Current Events > Federal Judge strikes down Arkansas trans medical ban

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/20/politics/arkansas-transgender-treatments-medical-ban-blocked/index.html

A federal judge on Tuesday struck down Arkansas ban on gender-affirming treatment for transgender youth, dealing the strongest blow yet to a state prohibition on such care.

In an 80-page ruling, Judge James M. Moody Jr. said that the states Save Adolescents from Experimentation Act violated the US Constitution and that the 2021 law cannot be enforced by state officials.

Rather than protecting children or safeguarding medical ethics, the evidence showed that the prohibited medical care improves the mental health and well-being of patients and that, by prohibiting it, the State undermined the interests it claims to be advancing, the judge wrote.
Further, the various claims underlying the States arguments that the Act protects children and safeguards medical ethics do not explain why only gender-affirming medical care and all gender-affirming medical care is singled out for prohibition, he continued. The testimony of well-credentialed experts, doctors who provide gender-affirming medical care in Arkansas, and families that rely on that care directly refutes any claim by the State that the Act advances an interest in protecting children.

Moody had temporarily blocked the law from going into effect in July 2021, and an eight-day trial took place last year in the case.
The lawsuit had been brought two years ago by four transgender adolescents in Arkansas and their families, as well as two doctors who provide gender-affirming care to trans youth in the state.

When Arkansas enacted the law in 2021, it became the first state in the nation to prohibit gender-affirming care for trans youth. The states then-Republican governor had initially vetoed the measure, but state lawmakers later overrode his veto.

fantastic news.

Robot2600 posted...

Rather than protecting children or safeguarding medical ethics, the evidence showed that the prohibited medical care improves the mental health and well-being of patients and that, by prohibiting it, the State undermined the interests it claims to be advancing, the judge wrote.

BASED

two down, several hundred (and counting) to go.

I wonder if any of these will make it into the October Supreme Court session.

GATTJT posted...

BASED

ikr!

"okay the State wants to *reads the paper* protect the children. got it." *trial begins*

ArKansas: not like that!

As this keeps getting traction and more rulings come in, it will be easier and easier to shut these kinds of laws down at the outset.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

As this keeps getting traction and more rulings come in, it will be easier and easier to shut these kinds of laws down at the outset.

Hope so though there's still the "swamp/overload the system with laws" taking place..

So this ruling only applies to this law, or does this set precedent that can be used in striking down other similar laws?

I echo fantastic.

If you hate, you hate but try not to. Our strength as humans is our working together.

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

So this ruling only applies to this law, or does this set precedent that can be used in striking down other similar laws?

it's a federal judge, so it is the defacto precedent unless the Supreme Court rules on it.

there are federal appeals courts also, idk everything about the system. presumably the state can take it to the federal appellate court -OR- the Supreme Court can just take it up.

what's great about this ruling is the language is so fucking clear: "you can't just say you are helping the children. what does science say about helping the children? we're doing that."

Will this be appealed by the state, though?

Oh no, the poor republicans non-extremist beliefs are being censored!

We need more judges like this one.

Xenogears15 posted...

Will this be appealed by the state, though?

100%. they can seek injunctions in some cases, but they have nothing to appeal with. they dont have evidence that trans care is destructive even though they might say it on TV.

there is also the law, and then what states are going to do regardless. states like FL will have to be put in line by the Supreme Court, ultimately.

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

So this ruling only applies to this law, or does this set precedent that can be used in striking down other similar laws?

Can be used as persuasive authority in other challenges depending on the outcome on appeal, if/when that occurs.

Given that the laws in other states are different, there is no automatic overruling of the other states' statutes. Until the case/s climb their way up the appellate ladder to SCOTUS, we're likely going to be seeing conflicting outcomes at the district court level for a while.
Robot2600 posted...

100%. they can seek injunctions in some cases, but they have nothing to appeal with. they dont have evidence that trans care is destructive even though they might say it on TV.

there is also the law, and then what states are going to do regardless. states like FL will have to be put in line by the Supreme Court, ultimately.

Not so cut and dry, unfortunately. Statutory/constitutional interpretation is a question of law, so any appellate court can look over all the same evidence and come to a different result. Not beyond a realm of possibility that a panel of Republican (especially Trump-era) appointees shoot things down, especially for cases out of the Fifth and Eighth Circuits.

theoretically states are supposed to read these rulings, actually listen to the logic/argument/evidence, and then go "okay so I guess I _didnt_ understand anything about trans medical care, let's change our state law so that we are focused in science, reality, and results."

good luck w/ dat

Robot2600 posted...

theoretically states are supposed to read these rulings, actually listen to the logic/argument/evidence, and then go "okay so I guess I _didnt_ understand anything about trans medical care, let's change our state law so that we are focused in science, reality, and results."

good luck w/ dat

Realistically what happens is states see rulings like this and say "the law was struck down because of reasons 1, 2, and 3. So therefore if we write a law based on 0.99, 1.99, and 2.99 then everything should be ok"

Then just rinse and repeat until the SCOTUS intervenes and determines the hard limits or rules that the laws have to work around instead.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Realistically what happens is states see rulings like this and say "the law was struck down because of reasons 1, 2, and 3. So therefore if we write a law based on 0.99, 1.99, and 2.99 then everything should be ok"

Then just rinse and repeat until the SCOTUS intervenes and determines the hard limits or rules that the laws have to work around instead.

yea. somehow the voting thing applied to a bunch of states though, it's unclear why that case seemed to effect other states immediately and this is different, but it's basically what you said: FL claims their law is tooooootttaaaalllly different but it's exactly the same.

Robot2600 posted...

it's a federal judge, so it is the defacto precedent unless the Supreme Court rules on it.

Was the other one federal? I recall that case wasn't allowed to be precedent because the ruling was written only to apply to the three people who brought the case?