed her is scheduled for execution in Florida under a death warrant signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. Kayle Bates is set to die Aug. 19 in the 10th execution scheduled for this year. DeSantis signed the warrant Friday, just three days after the state executed Michael Bell for fatally shooting two people outside a Florida bar in 1993 as part of an attempted revenge killing. Bell was the 26th person to die by court-ordered execution so far this year in the U.S., exceeding the 25 executions carried out last year. It is the highest total since 2015, when 28 people were put to death. Bates, now 67, was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, armed robbery and attempted sexual battery in the June 14, 1982, Bay County killing of Janet White. Bates abducted White from the State Farm insurance office where she worked, took her into some woods behind the building, attempted to rape her, stabbed her to death, and tore a diamond ring from one of her fingers, according to a letter from Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier summarizing the history of the case. Bates' attorney, James Driscoll Jr., said in a phone call Saturday that he would be filing further appeals in the case. 'We believe his execution would violate the U.S. constitution,' he said.
