A federal court in Indiana has entered final judgment in favor of the state, ending a legal challenge to a 2023 law that restricts minors’ access to gender-affirming medical treatments, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgical procedures.
U.S. District Judge James Patrick Hanlon, a Trump appointee, issued a short order dismissing the American Civil Liberties Union’s claims with prejudice — a ruling that bars the group from refiling the same claims in court. The decision, reported by The Federalist, marks the conclusion of litigation that has stretched across multiple levels of the federal judiciary since the law was enacted.
Background of the Law
Indiana’s law was signed by former Gov. Eric Holcomb in 2023. According to local media reporting cited in the source material, its provisions bar minors from accessing hormone replacement therapies, puberty blockers and surgeries within the state.
The ACLU sued in federal court shortly after the law took effect, and a lower court initially agreed to block the statute. That blockade was lifted after an appeal from Attorney General Todd Rokita’s office to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
As described by the Indiana AG’s office, the 7th Circuit sided with the state in November 2024, reversing the lower court and holding that the law does not violate the Constitution. With no remaining path forward, the ACLU reportedly abandoned the rest of the case, leading to Friday’s final judgment.
Rokita Hails the Ruling
Rokita, a Republican who has been an outspoken defender of the law, celebrated the outcome. “We have won this critical fight against radicals who would otherwise impose this horrific practice on our kids for ideological and financial reasons,” he said in a statement. “My office will keep standing between our children and those who would sacrifice their health, innocence, and well-being on the altar of woke gender ideology.”
The attorney general’s language reflects the broader political fight over gender-affirming care that has consumed state legislatures and courtrooms nationwide. Supporters of restrictions like Indiana’s argue they protect children from irreversible medical decisions; opponents, including the ACLU, contend the laws interfere with established medical practice and violate families’ rights to make healthcare decisions with their doctors.
Supreme Court Precedent
The Indiana ruling follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti (2025), in which the Court upheld state laws restricting gender-affirming care for minors. Writing for the 6-3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that such statutes do not violate the 14th Amendment, adding that “questions regarding the law’s policy are thus appropriately left to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”
That decision effectively resolved the central constitutional question at stake in the Indiana litigation and similar cases across the country, though legal battles over implementation and scope continue in some jurisdictions.
Medical Debate Continues
The Federalist has previously reported on the medical debate surrounding so-called “gender-affirming care,” citing data showing that puberty blockers may cause future infertility and loss of bone density. Many studies also indicate that minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria are prone to outgrow it by adulthood, according to the outlet. Major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, have generally supported access to gender-affirming care for adolescents, though some European health systems have tightened restrictions in recent years amid reviews of the evidence base.
More than half of U.S. states have reportedly passed laws restricting practitioners from performing these procedures on minors. Indiana’s law is among the most comprehensively litigated of those measures, having survived both a district court injunction and appellate review before Friday’s final dismissal.
The ruling ends one chapter of the legal fight in Indiana. It does not resolve broader disputes over access to care in states where such laws have not been enacted, nor does it prevent new challenges on different legal grounds. But for now, Indiana’s restrictions remain in force, and the ACLU’s case is formally closed.
Source: thefederalist.com — https://thefederalist.com/2026/09/15/court-upholds-indianas-ban-on-horrific-trans-surgeries-for-kids/