A group of transgender flags, with bars of blue, pink and white. (Getty)
The Alabama Attorney General’s Office Thursday asked a federal court to allow the state to enforce a ban on gender-affirming medication for minors while the families of transgender youth file an appeal.
Seeking a stay of a preliminary injunction against the law, attorneys with the state argued that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the case, and the plaintiffs do not dispute it.
“At any time since this Court’s injunction was issued, the Court could have issued a stay,” they wrote. “That power did not evaporate when the Eleventh Circuit vacated this Court’s injunction in a binding opinion. And the Court should exercise the power to stay now because the Defendants are likely to succeed and satisfy the other stay factors.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
A message seeking comment was left with GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), who are among the lawyers representing the plaintiffs.
Gov. Kay Ivey in 2022 signed a law making it a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison for a physician to prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to a transgender youth. The families of transgender youth sued, saying the medications were critical to their children’s well-being.
U.S. District Court Judge Liles C. Burke blocked the medication ban in May 2022, writing that the medications had wide support of the medical community.
The state then appealed to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Last month, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Barbara Lagoa, writing for a three-judge panel, overturned Burke’s ruling, finding that there was no “fundamental right” to access the medication.
The plaintiffs in the case have since filed for en banc appeal. In an en banc, the entire 11th Circuit would hear the case. Plaintiffs said the lower court stay would remain in effect while the en banc petition continues.
In the Thursday filing, the state’s attorneys argued Alabama faced “sovereignty harm,” or harm from not being able to enforce its laws, if prevented from enforcing the ban on transgender medication. The plaintiffs, they argued, would not face harm if the court allows the ban to be enforced.
“It is thus Plaintiffs who demand an extraordinary result: depriving the state defendants of the benefit of their own victory while every other jurisdiction within the Eleventh Circuit must operate under the binding precedent obtained by Defendants on appeal,” he wrote. “The Plaintiffs point to no precedent supporting this bizarre result. The Court has jurisdiction to stay its own preliminary injunction.”
The attorneys argued that minors would be helped, not harmed, by the stay and that patients can be tapered off from care and access “safe, proven therapies for gender dysphoria,” though the brief does not explain what those are.
“Plaintiffs cannot make a showing that even one Minor Plaintiff would be harmed rather than helped by a stay,” the attorneys wrote.
Gender affirming care is personalized to the patient.
SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST.
Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our web site. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of photos and graphics.