Texas Supreme Court allows anti-transgender probes in state

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott speaks during a briefing July 10, 2021 in Austin.

The Texas Supreme Court vacated the statewide application of an injunction that prevented the execution of Gov. Greg Abbotts (R) Policy that considers medical care for transgender children potential abuse.

“We are also granting conditional relief with respect to the injunction against the governor as there is no allegation that he is taking or having the authority to take any enforcement action required by the order,” he said decision Conditions.

However, the court left an order shielding the two parents, their child and the healthcare provider filed a lawsuit against Abbott and other officials in March. The parents and their transgender daughter sued anonymously along with a Houston-based clinical psychologist Megan Moony.

In a phone interview with her lawyer Paul D Castillo Law&Crime said the ruling was a victory for its clients because the court dismissed the state’s arguments to get rid of the case.

“In its decision, the court stressed that the opinions of the Attorney General [Ken] Paxton and Governor Abbott are not bound and that neither of them has the authority or power to direct [Family Protective Services] to investigate the provision of medically necessary and often life-saving healthcare to transgender youth with gender dysphoria as child abuse,” noted Castillo, who works with Lambda Legal.

The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, called the governor’s order a “partisan attack” that incited “terror” against transgender children and their families. Mooney told a lower court judge that Abbott’s arrangement placed her in an “unsustainable” professional position.

“Failure to report my clients receiving this medical treatment could result in civil and criminal penalties, loss of my license and other serious consequences,” Mooney wrote in a affidavit. “But if I were to report any of my clients for critical and medically necessary care, I would violate professional ethical standards, cause serious harm and trauma to my clients, and irreparably damage the relationships of trust I have built with my clients with the possible closure of my practice, when clients know I cannot maintain their trust and face harsh penalties for false child abuse reports.”

Judge Amy Clark Meachumof the 201st Civil District Court of Travis County, first granted a restraining order for the family and the psychologist before a restraining order was granted.

That injunction, issued against the governor, the Texas Department of Family Protection Services and their commissioner, contained the following prohibition, prohibiting them from:

“Investigating reports in the State of Texas against anyone based solely on allegations of child abuse by any person, provider or organization in facilitating or providing gender-affirming care to transgender minors when the sole reason for the alleged abuse or neglect is either facilitation or the provision of gender-affirming medical treatment or the fact that the minor is transgender, undergoing gender transition, or receiving or being prescribed gender-affirming medical treatment.”

As a result of the Texas Supreme Court ruling, only the family and the psychologist remain protected from this order.

In partial dissent, Justice James Blacklock argued that even preventing the Department of Family Protective Services from investigating the family was going too far.

“Although none of the defendants’ contested testimonies provide an independent legal basis for such an investigation, the real crux of the matter is whether under current law DFPS had the background power established in the Family Code to investigate gender-dysphoric treatment may constitute child abuse in certain cases.” and go to court to obtain orders on that basis.” partial contradiction Conditions. “We should not resolve this issue at this time. But at this stage, we should ask whether the plaintiffs have asserted a probable claim for relief for their allegation that DFPS cannot even see the plaintiffs’ medical decisions in this regard without first establishing a notice and comment policy.”

Abbott’s spokesperson did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Read the majority opinion below:

This is an evolving story.

[image via Tamir Kalifa/Getty Images]

Do you have a tip we should know? [email protected]