Watch a previous NBC4 report on House Bill 68 in the video player above.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) -- The Ohio Supreme Court rejected on Wednesday a request by Attorney General Dave Yost to alter the temporary block against a law banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth.
Wednesday's decision by the court denies Yost's effort to narrow the scope of the temporary restraining order currently blocking House Bill 68, legislation that was set to take effect on April 24 to prohibit Ohio's children's hospitals from providing treatment like hormone therapy to trans minors. Now, the case can proceed in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, where a trial is currently scheduled for July 15.
"This decision was correct. The state's request was egregious," said Freda Levenson, legal director at the ACLU of Ohio. "The scope of the temporary restraining order was necessary and appropriate to prevent the constitutional violations and other irreparable harm that would immediately occur if H.B. 68 were permitted to take effect."
Yost had filed an emergency motion on April 22 arguing that Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Michael Holbrook "overstepped his judicial authority" when he issued the initial temporary restraining order on April 16 to block H.B. 68. Yost argued Holbrook "acted beyond the scope of his power" because the law contains several other provisions beyond gender-affirming care, like also banning trans athletes' participation in women's sports.
"One judge from one county does not have more power than the governor's veto pen," Yost said, asking the state's Supreme Court to "narrow the injunction and order Holbrook to act within the limits of his judicial authority."
The restraining order follows a lawsuit by the ACLU against the measure filed in March on behalf of two families whose children are at risk of losing access to their healthcare. The legal challenge came after the Statehouse overrode Gov. Mike DeWine’s veto of the legislation. DeWine decided to reject the bill after visiting several children’s hospitals, arguing "parents should make these decisions and not the government."
The ACLU had previously argued H.B. 68's multiple provisions are what make the law unconstitutional. The organization said the law violates the Ohio Constitution’s single-subject rule, requiring bills to only be about one topic. The two measures had been separate bills before Ohio House legislators combined them in June last year.
"Far from creating an emergency, the challenged temporary injunction merely maintains the status quo in Ohio -- that trans youth be permitted to access life-saving medical care with support from parents and doctors," said Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney at the ACLU. "We're thankful the court did not allow the state to subvert the rights of trans youth and their families."
