Class certification granted in challenge to law banning gender-transition procedures for minors

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00
An LGBTQ+ pride flag flies outside the Supreme Court of the United States. (IL file photo)

Plaintiffs challenging Indiana’s 2023 law banning gender-transition procedures for minors have been granted class certification.

Judge James Patrick Hanlon of the Indiana Southern District Court issued an order Tuesday granting class certification in K.C., et al. v. The Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana in their capacities, et al., 1:23-cv-595.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the lawsuit in April almost immediately after Senate Enrolled Act 480 was signed into law by Gov. Eric Holcomb.

SEA 480 prohibits physicians and other practitioners from knowingly providing gender-transition procedures to a minor, and from aiding or abetting another physician or practitioner to do so. The procedures banned by the statute include the use of puberty-blocking drugs, cross-sex hormone therapy and gender-reassignment surgery.

The plaintiffs allege the law violates the minor plaintiffs’ 14th Amendment equal protection rights, the parent plaintiffs’ 14th Amendment due process rights, the medical provider plaintiffs’ First Amendment free speech rights, and the Medicaid provisions of 42 U.S.C. §§ 18116 and 1396(a).

Hanlon enjoined the law in June, and the injunction is now before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs sought certification of three classes and two subclasses.

The first class, the minor patient class, is represented by the four minors in the case. One of those minors, A.M., is also in subclass 1-A, which includes minor patients who are or will be Medicaid recipients.

The second class is the parent class, which is represented by the parents of the minors.

The third class is represented by Dr. Catherine Bast and Mosaic Health and Healing Arts Inc. There is also subclass 3-A, which includes Medicaid providers including Bast and Mosaic Health.

Hanlon wrote in his order granting class certification that the defendants don’t object to the definitions but argue that class certification is inappropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

But the classes and subclasses satisfy the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a), Hanlon wrote.

They also satisfy the rule’s commonality and typicality requirements.

“Plaintiffs’ claims … involve common questions of law and fact, satisfying the commonality requirement,” Hanlon wrote. “And since the named plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same statute and are ‘based on the same legal theory,’ typicality is also satisfied.”

The defendants did not challenge the rule’s final requirement regarding adequacy of representation.

“Plaintiffs are represented by ACLU attorneys Kenneth Falk, Stevie Pactor, Gavin Rose, Chase Strangio, and Harper Seldin. These attorneys have significant experience in similar cases and have done substantial work identifying, investigating, and pursuing Plaintiffs’ claims,” Hanlon wrote. “There is no indication that any counsel has interests that conflict with those of the proposed Classes or Subclasses.”

The judge also found that the plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23(b)(2), which requires that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.”

“… Defendants have not shown that the requested relief will require addressing individual class members’ situations. Since Plaintiffs challenge S.E.A. 480 broadly, not as applied individually, the Court will be required to address the issues collectively as to the Classes and Subclasses in this case,” Hanlon wrote.

In a footnote, Hanlon added that class-definition tweaks would be available, if necessary, to address any concerns about injunctive relief affecting SEA 480’s prohibition on surgical interventions, which the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge.

According to online court records, oral arguments in the appellate case, 23-2366, are scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on Feb. 16.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}