Skip Header to Content
GLAD Logo Skip Primary Navigation to Content

News

Organizations Suing to Stop Florida’s Transgender Health Ban Add Challenge to Restrictions on Adult Care and Request for Class-wide Relief

Organizations challenging Florida’s transgender healthcare ban on behalf of seven families with transgender children filed an amended complaint today expanding the case to address state law SB 254’s harmful restrictions on access to care for adults and seeking class-wide relief for all transgender minors and adults who require medical care restricted by SB 254.

The complaint filed today adds four individual adult plaintiffs to the lawsuit, Doe v. Ladapo: Olivia Noel, Kai Pope, Lucien Hamel, and Rebecca Cruz Evia. These plaintiffs are all facing dangerous disruptions in their ongoing medical care due to the Florida law.

In addition to banning established medical care for transgender adolescents and creating criminal and civil penalties for those providing such care, SB 254 enacted severe restrictions on access to care for adults. Advanced Practice Registered Nurse – Nurse Practitioners are critical providers of transgender healthcare in Florida barred by SB 254 from continuing to treat patients. SB 254 also bars telehealth access and requires in-person consultation for all care, a requirement that is impossible to meet for Florida residents who don’t live near a providing physician. The law and related Boards of Medicine rules also created medically unnecessary and harmful barriers to care and require physicians to convey false information to their patients.

These restrictions serve no medical purpose and intentionally prevent transgender people from receiving the care they need.

The plaintiffs are represented by Southern Legal Counsel, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the Human Rights Campaign, which issued the following statement:

SB 254’s restrictions on well-established medical care cause profound harm, serve no legitimate purpose and reflect gross legislative overreach. SB 254 takes away Floridian’s ability to make important decisions about their own lives and hands it over to the government instead. That should alarm us all.

On June 6, the federal district court issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of Florida’s ban on healthcare for transgender minors and saying the ban is unconstitutional. That order allows Florida parents to access necessary medical care for their transgender children while the legal challenge to the ban continues.

The complaint filed today seeks a permanent block on all provisions in SB 254 and related Boards of Medicine Rules restricting access to established transgender medical care for adolescents and adults.

News

Questions About the Legal Status of Florida’s Transgender Healthcare Ban

On June 6, 2023, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of Florida’s ban on healthcare for transgender minors and saying the ban is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit, Doe v. Ladapo, challenges both the Florida Boards of Medicine rules banning healthcare for transgender youth and SB 254, a recently enacted Florida statute that codified the ban for minors and prevents many transgender adults from obtaining care as well.

Seven families with transgender children filed the lawsuit challenging the ban. Three of those families, whose children faced imminent harm from losing access to healthcare, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to block the state from enforcing the ban while the legal challenge proceeds.

What does the federal court’s preliminary injunction do?

In addition to providing immediate relief to the three plaintiffs who asked for a preliminary injunction, the court’s order means that the State of Florida cannot enforce the ban. Because the court ruled that Florida’s ban on healthcare for transgender minors is unconstitutional, the State may not enforce either the law or the Board of Medicine rules to bar transgender youth from receiving medically needed transition-related health care.

This means that healthcare providers throughout Florida may provide medically needed care to transgender youth without being subject to professional discipline or criminal prosecution while the case proceeds. 

Does the preliminary injunction issued June 6 have an impact on other Florida transgender people and families that are not part of the lawsuit?

Yes. In its ruling, the Court said the challenged law and rules violate the equal protection rights of transgender youth by denying them medically necessary, provider-recommended healthcare. The Court also said the law and rules violate parents’ constitutionally protected autonomy to obtain established medical care for their children.

State officials may not enforce an unconstitutional law. Because the Court determined that the bans on medical care for transgender adolescents is unconstitutional, those bans may not be enforced by State officials to bar any transgender youth from receiving the care they need.

What should I do if I am being denied access to necessary healthcare in Florida?

Anyone with an immediate, urgent medical need who is unable to obtain essential healthcare in Florida because of SB 254 or the Boards of Medicine rules should get in touch with the legal organizations working on this case. You can reach out at gladanswers@glad.org or complete the intake form at www.GLADAnswers.org.

What are the next steps in the legal case?

The Court’s scheduling order provided that the parties could agree to a trial date, so our goal is to resolve the case expediently and to secure a final ruling overturning the ban as soon as possible.

