An Ohio appeals court has ruled that the state’s ban on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors violates constitutional and parental rights.

A three-judge panel on Tuesday issued a permanent injunction blocking the enforcement of the portion of the law that bans the gender-affirming treatments.

Ohio House Bill 68, titled the “Saving Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act,” is a 2024 law “regarding gender transition services for minors.” It bans doctors from prescribing hormones, puberty blockers or gender reassignment surgery before patients turn 18. The bill also bans transgender girls and women from playing on female school sports teams, though the lawsuit ruled upon on Tuesday did not target that portion of the law.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, vetoed the bill in December 2023, but the Ohio House overrode the veto the following January.

The ACLU challenged the law in March 2024 on behalf of two families whose transgender teens would be negatively impacted if their access to medical care were restricted. After a five-day trial, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge, and allowed the ban to take effect. Judge Michael Holbrook, a Republican, threw out the equal protection, due process, and other constitutional arguments raised by plaintiffs in the case.

Tuesday’s ruling by a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals overturned Holbrook’s ruling and analyzed the matter under both the U.S. Constitution and the Ohio state constitution. The panel found that the portions of the law banning the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments for gender-affirming care violate the rights of all parents — not just the parents of transgender minors.

Ohio Appeals Judge Carly Edelstein penned the opinion for the panel, in which she said that a decision upholding HB68 would be “disastrous for all parents seeking access to modern medical care for their children.” Edelstein noted at length that the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments are widely accepted as the medical standard for treating gender dysphoria.

The judge rejected Ohio’s argument that a parent’s “fundamental right” to make decisions about their child’s care was limited only to “a specific medical treatment that is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,”” saying that such an interpretation would render that fundamental right “largely meaningless.” Edelstein also called out the state for citing decisions from the 1800s, which she said bore little relation to advances in modern-day science.

“Surely, the force of this fundamental right is not handcuffed to the 19th century medical practices of bloodletting, purging, and the rampant prescribing of alcohol, cocaine, and opiate-based medicines,” said Edelstein. “Thus, we cannot, in good conscience, depart from the reality of scientific development and limit the scope of parents’ exercise of this fundamental right to the world as it was nearly two centuries ago.”

“Departure as such would be tantamount to jettison from common sense and logic,” the judge continued.

Edelstein wrote that the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy is precisely the type of medical decision that parents have a fundamental interest in making on behalf of their children.

The panel’s ruling blocks those portions of the law that relate to use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments in gender-affirming care for minors, but does not relate to the ban on surgical treatments. This is because the plaintiffs in the case had not claimed that they were seeking surgery and had not specifically challenged that provision.