On the morning of January 15, the next chapter was written in the Doe v. Ladapo case as oral arguments were heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Previously, Doe v. Ladapo, a case challenging a Florida law banning healthcare for transgender youth and restrictions on the medical interventions available to trans adults, was heard and ruled against by U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle on June 11, 2024. Finding the law and rules “unconstitutional and unenforceable on equal protection grounds,” the district court also summarized that the Florida healthcare ban “motivated by purposeful discrimination against transgender people.”

“Perhaps all this talk about castration and mutilation is just political hyperbole. But it casts at least some doubt on the assertion that these decision makers’ motivation was sound regulation of medical care in the best interest of transgender patients rather than outright disapproval of transgender identity,” Hinkle had written at the time. “Any suggestion that animus of this kind did not motivate at least some legislators blinks reality.”

Even with the ruling, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals had stayed Judge Hinkle’s order in September 2024, after Florida’s defendants put in a challenge to the case. This move effectively allowed the ban to be active, while the hearing on the case between both sides took place January 15.

During the appeal hearing, Mohammad Jazil, an attorney for the state, disputed that Florida officials showed hostility toward transgender people in approving the restrictions. Arguing that it was “wrong to treat gender dysphoria as a proxy for transgender individuals,” Jazil cited Governor Ron DeSantis along with other Republican leaders in their questioning of the treatments spotlit by the case, especially when it came to minors.

On the plaintiffs’ side, attorney Adam Unikowsky argued back that the nature of the views given by state officials suggests that the Florida leadership thinks transgender people should not transition. “I think it’s expressed in the view [that] a certain class of individuals shouldn’t exist,” Unikowsky stated.

After Jazil, in his arguments, suggested that Hinkle should have applied what is known as a “presumption of good faith” to the actions of lawmakers, Judge Adalberto Jordan, one of the judges presiding, asked both attorneys about the good-faith issue. Jordan also pointed to the South Carolina redistricting case Alexander v. SC NAACP ruling the Supreme Court threw out last year, which found Republicans did not commit unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

Using that dispute as a direct example, Jordan said the difficulty to overcome the presumption of good faith is only getting higher. The judge, along with his contemporary on the case, Judge Andrew Brasher, went on to question during that morning on whether the panel should put the Florida case on hold while the U.S. Supreme Court considers a dispute about a similar Tennessee case. The Supreme Court heard arguments last month in the Tennessee case and likely will rule in the coming months, which would ultimately affect the outcome in the Florida dispute and possibly other states across the nation.

Back to Top