Brandt v. Rutledge

In April 2021, Arkansas (defendant) passed Act 626, which prohibited minors from receiving, and prohibited medical professionals from providing, gender-transition procedures of any kind, including surgery, puberty blockers, and hormone therapy. Gender-transition procedures are typically referred to as gender-affirming care in the context of transgender individuals. Dylan Brandt, along with other transgender minors, their parents, and their physicians (collectively, the transgender advocates) (plaintiffs), sued Arkansas and moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Act 626, arguing that Act 626 discriminated against transgender minors and violated both the Equal Protection Clause and substantive due process. Specifically, the transgender advocates argued that Act 626 (1) irreparably harmed transgender minors by barring them from receiving gender-affirming care, which was widely accepted as the only effective treatment for gender dysphoria; (2) was discriminatory because it barred transgender minors from receiving care that was otherwise available to treat other conditions afflicting cisgender minors; and (3) interfered with parents’ fundamental liberty interest in directing the care, custody, and control of their children. Arkansas countered, arguing that Act 626 furthered the state’s compelling government interests in protecting vulnerable minors from experimental, potentially irreversible treatments and in upholding the ethical standards of the medical profession.