A UK High Court ruled Monday that a ban on puberty blockers issued in May 2024 in the UK was lawful. TransAction, an organisation that advocates for transgender healthcare and legal protections, and an anonymous transgender young person, issued this legal challenge against the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, alleging the ban was implemented through an unlawful process.
The claim failed on all three of its grounds, with the court concluding that the secondary legislation banning puberty blockers for under eighteens was in fact, lawful. Firstly, TransActual argued that the Health Secretary was not entitled to issue the ban through the emergency procedure as it did not satisfy the relevant test to do this. The court held that this test was satisfied, as it was “a matter for the judgment of the Ministers” in cases of “scientific uncertainty.” Secondly, TransActual alleged that the Health Secretary acted unlawfully in failing to consult organisations that worked with transgender individuals, such as themselves. Here, the court agreed with the Health Secretary that no such duty existed, and further held that even if such consultations had been conducted, it was “unlikely” they would “have made any difference.” Finally, TransActual argued that the ban breached the Article 8 rights of the anonymous transgender young person who was challenging the ban alongside TransActual. This claim, too, failed, and the overall decision to ban puberty blockers was held to be “rational.”
The ban was issued on May 29, 2024, under the previous Conservative government and just over a month before the newly elected Labour government came into power. It restricted the “prescription, sale or supply of [puberty blockers] for the purposes of puberty suppression to children and young people under 18 who are experiencing gender dysphoria.” The Health Secretary stated that the ban intended to protect “vulnerable children [who] were being placed on medical pathways which had substantial . . . risks and no or very limited clear benefits.” This impacted many young transgender individuals, including the transgender young person who participated in this legal challenge, as the ban meant she could no longer be prescribed puberty blockers from an overseas provider in England.
TransActual condemned the court’s decision to uphold the ban. They were particularly concerned by the Health Secretary’s reliance upon the “Cass Review,” when implementing this legislation. Reliance upon this review was also held to be lawful as the review “amounted to powerful scientific evidence in support of restriction on the supply of puberty blockers on the grounds that they were potentially harmful.” This review was conducted by Dr Hilary Cass, who concluded that puberty blockers should only be used under a research protocol. However, this review has been widely criticised by LGBTQ+ groups and medical experts such as the Yale School of Medicine. TransActual emphasised that the review “is the work of someone with no experience of trans healthcare,” which “excluded trans researchers from the review team, on grounds of potential bias, while including several clearly identified anti-trans academics.”
TransActual’s Director for Healthcare, Chay Brown, stated his concerns following the High Court ruling:
We are seriously concerned about the safety and welfare of young trans people in the UK. Over the last few years, they have come to view the UK medical establishment as paying lip service to their needs; and all too happy to weaponise their very existence in pursuit of a now discredited culture war.
TransActual urged NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care to “take urgent steps” to reverse this perception of the transgender community and encouraged people to call on their local MPs to speak up about the ban. Regarding an appeal of the ruling, the organisation have asked the judge for leave to appeal the decision, and “will decide whether to do so subject to the advice [they] receive.”
