Privacy Law
Top Montana court allows gender-affirming care for trans minors during litigation, citing privacy protections
The Montana Supreme Court has cited state constitutional privacy protections when it upheld a judge’s decision to block a law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender minors. (Image from Shutterstock)
The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday cited state constitutional privacy protections when it upheld a judge’s decision to block a law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender minors.
The state supreme court upheld a state judge’s determination that a privacy challenge to the 2023 law blocking the care was likely to succeed on the merits, and that challengers were likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.
The Montana Supreme Court’s Dec. 11 decision leaves in place a preliminary injunction that blocks the ban on gender-affirming care pending a trial in the case.
The state supreme court cited the Montana Constitution, which provides: “The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.”
The law should be evaluated using strict scrutiny, the state supreme court said.
“The statute at issue here prevents a wide range of treatment even when such treatment is determined, in the judgment of a medical professional working with their patients, to be in the patients’ best interest and given with informed consent,” the Montana Supreme Court said. “The district court reasonably concluded that the balance of the equities tips toward preliminary relief pending full consideration of the merits.”
Two concurring justices said the state supreme court also should have addressed the plaintiffs’ claim that the law violates the state constitution’s equal protection clause.
“Gender-affirming care is currently being litigated on equal protection grounds around the country, and the United States Supreme Court is poised to take up the issue this term,” the concurrence said. “These cases are instructive in certain ways, but they cannot answer what this court is being asked: how sex/gender discrimination and suspect class discrimination should be handled under the unique equal protection provision of the Montana Constitution.”
A partial dissenter would have allowed the law’s ban on Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care to take effect.
Hat tip to the American Civil Liberties Union, which issued a Dec. 11 press release.
How Appealing linked to coverage by the Flathead Beacon and Courthouse News Service.