Does the Court’s order apply to the provision of state law that bars physician assistants (PAs) and Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) from prescribing medications for gender transition health care?

No. The order does not apply to that portion of the law; however, materials will soon be filed with the court to more specifically challenge that portion of the law.

Who are the organizations challenging Florida’s healthcare ban?

The organizations challenging the Florida healthcare ban are:

Read more about the case, Doe v. Ladapo.

Printable PDF of this page.

News

Federal Court Halts Enforcement of Florida Transgender Health Ban Against Challengers

A federal district court today issued an order blocking enforcement of Florida state Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine rules banning established medical care for transgender adolescents as well as provisions in SB 254 that codify those rules into state law with added criminal and civil penalties. Today’s order allows Florida parents challenging the ban to access necessary medical care for their transgender children while the legal challenge to the bans continues.

“My husband and I have been heartbroken and worried sick about not being able to care for our daughter in the way we know she needs. I’m sure most any parent can imagine the sense of powerlessness that comes from being unable to do something as basic as get medical care for your child. Today my entire family is breathing a huge sigh of relief knowing we can now access the treatment that we know will keep Susan healthy and allow her to continue being the happy, confident child she has been,” said Jane Doe, who is challenging the ban on behalf of herself and her daughter, Susan.

The families are represented by Southern Legal Counsel, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the Human Rights Campaign, which issued the following statement:

Today’s ruling is a powerful affirmation of the humanity of transgender people, the efficacy of well-established, science-based medical care, and of the rights of parents to make informed healthcare decisions for their children. The court recognized the profound harm the state of Florida is causing by forcing parents to watch their kids suffer rather than provide them with safe and effective care that will allow them to thrive. We are incredibly relieved that these Florida parents can continue to get healthcare for their children while we proceed to challenge these bans and eventually see them fully overturned.

In today’s ruling the court indicated that the plaintiff parents are likely to succeed in their claims that SB 254 and the Boards of Medicine rules unconstitutionally strip them of the right to make informed decisions about their children’s medical treatment and violate the equal protection rights of transgender youth by denying them medically necessary, doctor-recommended healthcare.

The challenge to the Boards of Medicine and SB 254 healthcare bans is likely to proceed quickly to trial. 

Questions About the Legal Status of Florida’s Transgender Healthcare Ban

Read the preliminary injunction order

Read more about the lawsuit, Doe v. Ladapo

More information on the safe, effective, and well-established guidelines on medical care for transgender youth.

News

Seven Florida families have added a challenge to SB 254 to their pending lawsuit against the bans issued by the state’s Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine, and are seeking an emergency order blocking both

Parents File for an Emergency Order to Block SB 254 as Governor DeSantis Signs Discriminatory Transgender Health Ban into Law

Florida families have added a challenge to SB 254 to their pending lawsuit against the bans issued by the state’s Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine, and are seeking an emergency order blocking both

May 17, 2023 (TALLAHASSEE) – Three Florida parents have asked a federal court to issue a temporary restraining order immediately blocking enforcement of SB 254, which Governor DeSantis signed into law today. The families, who have a pending challenge to the state Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine rules banning established medical care for their children and other transgender adolescents, are also challenging provisions in SB 254 that codify those rules into state law, add criminal and civil penalties, and create additional barriers for families with transgender adolescents.

Advocates for the families will be in court on Friday to argue their motions to temporarily block the Boards of Medicine rules and the healthcare ban provisions in SB 254 so that they can get their children urgently needed medical care as the case continues.

The families are represented by Southern Legal Counsel, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the Human Rights Campaign, which issued the following statement:

This is a state of emergency for Florida parents, who are already being forced to watch their kids suffer rather than get them the safe and effective healthcare they need and that will allow them to thrive. Today, Governor DeSantis doubled down on the nightmare created by the Florida Boards of Medicine rules by signing SB 254 into law. 

This law ignores science, unconstitutionally inserts the state into family privacy and parental decision-making, deliberately provokes family conflict by inviting challenges to established custody orders, and tramples on the rights and wellbeing of transgender adolescents. 

We are asking the court to take swift action to block the ban on access to essential healthcare in SB 254, as well as the Boards of Medicine bans, to stop further harm to transgender youth and their families while the plaintiffs’ case continues.

