Dylan Brandt v. Leslie Rutledge
Filed: August 25, 2022 (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law prohibiting healthcare professionals from providing or referring minors for gender-affirming medical care constitutes sex-based discrimination subject to intermediate scrutiny. Such a law is likely unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause if the state cannot provide an exceedingly persuasive justification showing it is substantially related to an important government interest.
Facts:
- The Arkansas state legislature enacted Act 626, which prohibits any healthcare professional from providing 'gender transition procedures' to individuals under eighteen years of age.
- The Act also bans referring any minor to another healthcare professional for such procedures.
- Prohibited procedures include puberty-blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries intended to align physical characteristics with an individual's gender identity.
- The law contains an exception for services provided to minors born with a 'medically verifiable disorder of sex development.'
- The plaintiffs include several transgender minors who were receiving, or wished to receive, medical care for gender dysphoria, which is prohibited by Act 626.
- The minor plaintiffs' parents supported their children's course of treatment and wished to continue following the medical advice of their healthcare providers.
- If the law were to take effect, the minor plaintiffs would be forced to detransition or halt their medical treatments, which they and their doctors stated were necessary for their health and well-being.
Procedural Posture:
- Transgender youths, their parents, and two physicians (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against Arkansas state officials.
- The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging Act 626 violated the Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, and First Amendment.
- Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to stop Act 626 from going into effect.
- Arkansas moved to dismiss the complaint.
- After a hearing, the district court denied Arkansas's motion to dismiss and granted the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
- Arkansas state officials (Appellants) appealed the district court's order granting the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Arkansas law that prohibits healthcare professionals from providing or referring minors for 'gender transition procedures' likely violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating on the basis of sex?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Kelly
Yes, the law likely violates the Equal Protection Clause. A law that determines the legality of a medical procedure based on the patient's sex at birth is a form of sex-based discrimination subject to heightened scrutiny. The court reasoned that Act 626, on its face, discriminates on the basis of sex because it prohibits a minor born female from receiving testosterone for gender transition, while a minor born male could receive the same medication for other purposes. This classification requires the state to provide an 'exceedingly persuasive justification,' showing the law is substantially related to an important government interest. Arkansas asserted interests in protecting children from experimental treatments and regulating medical ethics. However, the court deferred to the district court's finding, supported by substantial evidence, that the prohibited treatments are not experimental but conform to the recognized standard of care for gender dysphoria. Because the state's justification was not supported by the evidence, the court concluded the law is not substantially related to its asserted interests, and therefore the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their equal protection claim.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal theory that laws banning gender-affirming care for minors are a form of sex-based discrimination, triggering heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. By affirming the preliminary injunction, the court established a strong precedent within the Eighth Circuit, making it significantly more difficult for states to defend such bans. The ruling emphasizes that courts will likely defer to the established medical consensus on standards of care over a state's legislative judgment, especially when constitutional rights are at stake. This case provides a foundational legal framework for challenging similar laws across the country by focusing on the discriminatory application of medical prohibitions based on sex.
