Moe v. Yost

Gender Affirming CareTrans YouthAthleticsOhio

Aug 23

Written By Mack Karbon

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. *Columbus, OH.*

Tenth Appellate District of Franklin County, Ohio

Case No. 24CVH03-2481 (Ct. of Common Pleas - closed)
Case No. 24-AP-000483 (Appellate Ct. - open)

STATUS: ONGOING

LATEST UPDATE: On August 6, 2024, the court upheld the healthcare ban and vacated the temporary restraining order, allowing the ban to go into effect. Plaintiffs-Appellants appealed and filed a motion seeking to enjoin enforcement of H.B. 68 pending resolution of the appeal. The court has not yet ruled on this motion; however, on August 14, 2024, the court agreed to an expedited briefing schedule. The parties filed briefs and presently await the court’s ruling.

BACKGROUND

On December 13, 2023, the Ohio General Assembly passed a bill composed of two separate acts, bearing separate titles: the Saving Ohio Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act, and the Save Women’s Sports Act (collectively, “H.B. 68”). The first Act bans physicians from providing medically necessary, widely accepted, and potentially life-saving health care to transgender adolescents; the second Act prohibits Ohio schools from permitting trans girls and women to participate in girls’ or women’s athletic competitions.

On December 29, 2023, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine vetoed H.B. 68. In a statement about the decision, Governor DeWine said:

“Many parents have told me that their child would be dead today if they had not received the treatment they received from an Ohio children’s hospital. I have also been told, by those that are now grown adults, that but for this care, they would have taken their lives when they were teenagers . . . Parents are making decisions about the most precious thing in their life, their child, and none of us should underestimate the gravity and the difficulty of those decisions.”

On January 24, 2024, the Ohio General Assembly overrode the veto, clearing the path for H.B. 68 to go into effect, as planned, on April 24, 2024.

.............

EARLY PROCEEDINGS

On March 26, 2024, two families of trans minors in Ohio filed a Complaint with the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and an emergency stay of enforcement of the Act. They raised four arguments:

H.B. 68 violates the “single-subject rule” of the Ohio Constitution, which prohibits state laws from containing more than one subject.
H.B. 68 violates the state’s Health Care Freedom Amendment.
H.B. 68 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Ohio Constitution.
H.B. 68 violates the Due Course of Law provision of the Ohio Constitution.

On April 16, 2024, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas GRANTED the plaintiffs’ request. The court specified that the TRO will “remain in full force and effect for fourteen days or until the hearing of plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, whichever is sooner.” On April 30, the court extended the TRO to prevent it from lapsing before the court can decide on the plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

On April 26, 2024, the defendants filed a motion for partial dismissal, asking the court to dismiss Counts 1 and 2. In their motion, the defendants state:

At this time, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on Counts One and Two. Plaintiffs lack standing to raise the single-subject challenge and even if they could demonstrate standing, fail to state a claim because the law covers one subject—addressing gender transition in children and youth. Plaintiffs have also failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for their claim that the law violates the Health Care Freedom Amendment. The State is free to enact laws that deter or punish wrongdoing in the health care industry. As a necessary corollary, the State must be free to identify and define wrongdoing in the health care industry, lest the health care industry become a wholly self-regulating industry. The "Health Care Freedom Amendment" allows freedom to purchase what the law defines as legitimate health care; it places no limitation on the State's power to define allowable medical care.

On May 1, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion dually requesting that court (1) deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and (2) grant summary judgment for the plaintiffs on Count 1 (single-subject rule allegation).

On May 3, 2024, the court issued an order scheduling a hearing on the case’s merits and on the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.

.............

HEARING & LOWER COURT DECISION

The hearing took place on July 15-19, 2024. On July 22, 2024, the parties filed post-trial briefs.

On August 6, 2024, the court issued a decision upholding the ban. It found that the law was not subject to heightened scrutiny and that it was reasonable under rational basis review. The law may now go into effect. Plaintiffs immediately filed a notice of appeal with Franklin County’s Tenth Appellate District.

.............

APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a notice to appeal the lower court’s decision with the Franklin County Tenth Appellate District on August 6, 2024. On August 7, 2024, Appellants asked the appellate court to prohibit the state from enforcing H.B. 68 while the appeal is ongoing. They later requested an expedited briefing schedule on the merits, which the court granted on August 14, 2024.

The parties filed brief (see below) and are awaiting a ruling by the court.

Procedural History

March 26, 2024: Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, seeking a TRO and an emergency stay of the Act’s enforcement.
April 16, 2024: The court GRANTED on plaintiffs’ request for a TRO and stayed enforcement of the Act.
April 26, 2024: Plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the TRO and the defendants filed a motion for partial dismissal.
April 30, 2024: The court GRANTED the Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the TRO. This prevents the TRO from lapsing before the court rules on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
May 1, 2024: Plaintiffs filed a motion that opposed the defendants’ motion to dismiss and asked the court to enter judgment for the Plaintiffs on Count 1 on the complaint.
May 3, 2024: The court issued an order scheduling a hearing on the case’s merits and on the Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction to begin on July 15, 2024. The TRO will remain in effect until the court issues a ruling on the requested injunction. The May 3 order also stayed proceedings on Defendants’ motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.
May 16, 2024: Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint.
July 15-19, 2024: The court held a hearing on the case’s merits.
July 22, 2024: The parties filed post-trial briefs.
July 24, 2024: Defendants responded to Plaintiffs’ post-trial brief.
August 6, 2024: The court issued a decision upholding the ban; Plaintiffs-appellants filed a notice of appeal that day.
August 7, 2024: Plaintiffs-Appellants asked the appellate court to prohibit the state from enforcing H.B. 68 while the appeal is ongoing.
August 14, 2024: The appellate court agreed to an expedited briefing schedule on the merits.
August 22, 2024: Appellants filed their appellate brief.
August 19, 2024: Appellees filed their response brief.
September 3, 2024: Appellants filed their reply brief.