Case: Noe v. Parson

This case concerns the health rights of transgender individuals. A group of parents and their transgender children, healthcare professionals, and LGBTQ+ organizations challenged the constitutionality of the "Missouri Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act" (SB 49), which prohibits the provision of gender-affirming medical care to individuals under 18 years of age, including transition surgery, the prescription or administration of cross-sex hormones, or puberty blockers. It also prohibits coverage by Missouri’s Medicaid program for gender-affirming medical care, regardless of medical necessity. 

On July 25, 2023, the plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU of Missouri, Lambda Legal Defense, and a private law firm, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, before Hon. R. Craig Carter. The suit was brought against the Missouri Board of Healing Arts and its members, Governor Michael L. Parson, and Attorney General Andrew Bailey, in their official capacities. The plaintiff cited violations of the Equal Protection, Natural Rights, Due Process, Right to Enjoyment of the Gains of Their Own Industry, and Special Law Limitation clauses of the Missouri Constitution. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, requesting the court to declare the Act void and unenforceable in its entirety, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from enforcing any provision of the Act.

The plaintiffs argued that SB 49 threatened the health and well-being of transgender minors who have benefitted from familial support and medical care for gender dysphoria. Medical providers, including those from Southampton Healthcare, contend that the Act forces them to alter their treatment practices, conflicting with established medical guidelines and ethical obligations. The plaintiffs asserted that withholding necessary medical care risked severe and irreversible harm.

On August 25, 2023, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that they failed to show probable success on the merits, a threat of irreparable injury, or that the balance of equities clearly favored them, and that a clear public interest would not be served by granting the injunction.

In response, on September 22, 2023, the defendants filed an answer denying the allegations and a counterclaim against the medical practitioners and Southampton Community Healthcare, alleging violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA). On October 23, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim, arguing that the MMPA cannot regulate the provision of medical care and that the counterclaim failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

On December 20, 2023, the defendants amended their counterclaim, asserting that the plaintiffs had failed to inform parents and minors about critical safety and efficacy issues related to gender transition interventions and had misled parents about the safety of prescribed medications. On January 17, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the amended counterclaim, arguing again that the MMPA cannot regulate medical care and that the claim was precluded by Missouri’s medical malpractice statute.

On February 7, 2024, the defendants filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss, contending that the MMPA grants the Attorney General broad authority to pursue actions for unfair or deceptive practices in connection with the sale of medical goods and services. 

On September 11, 2024, the court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim against Southampton Community Healthcare and individual defendants without prejudice. The trial is scheduled to commence on September 23, 2024. This case remains ongoing.