Gender Warriors Are Striking Out in Courts

Like abortion zealots in the past, gender warriors today are trying to use the courts to force on the American people a dangerous agenda that neither they nor their elected representatives want. So far, at least, they are striking out.

More than half the states have enacted laws banning medical interventions such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery for minors who want to identify as the opposite sex. There’s good reason for doing so. The number of adolescents claiming gender dysphoria is skyrocketing, accompanied by tremendous pressure to blindly follow what the Department of Health and Human Services calls “pediatric medical transition.” Not surprisingly, however, the Food and Drug Administration has not approved drugs for this purpose.

As this trend shot forward, a group of European researchers observed that “virtually nothing is known regarding adolescent-onset gender dysphoria.” A comprehensive report published last year in the United Kingdom described this as “an area of remarkably weak evidence” in which “results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented.” State legislatures have the constitutional authority to regulate the medical profession—and they’re right to put on the brakes.

This being America, losing in the legislature often means turning to the courts and claiming a constitutional “right” to do this or that. And already, activist groups are recruiting both children and parents to challenge these adolescent sex change bans.

In August 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld Alabama’s ban, and the Sixth Circuit came to the same conclusion regarding Tennessee’s law a month later. The latter decision, L.W. v. Skrmetti, then went before the Supreme Court, which held that Tennessee’s ban did not violate the Constitution.

Two more circuits have now followed suit.

In Poe v. Drummond, the Tenth Circuit ruled on Aug. 6 to uphold Oklahoma’s ban on “gender transition procedures” for minors. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti, the court came to the same conclusion about the Oklahoma law.

According to the court, that law is based on age, banning procedures for minors, not adults, and on medical use, banning procedures for “gender transition,” not to treat medical conditions. Neither of those is a special consideration that would justify the Constitution restricting how legislatures address the issue.

Even more recently still, the Eighth Circuit concluded in Brandt v. Griffin on Aug. 12 that Arkansas’ sex change law—virtually identical to Tennessee’s—does not violate the Constitution, citing Skrmetti as justification.

In 2022, the court had put Arkansas’ law on hold while its constitutionality was being litigated. While that preliminary decision was made by a three-judge panel, this final decision came from the full Eighth Circuit, which voted 8-2 to uphold the Arkansas law.

Writing for the majority, Judge William Benton noted that the district court found evidence that these procedures pose risks for minors. Some of these were also noted in a May 2025 DHHS report: impaired bone density accrual, infertility, risk of stroke, and changes in cholesterol and blood thickness. The court, Benton wrote, will not “second-guess the lines” that the legislature chose to draw.

The next round in the gender-litigation fight will come this fall when the Supreme Court takes up two cases, out of Idaho and West Virginia respectively, challenging laws prohibiting men from competing in women’s sports. The American people, and those we elect, have authority to tackle issues like these. Hopefully, the courts will agree.