A North Dakota judge has declined a request to halt enforcement of the state’s ban on new gender-transitioning procedures for minors.
A group of plaintiffs is actively challenging a 2023 law that makes it a Class B felony for medical professionals to surgically remove or modify a minor’s sexual organs, perform mastectomies on a minor, or provide him or her with puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to accommodate gender perceptions that are at variance with a child’s biology. The plaintiffs in the case, T.D. v Drew H. Wrigley, have sought a preliminary injunction pausing enforcement of this 2023 law until a court can reach a final determination on its legality.
The plaintiffs in the case are three families with children who identify as transgender, and Dr. Luis Casas, a pediatric and adult endocrinologist licensed in the state of North Dakota. The plaintiffs are represented by the law offices of Ciresi Conlin LLP and legal advocacy groups The Lawyering Project and Gender Justice.
The plaintiffs named Republican North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley and other state attorneys as defendants in their official capacity.
Throughout his ruling, Judge Lofgren wrote that plaintiffs did not have a substantial likelihood to succeed on any of these grounds.
The 2023 law does provide exceptions stating gender transitioning interventions on minors with ambiguous sex characteristics or other diagnosed genetic anomalies. Medical care providers can also continue to provide gender transitioning interventions on minors if they started such medical interventions before the 2023 law went into effect.
The complaint argues that the wording of these exceptions in the law is unconstitutionally vague.
“Because of this lack of clarity, a health care provider may be trapped for innocently authorizing new refills of previously prescribed medications,” the complaint states. “Some providers may choose not to continue care for fear that they will be trapped by this vague language, and thus find it more prudent to refuse new refills than to risk criminal prosecution.”
Judge Lofgren, by contrast, interpreted the North Dakota law as stating those who had received medical gender transitioning treatments prior to the 2023 law “can receive any medical care for the treatment of gender dysphoria that was available in North Dakota prior to enactment of the Health Care Law.” The judge ruled that the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the claim that the 2023 law is overly vague.
Responding to Judge Lofgren’s ruling, Gender Justice spokesperson Noah Parrish said the law holds a “chilling effect” on families in the state.
“We are obviously disappointed in this ruling,” Gender Justice lead attorney Brittany Stewart added. “We remain committed to showing the court that the health care ban violates the fundamental rights of these families and their doctor, and we believe after a full trial presenting all of the issues and evidence that the court will ultimately agree that this law must be overturned.”
Other states have taken steps to ban or limit medical professionals from prescribing or performing medical gender transitioning on minors.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that Idaho could proceed with enforcing its limits on gender transitioning for minors.
