Yost’s office filed written legal arguments on Monday, October 20, 2025, defending the constitutionality of the legislation, which restricts the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors seeking to change their gender. The law, passed by the Ohio General Assembly (House Bill 68) after legislators overrode a veto by Governor Mike DeWine, is currently in effect while the state’s appeal, known as Moe v. Yost, proceeds.
Key Arguments and Legal Basis
The Attorney General’s brief asserts that the state legislature acted properly in enacting the law, which Yost claims “protects our children from irreversible medical decisions.”
The filing specifically challenges the ruling of the 10th District Court of Appeals, which had asserted that parents possess a constitutional right to seek these treatments for their children. Yost’s arguments contend that the appellate court erred, calling its ruling a “dangerous twist on the question of ‘who decides.'” He maintains that the decision on the legality of sex-change procedures for minors was made by Ohioans through their elected representatives, reserving such procedures for adults.
The Attorney General further cautioned against embedding the standards of “so-called experts” into the Ohio Constitution, arguing that nothing in the constitution empowers these opinions to determine what is legal in the state.
Background on House Bill 68
The controversial law, known as the Saving Ohio Adolescents from Experimentation Act, along with a separate provision regarding transgender athletes (Save Women’s Sports Act), bans physicians from performing gender reassignment surgery on minors and from prescribing cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs specifically for gender transition.
The legal challenge against the health care ban was brought by transgender adolescents and their families. While a lower court initially allowed the law to take effect, the appeals court later blocked the ban, citing violations of the state’s Health Care Freedom Amendment and the fundamental rights of parents to direct their children’s care.
Despite the appellate court’s ruling against the ban, the Ohio Supreme Court later allowed the state to keep the law in effect pending the outcome of the appeal, a procedural move welcomed by the Attorney General’s office.
The Ohio Supreme Court has not yet set a date for hearings on the case, which will determine the long-term enforceability of the ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors in Ohio.