Summary: The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (“Court”) recently issued a decision in the case of Madeline Moe, et al. v. David Yost, et al. This ruling addressed the constitutionality of several provisions within Ohio HB 68, known as the “Act,” which has two primary provisions (1) banning medical care for minors for “gender related conditions” including gender-affirming surgeries, hormone therapies, and restricting mental health care; and (2) prohibiting transgender girls and women from participating on girls’ and women’s sports teams at both the K-12 and collegiate level. Previously, the Court had granted a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) which postponed the effective date of the Act pending the Court’s decision on the merits.
Key Findings:
- Single Subject Rule: The Court upheld the Act, concluding it did not violate the Single Subject Rule of the Ohio Constitution. The Court determined that the Act’s provisions, despite their diverse topics, share a common legislative purpose of regulating transgender individuals.
- Health Care Freedom Amendment: The Court found that the Health Care Ban within the Act, which prohibits gender transition services for minors, does not violate the Health Care Freedom Amendment. The Court recognized that while gender transition services are considered health care, the State of Ohio’s classification of such services in the bill as “wrongdoing” when provided to minors, allows the legislature to ban these services without running afoul of the Health Care Freedom Amendment.
- Equal Protection Clause: The Act was subjected to rational basis review as it does not involve a suspect class or fundamental right. The Court concluded that the Act is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of protecting the health and safety of minors, and thus does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
- Due Process Clause: The Court acknowledged the fundamental rights of parents but emphasized the State’s role in regulating health and welfare, including limiting parental freedoms in the context of medical treatments for minors. Consequently, the Act was found not to infringe on the due process rights of parents.
Implications for School Districts:
- Compliance with Sports Designations: School districts must comply with the provisions of the Save Women’s Sports Act, which is part of the Act. This portion of the Act mandates the designation of sports teams based on biological sex. Per the Act, schools are prohibited from knowingly permitting “individuals of the male sex to participate on athletic teams. . . designated only for participants of the female sex.” However, female students are permitted to participate on male designated teams. Schools should review and adjust their sports policies to ensure alignment with this requirement.
- School-Based Mental Health Services: The Act bars mental health providers – including school psychologists, social workers, and clinical counselors – from: (1) Diagnosing or treating minor for “gender related conditions” without consent of one parent or guardian; and (2) Treating a minor for gender related conditions (even with consent) without screening “for other comorbidities that may be influencing the individual’s gender-related condition” such as depression, anxiety, ADHD, autism, sexual/mental/emotional abuse, and trauma. School districts must be aware of these provisions and ensure that providers obtain parental consent prior to providing treatment for “gender related conditions.”
- Impact on Transgender Students: School districts should be aware of the restrictions on gender transition services for minors. This decision underscores the need for sensitivity and compliance with state regulations while supporting the well-being of transgender students.
- Communication with Parents and Students: Transparent communication with parents and students regarding these legal changes is essential. School districts should prepare to address concerns and questions, providing clear explanations of how these legal requirements will be implemented as well as areas that are (and are not) impacted by HB 68.
Action Steps:
- Policy Update: Review and revise district policies on sports team participation and other relevant areas to ensure compliance with the Act.
- Training: Implement training programs for staff to understand the legal requirements and best practices for supporting transgender students.
- Legal Consultation: Consider consulting with legal counsel to navigate the complexities of these regulations and to ensure that district policies comply with the latest legal standards.
Conclusion: This court decision has significant implications for school districts in Ohio. Ensuring compliance with the Act while maintaining a supportive environment for all students will require careful policy review and proactive communication. For further assistance, school districts should seek legal advice to navigate these changes effectively. The attorneys for the plaintiffs in this case have indicated their intention to appeal; thus, this case is far from over.
Contact Information: The Weston Hurd Education Group will continue to monitor developments regarding this area of the law and keep you informed of decisions that affect Ohio schools. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions related to the impact of the recent Court decision regarding HB 68.
* * * *
Weston Hurd LLP attorneys regularly provide attentive counsel in all aspects of school law. For further information about this advisory, please contact any of the education law attorneys.
