Group appeals North Dakota transgender care ban ruling

By: Devin Fry

BISMARCK, N.D. (Valley News Live) – The legal fight over North Dakota’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors is returning to the state’s highest court.

Attorneys for three minor patients and their families, along with North Dakota pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Luis Casas, filed a notice of appeal Wednesday in the North Dakota Supreme Court, challenging a district court ruling that upheld the state’s Health Care Ban. They announced the appeal in a press release on Thursday.

Background

In October 2025, Burleigh County District Court Judge Jackson Lofgren upheld the ban following a bench trial, applying rational basis review and finding the law had a reasonable relationship to legitimate government interests, including medical risks and concerns about minors’ capacity to understand long-term, irreversible effects. He denied requests to declare the law unconstitutional and refused to block its enforcement.

What the Law Does

North Dakota’s Health Care Law, passed in 2023, prohibits providers from performing procedures or prescribing certain medications to minors for gender affirmation purposes. Banned treatments include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries such as castration, hysterectomy, and mastectomy. Doctors who violate the law face up to 360 days in prison and $3,000 in fines.

Issues on Appeal

Appellants are raising two central questions before the Supreme Court:

Whether the district court erred by applying only rational basis review, rather than a higher standard of scrutiny, arguing the ban implicates constitutional rights to life, liberty, safety, happiness, self-determination, and equal protection under the North Dakota Constitution.

Whether, even under rational basis review, the district court erred in finding the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, specifically by disregarding evidence of harm to affected adolescents and alleged evidence of legislative animus in passing the law.

In Their Own Words

Dr. Casas said the law removes families’ ability to make private medical decisions with their doctor.

“Every family I work with is trying to do the right thing for their child. They come to me, they ask questions and we make decisions together based on the best medical evidence available,” Casas said. “This law takes that away; instead putting the government between me and my patients and tells North Dakota families that their private medical decisions are no longer their own. These families deserve the same freedom as any other family in this state to work with their doctor and do what’s best for their child.”

Jess Braverman, legal director at Gender Justice, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs, said the case is about more than one group of patients.

“This case is about a principle every North Dakotan understands: politicians have no business telling families what medical decisions they can make for their own children,” Braverman said. “North Dakota’s Constitution was written to safeguard against government overreach into the personal autonomy and self-determination of North Dakota families. It’s time for the courts to enforce that promise.”

Attorney General Drew Wrigley said the state is confident in the district court’s decision.

“The District Court’s decision is firmly grounded in settled law and affirms the legislature’s responsibility to protect the long-term health of children,” Wrigley said. “The State of North Dakota looks forward to defending this favorable ruling before the North Dakota Supreme Court.”

Who Is Appealing

The minor plaintiffs are identified in court documents by pseudonyms to protect their privacy. They are represented by attorneys from Sambor Law & Consulting in Bismarck, Gender Justice in St. Paul, Minn., and the Lawyering Project.

The defendants are North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley and the state’s attorneys for Cass, Burleigh and Stark counties. A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office has been contacted for comment.

A transcript of the bench trial, held Jan. 27 through Feb. 4, 2025, has been ordered as part of the appeal.

Recommended Posts

Loading...