Read the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and the Proposed TRO against the enforcement of SB 254

Read the amended complaint

Read more about the pending lawsuit, Doe v. Ladapo

More information on the safe, effective, and well-established guidelines on medical care for transgender youth.

News

“We have no choice but to fight this ban to protect our daughter’s health.” -Plaintiff Jane Doe, challenging the policy on behalf of herself and her daughter, Susan

Four Florida families filed a lawsuit in federal court today challenging the Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine’s new rules banning the medically necessary healthcare their transgender children need.

Efforts to ban established medical care for transgender youth have been widely criticized by physicians, medical associations and researchers, including over 300 healthcare providers in Florida who have experience treating the intense distress that results when a transgender youth can’t live as who they are.

The bans contradict guidelines established through years of clinical research and recommended by every major medical association, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

The policy unlawfully strips parents of the right to make informed decisions about their children’s medical treatment and violates the equal protection rights of transgender youth by denying them medically necessary, doctor-recommended healthcare to treat their gender dysphoria.

The plaintiffs are all proceeding under pseudonyms to protect their children’s privacy.

Among the families challenging the ban are Jane Doe and her 11-year-old daughter, Susan. The Does are a military family who moved to Florida when John Doe was stationed there as a Senior Officer in the U.S. Navy.

“Like most parents, my husband and I want nothing more than for our daughter to be healthy, happy, and safe,” said Jane Doe. “Being able to consult with our team of doctors to understand what our daughter is experiencing and make the best, most informed decisions about her care has been critically important for our family. She is a happy, confident child, but this ban takes away our right to provide her with the next step in her recommended treatment when she reaches puberty. The military doctors we work with understand the importance of providing that evidence-based, individualized care. We’re proud to serve our country, but we are being treated differently than other military families because of a decision by politicians in the state where we are stationed. We have no choice but to fight this ban to protect our daughter’s physical and mental health.”

“This ban puts me and other Florida parents in the nightmare position of not being able to help our child when they need us most,” said Brenda Boe, who is challenging the ban on behalf of herself and her fourteen-year-old son, Bennett Boe. “My son has a right to receive appropriate, evidence-based medical care. He was finally getting to a place where he felt hopeful, where being prescribed testosterone was on the horizon and he could see a future for himself in his own body. That has been ripped away by this cruel and discriminatory rule.”

“Working with our healthcare team to understand what my daughter is experiencing and learning there are established, effective treatments that are already helping her to thrive has been an incredible relief,” said Fiona Foe, who is challenging the ban on behalf of herself and her ten-year-old daughter, Freya Foe. “I know everyone may not understand what it means to have a transgender child, but taking away our opportunity to help our daughter live a healthy and happy life is cruel and unfair.”

“Our daughter has been saying she is a girl since she was three – it hasn’t gone away,” said Carla Coe, a plaintiff in the lawsuit along with her nine-year-old daughter, Christina Coe. “Since she started being able to live as a girl she has been so much happier and better adjusted. Having the resources and support to make the best decisions for her well-being has been so important for our family. I’m scared this ban will take away the essential medical care she may need when she gets older. We just want to do what’s right for our kid.”

The parent plaintiffs and their children are represented by Southern Legal Counsel, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the Human Rights Campaign. Given the immediate and substantial harm their children face because of this ban, the plaintiffs intend to file a subsequent motion for preliminary injunction asking the federal court to halt the policy while their case against it proceeds. Similar bans on established medical care for transgender youth have been blocked by federal judges in Alabama and Arkansas.

The enactment of Florida’s transgender healthcare ban, which went into effect on March 16, 2023, has faced considerable scrutiny as a politically-motivated process instigated at the urging of the governor and ignoring established medical and scientific consensus on medical care for transgender youth.

In the summer of 2022, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and the Department of Health asked the state Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine to adopt a categorical ban on all treatment of gender dysphoria for people under eighteen years of age. In February and March of 2023, respectively, the Boards adopted formal rules prohibiting all access to safe, effective medical treatments for transgender youth who have received a gender dysphoria diagnosis but who have not yet begun puberty-delaying medication or hormone treatments. Surgeon General Ladapo and all members of the Florida Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine are defendants in the families’ suit challenging the ban.

