In a pivotal decision on Wednesday, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld an Oklahoma statute that prohibits gender-affirming medical treatments for minors, a ruling that aligns with a growing trend in similar court decisions across the nation.

The court's decision in Poe et. al. v. Drummond et. al. affirmed a lower court's verdict, which found no evidence of discriminatory intent in the enactment of the law against transgender minors or their families. The judges applied the "deeply rooted" analysis test, citing the precedent set in Dobbs v. Jackson. The court concluded that the parental right to access gender-affirming care for their children does not hold a deeply rooted place in America's history or traditions.

This rationale was heavily influenced by the recent US Supreme Court decision in US v. Skrmetti, which upheld a similar law in Tennessee. The Tenth Circuit noted that the laws in both cases were "functionally indistinguishable."

The appellate court remarked, "While we respect that Plaintiffs disagree with the legislature's assessment of such procedures’ risks, that alone does not invalidate a democratically enacted law on rational-basis grounds."

Oklahoma's Senate Bill (SB) 613 was passed in 2023, drawing immediate legal challenges. The legislation bars anyone under 18 from receiving puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or surgeries related to gender transition. Advocacy groups including Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the Oklahoma ACLU represented transgender children, their parents, and a physician, arguing that the bill unjustly targets them and violates their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act.

In response to the court's decision, Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the Oklahoma ACLU issued a joint statement condemning the outcome as "devastating." They criticized the Oklahoma ban as "openly discriminatory and provably harmful," asserting that it places "political dogma above parents, their children, and their family doctors."

The ruling has sparked intense reactions among advocates for transgender youth and their families, who continue to voice their opposition and concern over the implications of such legislation. The debate over the legality and morality of banning gender-affirming care for minors is likely to persist as similar laws are challenged throughout the United States.