Poe v. Labrador
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
On appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho
Case no. 1:23-cv-00269-BLW (Idaho Dist. Ct.)
Case no. 24-142 (9th Cir.)
Case no. 23A763 (S. Ct.)
UPDATE: On April 15, 2024, the Supreme Court temporarily revived an Idaho law banning gender-affirming care for trans youth, the first such intervention by the high court on the issue of trans healthcare. The partial stay allows the plaintiffs’ families to continue receiving care while the case proceeds on the merits before the Idaho District Court.
BACKGROUND
In 2023, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed into law HB 71, the “Vulnerable Child Protection Act,” which broadly bans gender-affirming care for trans youth in the state of Idaho and threatens medical providers who provide such care with a felony conviction and up to 10 years in prison.
In a 2023 complaint filed by the ACLU, two Idaho families of trans youth challenged HB 71, arguing that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses by discriminating on the basis of sex and transgender status, and by denying parents the fundamental right to make decisions about their children’s medical care.
Plaintiffs Pam Poe and Jane Doe are transgender teenagers receiving gender-affirming medical care criminalized by HB 71. The teens’ parents, Joan and John Doe, as well as Penny and Peter Poe, are also plaintiffs in this case.
In July of 2023, plaintiffs moved to preliminarily enjoin the state from enforcing HB 71, which the Idaho District Court GRANTED in December of 2023. Defendant Labrador filed an emergency motion to reverse the injunction with the Idaho District Court, which DENIED his request. He then made the same plea to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which also DENIED it. The Ninth Circuit Court further DENIED Labrador’s subsequent motion for en banc reconsideration of his emergency motion.
In January of 2024, the Idaho District Court STAYED the case’s proceedings on the merits pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of Defendant Labrador’s appeal. The Stay Order stipulated that the matter would be stayed as long as the preliminary injunction barring Idaho from enforcing HB 71 remained in effect.
On February 16, 2024, Defendant Labrador filed an Emergency Application for Stay Pending Appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. As the plaintiffs noted in their Response in Opposition, this type of relief is an “extraordinary” request that is “rarely granted,” as the applicant must satisfy an “especially heavy burden.”
On February 26, 2024, Defendant-Appellant Labrador again asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the preliminary injunction and dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiff-Appellees, again, opposed the request.
However, before the Ninth Circuit Court issued a ruling on Labrador’s request, the Supreme Court, on April 15, 2024, issued a PARTIAL STAY allowing HB 71 to be enforced against families and medical providers other than the plaintiffs in this case.
The case will now proceed on the merits in the Idaho District Court.
FILINGS
Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT DECISION GRANTING PARTIAL STAY
CONCURRENCE by JUSTICES GORSUCH, THOMAS, and ALITO
CONCURRENCE by JUSTICES KAVANAUGH and BARRETT
DISSENT by JUSTICES JACKSON and SOTOMAYOR
See embedded links in BACKGROUND section for more documents.