Houston – The Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday that investigations by parents of transgender children into possible child abuse could continue following an urgent complaint from government officials, including Gov. Greg Abbott. The decision overturns a decision of the Court of Appeal, which temporarily suspends investigations across the country.
But the court said officials could not reopen the investigation into the plaintiffs, the family and the doctor, acknowledging that the investigation would cause “irreparable damage” and upholding the order until their case continued until trial.
In its 12-page opinion, the court found that the appellate court had “misused its judgment” in issuing a state-wide order at this point in the legal process.
Investigations began in February after Mr Abbott ordered government officials to consider some medically accepted treatments for transgender youth to be abusive, including hormones or drugs that suppress puberty.
Friday’s decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by the parents of a 16-year-old transgender girl. The family was among the first to be investigated by the U.S. Department of Family and Welfare Services on Mr. Abbott’s orders. Several more investigations have emerged since then.
In March, District Judge Amy Clark Mitchum of Travis County ordered all such investigations to be suspended pending trial. She found that the governor’s order was taken incorrectly and violated the state constitution. The Court of Appeal allowed the temporary ban to remain in force.
Mr Abbott, along with Attorney General Ken Paxton, took the case to the Texas Supreme Court, arguing that the investigations were not in themselves “injuries” and that the district court had exceeded its authority to prevent them. All nine members of the state’s Supreme Court are Republicans; five were appointed by Mr Abbott.
The Court found that Mr Abbott and Mr Paxton could not in fact require certain types of investigations from the Department of Family and Protection Services, finding that the agency had a discretion as to how it conducted its investigations into abuses. “Neither the governor nor the attorney general has the legal authority to directly control the department’s investigative decisions,” said Judge Jimmy Blacklock, who was appointed by Mr Abbott in 2018.
“Just as the governor does not have the power to issue a binding DFPS directive, the appellate court does not have the power to grant relief to non-partisans across the country,” Judge Blacklock wrote.
The Court of Appeal will now consider the arguments of civil servants and plaintiffs regarding Judge Mitchum’s decision. The trial, originally scheduled for July, has now been postponed pending these arguments.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers were encouraged by aspects of the decision. “The court rejected the state’s arguments to get rid of the case completely,” said Karen Lowe, a senior adviser at Lambda Legal, which represented the plaintiffs along with the American Civil Liberties Union.
The court clarified, she said, that while investigations across the country by the Defense Agency could be resumed, “any such investigation” into that of its clients “would cause the same irreparable harm” and that “the right thing to do, it would be to exercise the discretion they had before the governor intervened.
It was unclear whether the decision would lead to an immediate resumption of investigations. A spokeswoman for Mr Abbott did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
But the governor’s directive and subsequent investigations have already had a significant effect on families and health care providers, even during the nationwide order. Major hospitals around Texas have stopped providing hormonal treatments as part of their care for transgender youth in response to the governor’s directive. Parents of transgender children across the state are worried about becoming targets; some have taken steps to leave the country.
Texas policy is the culmination of a widespread national push by conservative groups to limit medical treatment for transgender youth, known as gender care, which has gained widespread recognition among medical groups and physicians in recent years.
Mr Abbott’s directive came months after bills restricting medical care for transgender people failed last year in the Texas legislature. A non-binding opinion was immediately followed in February by Mr Paxton that certain medical treatments could be considered child abuse under existing Texas law.
The moves of Mr Abbott and Mr Paxton, both serving two terms, came just before the Texas primary, as they faced bitter challenges from well-funded Republican opponents. Mr. Abbott emerged victorious. Mr Paxton faces a run-off in May.
Pressure to restrict the rights of young transgender people
Map 1 of 8
Growing trend. Measures that could change the lives of young transgender people are at the center of heated political debates across America. Here is how some countries approach the topic:
Indiana. Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb vetoed a bill that would ban transgender girls from competing in sports for girls approved by the school. The governor said the bill, known as HEA 1041, is likely to be challenged in court.
Utah A day after the decision in Indiana, Gov. Spencer Cox, also a Republican, vetoed a similar bill that would ban young transgender athletes from participating in sports for girls. Subsequently, Republican lawmakers voted to repeal the veto and passed the legislation.
Other countries. Since 2019, lawmakers have introduced bills aimed at banning transgender young people from joining school sports teams according to their gender identity. They have become law in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.
Mr Abbott said his actions were to protect children. His campaign described the issue as a political “winner” with Texas voters.
But dozens of big companies, including names like Johnson & Johnson, Google and Macy’s, have objected to the governor’s approach. And the Republican governors of Indiana and Utah have vetoed bills banning transgender athletes from participating in youth sports. “Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few people,” wrote Spencer Cox, the governor of Utah.
For the family at the center of the case in Texas, the decision to file a lawsuit came when state investigators began requesting medical records related to their daughter’s treatment. The family refused to provide them.
Instead, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union in Texas and Lambda Legal, they went to Austin State Court to try to stop the investigation from the Department of Family Protection, where the mother of a 16-year-old child works, reviewing reports of violence and neglect.
The only charge against the family – named only as John, Jane and Mary Doe – was that their transgender daughter may have received gender-based care, according to the lawsuit. During the hearing of the order, the mother testified with a wig and goggles to protect her identity, and spoke about the emotional consequences that the investigation had inflicted on her family.
Houston’s licensed psychologist, Dr. Megan Mooney, whose practice includes treating transgender patients, was also included as a plaintiff. Under Texas law, Dr. Mooney is required to report alleged child abuse, as well as others who work with children as teachers. She testified during the hearing that the governor’s order created “complete panic” for those in her position.
Judge Mitchum found that the governor’s directive forced Dr. Mooney to decide between prosecution for not reporting abuse under the directive or potential civil liability for non-compliance with the standards and ethics of her own profession.
Add Comment