Montana Supreme Court Affirms Decision Allowing Minors to Access Transgender Healthcare Services
Judges assert that laws aiming to prohibit such procedures infringe upon the constitutional right to privacy.
On December 11, the Supreme Court of Montana affirmed a lower court’s ruling to temporarily halt a state ban on “gender-affirming care” for minors, enabling children to continue receiving these medical services.
In May, the lawsuit was initiated by various plaintiffs aiming to stop the implementation of the bill, citing constitutional infringements. The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, issuing a preliminary injunction to temporarily block SB 99.
The State of Montana subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court backed the plaintiffs, upholding the district court’s preliminary injunction.
In an opinion written by Justice Beth Baker, with agreement from five other justices, the court stated, “Plaintiffs’ claimed injury—loss of the constitutional privacy right—is irreparable through monetary compensation, thereby supporting their request for a preliminary injunction.”
The court noted that plaintiffs presented evidence showing that the most enduring and permanent forms of gender-affirming care are seldom administered to minors, and that if the law were enforced, “minor patients would experience significant psychological distress.” Coupled with evidence that SB 99 “violated their fundamental right to privacy,” the plaintiffs demonstrated a probable risk of irreparable harm.
Related Stories
The case is set to proceed to trial in the district court.
SB 99 prohibits certain transgender surgeries and medical interventions, including puberty blockers, for children diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Additionally, the law restricts the use of public funds for these procedures on minors. Healthcare providers that perform such services risk a suspension of at least one year.
Upon the signing of the bill, Kaitlin Price, spokesperson for Gianforte, stated that the governor was “dedicated to safeguarding Montana children from invasive medical treatments that can permanently change their healthy, developing bodies.”
State Senator John Fuller, a Republican who sponsored the bill, declared that the governor was “promoting the health and safety of Montana’s children.”
One of the plaintiffs is Phoebe Cross, a transgender minor currently undergoing procedures banned by SB 99. In her declaration to the court, Phoebe expressed that preventing these treatments would be a “fearful” situation. Her parents are also involved in the lawsuit.
State Policies
In recent years, Montana has enacted several measures related to transgender issues. Last May, Gianforte signed legislation that defines “male” and “female” based on reproductive biology.
The law defines females as individuals possessing characteristics such as XX chromosomes, capable of producing “relatively large, relatively immobile gametes, or eggs, during their life cycle.” Males are described as individuals with XY chromosomes who can produce sperm throughout their lives.
As stated by Republican state Senator Carl Glimm, the principal sponsor of the bill, “Gender is clearly distinct from biological sex. Biological sex is unchangeable; there are only two biological sexes.”
“Claiming that one can change their gender or express it in various ways does not alter one’s biological status, which underlines the necessity of Senate Bill 458,” he added.
The governor’s spokesperson indicated at the time that Gianforte signed the legislation because he believed it was “extremely inappropriate” for children to be exposed to sexual content.
This proposed law aimed to make one restroom in the legislature exclusively for males and the other for females. Had it passed, it would have restricted Democratic state Representative Zooey Zephyr, who identifies as transgender, from using the female restroom within the legislature.
