Ohio’s highest court turned into a constitutional battleground on Tuesday, as the Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments over House Bill 68, the 2023 law that restricts gender-affirming medical care for minors. Two families suing the state say the statute cuts parents and treating clinicians off from evidence-based care for children diagnosed with gender dysphoria. State lawyers countered that lawmakers have the power to draw bright lines when they believe they are protecting kids.
Who the plaintiffs are
The lawsuit comes from two Ohio families, acting on behalf of two 12-year-old girls identified in court papers as Madeline Moe and Grace Goe, both diagnosed with gender dysphoria. According to the case record, one of the girls told her parents she "wished she could die and just be reborn," a statement the plaintiffs say illustrates the emotional toll of blocking recommended treatment. The families' medical affidavits and background are detailed in the appellate filings. Justia.
What the families told the court
Represented by the ACLU of Ohio and pro bono counsel, the families argue that H.B. 68 collides with the Health Care Freedom Amendment and other protections in the Ohio Constitution by categorically banning certain prescription treatments for minors. Their complaint and emergency motion, filed in March 2024, ask judges to keep parents free to follow the medical plans recommended by their children’s doctors. The advocacy group’s case page walks through the timeline and constitutional claims. ACLU of Ohio.
What the state argued
Lawyers for the state, including those in the Ohio Attorney General’s office, pressed the justices to defer to the General Assembly’s judgment that certain gender-transition interventions carry risks for minors and can be limited across the board. In its filings, the state insists that parental rights do not include a power to sidestep a duly enacted statute framed as a child-protection and public-health measure. The state’s appellate and Supreme Court briefs lay out that defense in full. Ohio Attorney General.
How the case reached the high court
The case has already had a whiplash-inducing path. A trial judge first upheld H.B. 68. A three-judge panel of the 10th District Court of Appeals later ruled the prescription ban unconstitutional. The Ohio Supreme Court then stepped in and temporarily allowed the law to be enforced while the appeal plays out. That procedural back-and-forth, including the appeals court’s March 2025 opinion and the high court’s stay, is traced in national coverage. AP News.
Medical groups and the evidence
Outside the courtroom, major medical organizations have weighed in broadly against sweeping bans on gender-affirming care, arguing that treatment decisions should stay in the exam room with families and clinicians following professional standards. The American Academy of Pediatrics and similar groups have issued policy statements and guidance that the plaintiffs cite in their court papers and supporting briefs. Those clinical positions and the underlying research appear throughout the case record. American Academy of Pediatrics.
What happens next
During arguments, several justices signaled that they plan to take their time unpacking the dense constitutional questions, so no one is expecting an overnight ruling. A written decision is anticipated in the coming weeks or months. If the court sides with the families, access to puberty blockers and hormones could be restored for some minors in Ohio. If it sides with the state, the statutory ban remains intact and families who want these treatments will likely have to keep looking across state lines. However it lands, the ruling is poised to influence how courts weigh parental rights, legislative power and state health policy in future fights. Cleveland.com.
Legal stakes
Legally, the case is a stress test for the reach of Ohio’s Health Care Freedom Amendment, the state constitution’s due-process and equal-protection guarantees, and the legislature’s ability to single out particular medical treatments for minors. Beyond the two families in the caption, the decision could set a template for how far states may go in regulating evidence-based medical care for children and how much room is left for parental choice as a safeguard. Court briefs and amicus filings chart the constitutional questions the justices now have to settle. Ohio Attorney General.
