{"id":5311,"date":"2025-09-24T12:58:43","date_gmt":"2025-09-24T17:58:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/westplexnews.com\/index.php\/2025\/09\/24\/ruling-upholding-missouri-transgender-care-ban-had-factual-errors-attorneys-argue-2\/"},"modified":"2025-09-24T12:58:43","modified_gmt":"2025-09-24T17:58:43","slug":"ruling-upholding-missouri-transgender-care-ban-had-factual-errors-attorneys-argue-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/westplexnews.com\/index.php\/2025\/09\/24\/ruling-upholding-missouri-transgender-care-ban-had-factual-errors-attorneys-argue-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Ruling upholding Missouri transgender care ban had \u2018factual errors,\u2019 attorneys argue"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

The Missouri Supreme Court building in Jefferson City (Annelise Hanshaw\/Missouri Independent).<\/p>\n

Attorneys representing transgender minors, their loved ones and physicians who provide gender-affirming care say a circuit court judge\u2019s <\/span>decision to uphold<\/span><\/a> the state\u2019s gender-affirming-care restrictions was \u201cpermeated by legal and factual errors.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

In oral arguments in the Missouri Supreme Court Wednesday morning, Lambda Legal attorney Nora Huppert said the <\/span>November judgment<\/span><\/a> \u201crelies on evidence that was expressly excluded for its truth, and it draws conclusions from testimony that are the opposite of what that testimony says.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

For that reason, and others, Huppert argues the decision should be reversed.<\/span><\/p>\n

But the Missouri Attorney General\u2019s office, represented Wednesday by Solicitor General Lou Capozzi, rejects the notion that the law is discriminatory in nature.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cAppellants have no evidence for their allegation that this could be only motivated by animus when the state presented a mountain of evidence that it is concerned about the health and safety of children,\u201d he told the judges.<\/span><\/p>\n

The law, <\/span>passed in 2023<\/span><\/a>, bars health care providers from prescribing or administering cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs, or performing gender-transition surgeries, for anyone under 18. Provisions barring gender-affirming hormones and puberty blockers are set to expire on Aug. 28, 2027, though lawmakers have shown intentions to remove the sunset<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

In his November ruling, Wright County Circuit Court Judge Craig Carter determined that the restrictions weren\u2019t discriminatory and could only be subject to rational basis review. This is the most lenient standard, requiring challengers to prove that there is no basis that the law can stand.<\/span><\/p>\n

The legal standard for reviewing the law is a key part of the case. Statutes that violate Missouri\u2019s <\/span>equal protection clause<\/span><\/a>, which says everyone is entitled to \u201cequal rights and opportunity,\u201d are subject to heightened scrutiny.<\/span><\/p>\n

Attorneys from Lambda Legal, a civil rights law firm focused on LGBTQ+ litigation, and the ACLU of Missouri <\/span>argue heightened scrutiny should be applied<\/span><\/a> because the law \u201cclassifies based on sex and transgender status.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Evidence \u2014 and the quality of it \u2014 is also a point of contention.<\/span><\/p>\n

Huppert said Carter\u2019s judgment \u201cadopted largely verbatim\u201d the state\u2019s proposed findings of fact, which was filed at the conclusion of trial and before the court\u2019s transcript was complete. The filings confirm Carter\u2019s findings of fact outright mirror the state\u2019s, adopting the same subheadings and copying paragraphs verbatim.<\/span><\/p>\n

This makes the judgment deeply flawed, appellants\u2019 brief argues, because these findings misconstrued testimony from the trial and refer to exhibits that were not allowed into the court record.<\/span><\/p>\n

During the two-week trial last year, the attorney general\u2019s office employed a tactic of questioning witnesses using articles and studies not accepted into the court record.<\/span><\/p>\n

Capozzi pointed to a section of the judgment which expanded on testimony from medical ethicist Dr. Farr Curlin as proof the two documents were not 100% identical.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe trial court was not just copying and pasting,\u201d he said. \u201cAnd the implication that the trial court was lazy or didn\u2019t do its job is not proper.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Judge Craig Carter, a Wright County judge serving in Cole County for Missouri\u2019s gender-affirming care trial, listens to a nurse practitioner testify during the September 2024 trial (Annelise Hanshaw\/Missouri Independent).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Carter\u2019s judgment acknowledges the overwhelming amount of evidence presented during the extensive trial, describing \u201cbinders of evidentiary documents that were piled so high on the bench that (his) was at times obscured.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThis was a very lengthy and complex case,\u201d he wrote. \u201cIt would be impossible for the court to make factual findings for each witness. The court reporter\u2019s transcript in this case is several thousand pages.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

A clear look at the evidence, Huppert argued, would show the law is unconstitutional no matter what level of scrutiny is applied.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe record reflects that the care ban for minors actually harms minors rather than protects them, and for that reason, the law is wholly irrational as well,\u201d she told the judges.<\/span><\/p>\n

Interpreting the evidence in this case is not straightforward. From the beginning, the law\u2019s challengers and the state <\/span>have not agreed on the factual background of the case<\/span><\/a> and those disagreements continued Wednesday.<\/span><\/p>\n

For example, Capozzi opened his argument by describing the law as \u201cbipartisan,\u201d misconstruing a <\/span>compromise<\/span><\/a> that led Senate Democrats to end a filibuster. But no Democrats in either the House or Senate voted in favor of the legislation.<\/span><\/p>\n

The state\u2019s argument also rejects claims that gender-affirming hormone therapy and puberty blockers treat gender dysphoria, a condition describing distress that occurs when someone\u2019s sex as assigned at birth misaligns with their gender identity.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the trial, experts largely spoke about the effectiveness of treatments as it relates to adolescents. But part of the challenged law bans the state\u2019s Medicaid program from covering gender-affirming care for minors and adults.<\/span><\/p>\n

Carter upheld the Medicaid restrictions, saying challengers \u201cfailed to develop any argument specifically tailored to challenging the Medicaid provision.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Huppert said that argument was \u201cthroughout\u201d filings. Appellants included Medicaid ban as part of \u201cthe act\u201d in filings, challengers\u2019 brief said, but the state claims the argument wasn\u2019t explicit.<\/span><\/p>\n

Judges had almost no questions during the arguments Wednesday, apart from a question from Judge Ginger Gooch asking how the case differs from a challenge of Arkansas\u2019 gender-affirming-care ban. A federal appeals court <\/span>upheld Arkansas\u2019 ban<\/span><\/a> in August.<\/span><\/p>\n

The states\u2019 statutes have some differences, Huppert said, and Missouri\u2019s equal protection clause is more extensive than the federal protections relied upon in that case.<\/span><\/p>\n

Capozzi said the statutes are \u201calmost identical,\u201d also pointing to similarities in Tennessee\u2019s gender-affirming-care restrictions which <\/span>the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in June<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n <\/i>\n

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n