For the moment, a federal appellate court upholds Florida's limitations on gender-affirming treatments.
A judicial figure in the state announced in June that the restrictions were unlawful, expanding a restraining order they had previously issued as part of a lawsuit filed by transgender Floridians and their families. Nevertheless, in a 2-1 decision, a committee from the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals impeded this judge's verdict, allowing the state to put into effect the 2023 legislation while they examine its validity.
In their judgment, Circuit Judges Britt Grant and Robert Luck, both appointed by previous President Donald Trump, stated, "Florida will experience irreversible damage due to its inability to execute the wishes of its legislature, promote the health concerns that underpin the law, and avert potential health risks for its children."
The judges suggested that the lower court employed an excessive standard when assessing the law, implying that they might validate the restrictions under a less stringent legal framework.
The legislation prohibits medical professionals, including those providing hormones or puberty blockers, from administering such treatments to minors under the age of 18. It also imposes new limitations on access to gender-affirming care for adults and minors already receiving such treatment by mandating that it can only be provided by a physician. The law requires that a patient or their guardian provides written consent to the care in the presence of the physician, according to the ruling.
In his dissent, Circuit Judge Charles Wilson argued, based on the June ruling, that US District Judge Robert Hinkle had assembled sufficient evidence to maintain that the law's passage was motivated by discrimination against transgender adults and minors.
Wilson, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, cited various statements made by state lawmakers during the bill's passage that Judge Hinkle utilized in his decision to strike it down.
"Gender-affirming care and identifying as transgender were depicted as 'bad' at various instances," Wilson wrote. "Additionally, some supporters of the legislation expressed doubts about transgender identities and an intention to prevent transgender individuals from living in their self-identified genders."
"Preventing access to gender-affirming care would result in unnecessary suffering," Wilson stated in his dissent. "This is primarily a medical issue, where patients should be empowered to make decisions along with health professionals, with access to comprehensive, unbiased information as required."
Attorneys representing the law's challengers later issued a joint statement on Monday, claiming that the court's ruling "will deny transgender adults and adolescents essential care and prevent Florida parents from making decisions that are best for their children."
The challengers have the option to petition the Supreme Court for intervention, which their lawyers suggested in their statement. "The plaintiffs involved in this case are considering their options and will take all necessary steps to protect their right to equal treatment under Florida's laws, which these restrictions brazenly contradict," they wrote.
CNN has reached out to Florida for a response to Monday's ruling.
The debate over the legislation in politics has been intense, with critics arguing that it infringes on the rights of transgender individuals and their families.
Despite the committee's decision to allow the law's implementation, the implications of denying gender-affirming care for transgender individuals remain a contentious issue in the realm of politics.
