Moe v. Yost

Gender Affirming CareTrans YouthAthleticsOhio

Aug 23

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

On Appeal from the Tenth Appellate District of Franklin County, Ohio

Case No. 24CVH03-2481 (Ct. of Common Pleas - closed)
Case No. 24-AP-000483 (Appellate Ct. - closed)
Case No. 2025-0472 (Ohio Supreme Ct. - open)

STATUS: ONGOING

LATEST UPDATE: On March 18, 2025, the 10th District Court of Appeals panel reversed the trial court’s decision and concluded that H.B. 68 violates Ohio’s Health Care Freedom Amendment and the fundamental right of parents to direct the care and upbringing of their children. Ohio Attorney General Yost appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court and asked for a stay of the appellate panel’s ruling. The Ohio Supreme Court granted the stay on April 19, 2025, allowing H.B. 68 to go into full effect. The high court accepted the appeal, and the parties now await a briefing schedule.

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 of appeal of 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, without ruling on the motion for injunction.

Appellants filed their brief on August 22, 2024. Appellees filed their brief on August 29, 2024, and Appellants filed their reply on September 3, 2024. On September 11, 2024, a panel of 10th District appellate judges heard oral arguments on the case.

In a fortunate turn, on March 18, 2025, the 10th District Court of Appeals panel reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case with orders that Judge Holbrook issue a permanent injunctions. The appeals court found that H.B. 68 violates Ohio's Health Care Freedom Amendment and fundamental right of parents to direct the care and upbringing of their children, found in the Ohio constitution's substantive due process clause. The court did not rule on Plaintiff-Appellants' assignments of error regarding the single-subject rule or equal protection, finding those arguments moot.

Attorney General Yost immediately announced his intent to appeal the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. On March 25, 2025, five days after the mandate was issued, Appellees filed a motion for stay pending appeal. Appellants filed their opposition to the stay on March 27, 2025, and Appellees replied on March 28. On April 3, 2025, the appeals court denied the stay, maintaining its decision and instructions to the lower court.

That same day, after receiving the appellate court’s denial, the State Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The State further asked the Supreme Court to stay the 10th District’s order pending appeal. Plaintiffs-Appellees filed their opposition to the stay motion on April 9, 2025. Although the appellate mandate was in effect for six weeks, Judge Holbrook never entered an injunction or any other order, a required by the mandate. On April 29, the Supreme Court granted the stay and allowed H.B. 68 to go into full effect.

The Ohio Supreme Court ordered the parties the submit memoranda on the high court’s jurisdiction over the issues on appeal. The parties did, and on July 22, 2025, the court accepted the appeal. The parties await a briefing schedule.