“This policy came about through a political process with a predetermined conclusion, and it stands in direct contrast to the overwhelming weight of the evidence and science,” said Simone Chriss, Director of Transgender Rights Initiative, Southern Legal Counsel. “There is an unbelievable degree of hypocrisy when a state that holds itself out as being deeply concerned with protecting ‘parents’ rights’ strips parents of their right to ensure their children receive appropriate medical care. I have worked with families and their healthcare providers in Florida for many years. They work tirelessly every day to ensure the best health outcomes for their kids and patients, and they are worried sick about the devastating impacts that this ban will have.”

“The Florida Boards of Medicine chose to ignore the evidence and science in front of them and instead put families in the unthinkable position of not being able to provide essential healthcare for their kids,” said Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders.

“Parents, not the government, should make healthcare decisions for their children,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “This policy crosses a dangerous line and should concern anyone who cares about family privacy or the ability of doctors to do their jobs without undue government interference.”

“It’s alarming to see such a concerted, top-down effort to target a small and vulnerable population,” said Sarah Warbelow, Human Rights Campaign Legal Director. “The Florida Surgeon General, Department of Health and Boards of Medicine should be focused on the real and serious public health issues Florida faces, not on putting transgender kids and their families in harm’s way.”

Read the complaint and visit the case page.


Southern Legal Counsel, Inc. (SLC) is a Florida statewide not-for-profit public interest law firm that is committed to the ideal of equal justice for all and the attainment of basic human and civil rights. SLC’s Transgender Rights Initiative protects the rights of Florida’s LGBTQ+ community through federal impact litigation, policy advocacy, and individual representation.

Through strategic litigation, public policy advocacy, and education, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) works to create a just society free of discrimination based on gender identity and expression, HIV status, and sexual orientation.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. HRC envisions a world where LGBTQ+ people are embraced as full members of society at home, at work and in every community. www.hrc.org

The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) is a national legal organization committed to advancing the human and civil rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education. Since its founding, NCLR has maintained a longstanding commitment to racial and economic justice and the LGBTQ community’s most vulnerable.

Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County

On November 24, 2021, GLAD filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the plaintiff in Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the National Center for Transgender Equality, the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund, and the National LGBTQ Task Force.

In Adams v St. Johns, a lawsuit filed on behalf of Andrew Adams and his mother Erica Adams Kasper, Andrew was being denied access to the boys’ restroom because he is transgender. Our brief supports the plaintiff’s right to access the restroom that correlates with his gender, in accordance with Title IX, or the Equal Protection Clause.

Phillip Morris USA Inc. & R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v Rintoul

GLAD submitted an amicus brief along with Gelber Schachter & Greenberg, P.A., and the ACLU of Florida in support of plaintiff-appellee Bryan Rintoul in Phillip Morris USA Inc. & R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v Rintoul in the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District of Florida. This case would determine whether Bryan will be denied access to wrongful death claims after the death of his partner of several decades and spouse since same-gender couples could marry in 2015.

For 37 years, Edward Caprio and Bryan Rintoul were a loving, committed couple. They would have married as long ago as 1986 if Florida had been willing to recognize their love and commitment for what it so clearly was. Instead, the State excluded same-sex couples from legal marriage until 2015. In this specific case, the court could determine whether Bryan (and other same-gender couples) should be denied rights and benefits tied to marriage now that Ed has passed away.

In a previous decision, Kelly v Georgia-Pacific, LLC, the court held “that a spouse who was not married to a decedent at the time of the decedent’s injury may not recover consortium damages as part of a wrongful death suit.” For the court to interpret Kelly as applying to same-gender couples who were prohibited by the state from marrying would deny an entire group of people like Bryan surviving spouse non-economic damages under the Wrongful Death Act because of those individuals’ sexual orientation and their inability to marry under Florida law prior to 2015. As our brief states, “Such an application of Kelly is not neutral—it discriminates against same-[gender] couples who would have been married earlier if they had not been prevented from doing so— and raises serious constitutional concerns. This Court should avoid those constitutional issues and refuse the invitation to apply Kelly here. The jury had ample evidence to find that Ed and Bryan would have married if marriage had been available to them.”

Read GLAD’s press release.

en_USEnglish
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

To learn more, visit our privacy policy.