Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost filed an emergency motion with the Ohio Supreme Court Monday in an attempt to stop a temporary restraining order against Ohio’s gender-affirming care ban for trans youth.

Yost argued that Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael Holbrook “acted beyond the scope of his powers” last week when he issued the temporary restraining order on Ohio House Bill 68 — a new law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender minors and prohibits trans students from participating in athletics on teams that align with their identity.

“One judge from one county does not have more power than the governor’s veto pen,” Yost said in a statement. 

HB 68 was set to take effect Wednesday. The temporary restraining order is for two weeks. 

Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed HB 68, but lawmakers voted to override his veto. HB 68 prevents transgender youth from starting hormone therapy and puberty blockers. The bill has a grandfather clause that allows doctors to continue treatment on patients that have already started. 

Gender-affirming care is supported by every major medical organization in the United States. Children’s hospitals across Ohio, the Ohio Children’s Hospital Association, and the Ohio Academy of Family Physicians all opposed HB 68.

ACLU of Ohio Lawsuit 

The ACLU of Ohio filed a lawsuit in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on March 26 against the part of the law that prohibits gender-affirming care for transgender youth. It says HB 68 violates four sections of the Ohio Constitution — the single-subject rule, the Health Care provision, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Course of Law provision.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two families whose 12-year-old transgender daughters would lose access to gender-affirming health care. 

Yost argues in his 36-page motion that Holbrook’s injunction is illegal since it applies to the whole state, not just the two plaintiffs. 

“A trial court has gone far beyond its power to enter a so-called ‘universal injunction’ against an entire new law, in all applications, as to all the parts of the law — despite the fact that only two named plaintiffs have alleged narrow harms from only one part of the law,” Yost said in his motion.

• • •• • •