Case: Moe v. Yost

On March 26, 2024, two twelve-year old transgender girls and their families (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued the Ohio Attorney General, state medical board, and Ohio in the Franklin County Court of Common Plea (collectively, “Ohio”). Represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Ohio Foundation, and private counsel, Plaintiffs challenged the “Saving Ohio Adolescents from Experimentation Act,” and the “Save Women’s Sports Act” (collectively, “H.B. 68”). The former banned physicians from providing puberty-delaying treatment and hormone therapy to adolescents when used for gender-affirming care (the “Health Care Ban”), and the latter prohibited Ohio schools from allowing trans girls and women to participate in girls’ and women’s athletic competitions (the “Sports Ban”). 

Plaintiffs alleged that H.B. 68 violated the Ohio Constitution’s single-subject rule, freedom to choose health care guarantee, equal protection clause, and due course of law provision. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including a temporary restraining order. The case was assigned to Judge Michael Holbrook.

There was a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order on April 12 and, a few days later on April 16, Judge Holbrook granted the motion. In his reasoning, Judge Holbrook first confirmed that Plaintiffs had standing to challenge H.B. 68. He then held that Plaintiffs’ had demonstrated a  substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the single-subject claim, that Plaintiffs’ faced irreparable nature of physical injury if the H.B. 68 was enforced, and that enjoining the law would not hurt third parties or the public interest.  

Ohio filed a motion to clarify the temporary restraining order, which the court denied on April 19.

On April 22, Ohio filed a complaint for writs of mandamum and prohibition to the Ohio Supreme Court; the complaint asked the Court to order Judge Holbrook to modify the temporary restraining order. 

On April 30, 2024, the court extended the temporary restraining order until May 20th. In a May 3rd order, the court stayed Ohio’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs’  motion for partial summary judgment, and ordered that a combined hearing on the preliminary injunction motion and trial on the merits would begin on July 15, 2024.

On May 22, the Ohio Supreme Court denied Ohio’s emergency motion and requested writs, without a written opinion. 

On August 6, the court released its finding and judgment, and it vacated the temporary restraining order. Judge Holbrook found that H.B. 68 did not violate the single subject rule, as it contained a common purpose – the regulation of transgender individuals. It also held that the Health Care Ban did not violate the Health Care Freedom Amendment, as Ohio had determined that providing gender affirming care constituted ‘wrongdoing’ and the Amendment does not affect laws designed to punish wrongdoing in the healthcare industry, nor the Equal Protection Clause, as it passed the rational basis review. In addition, it held that the Health Care Ban was rationally related to a legitimate state interest and so did  not violate the due course of law clause. 

The same day, Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate District, and the next day it filed a motion for injunction pending appeal. 

The Court of Appeals rendered its decision on March 18, 2025, thereby striking down the Health Care Ban. In a decision written by Judge Carly Edelstein, the court held that (1) the Ban violated the Health Care Freedom Amendment and (2) the fundamental right of parents to seek appropriate medical care for their children. 

Concerning the Health Care Freedom Amendment, the court disagreed with Ohio that “wrongdoing in  the health care industry” should be construed as medical procedures the General Assembly considered wrongdoing or bad medical practice, instead holding that it referred to misconduct within the medical profession. As the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy to treat children with gender dysphoria is the prevailing standard of care, the court held that Plaintiffs’ right to this medical treatment was protected under the Health Care Freedom Amendment. Concerning parents’ fundamental rights, the court found parents’ fundamental interest in making decisions on behalf of their children, such as seeking appropriate medical care, included a minor’s access to puberty blockers and hormone therapy to treat gender dysphoria.

The court remanded the case to the trial court with an order to impose a permanent injunction. 

Ohio filed a motion to stay the injunction pending an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, which the Court of Appeals denied on April 3rd. The Ohio attorney general filed an emergency request to stay the Court of Appeals’ ruling, which the Court granted on April 29. As of May 1, 2025, the case is ongoing.