From today's decision in Eknes-Tucker v. Marshall, by Judges Barbara Lagoa, joined by Judge Andrew Brasher and District Judge J.P. Boulee (N.D. Ga.):
[S]ection 4(a)(1)–(3) of Alabama's Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act … states that "no person shall engage in or cause" the prescription or administration of puberty blocking medication or cross-sex hormone treatment to a minor "for the purpose of attempting to alter the appearance of or affirm the minor's perception of his or her gender or sex, if that appearance or perception is inconsistent with the minor's sex." Thus, section 4(a)(1)–(3) makes it a crime in the State of Alabama to take part in providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormone treatment to a minor for purposes of treating a discordance between the minor's biological sex and sense of gender identity.
Shortly after the Act was signed into law, a group of transgender minors, their parents, and other concerned individuals challenged the Act's constitutionality, claiming that it violates the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…. [W]e hold that the district court abused its discretion in issuing [a] preliminary injunction [against the Act] …. The plaintiffs have not presented any authority that supports the existence of a constitutional right to "treat [one's] children with transitioning medications subject to medically accepted standards." Nor have they shown that section 4(a)(1)–(3) classifies on the basis of sex or any other protected characteristic….
