
Douglas County District Court Judge Carl Folsom gives little weight to the testimony from expert witnesses for the state of Kansas in a lawsuit that challenges a state law banning gender-affirming care for minors. Folsom appears on Jan. 21, 2021, at a confirmation hearing before a Senate panel. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
TOPEKA — A Kansas judge blocked the state from enforcing portions of a ban on gender-affirming care for minors, allowing transgender kids in Kansas to undergo hormone therapy and use puberty blockers.
In a 117-page Friday ruling, Douglas County District Court Judge Carl Folsom said provisions of Senate Bill 63, dubbed the Help Not Harm Act,” likely violate the Kansas Constitution. He also disputed the credibility of most of the state’s expert witnesses, who testified before the court in November.
The decision, while temporary and part of ongoing litigation, is a blow to Kansas officials who passed the ban in 2025 in an attempt to levy civil, financial and regulatory sanctions against the provision of gender-affirming care to minors.
Attorney General Kris Kobach, who represents the state, said in a Saturday statement the decision “is a stark example of judicial activism.” He vowed to appeal the judge’s temporary injunction, which immediately halts enforcement statewide of the ban on hormone treatment and puberty blockers for kids under 18 in Kansas.
“The judge invented a new constitutional right out of whole cloth,” Kobach said. “Even though the Kansas Constitution says nothing about it, the judge created a new right of parents to obtain otherwise-illegal treatments for their children.”
According to Folsom, the families were trying to preserve their constitutional rights, including “the natural right to personal autonomy,” equal protection under the law and the right to make parenting decisions.
Folsom said the pseudonymous parents and their teens were likely to prevail in their argument that SB 63 infringes on their right to personal autonomy by prohibiting them from making medical decisions on behalf of their children, “in accordance with their children’s wishes and doctor’s recommendations, including the decision to treat gender dysphoria with puberty blocking medication or hormone therapy” and replacing those decisions with government preferences.
He added that the parents are “substantially likely” to show that the state has failed to demonstrate SB 63 satisfies strict scrutiny, the weighty and highly specific test states must overcome to defend a law against legal challenges. They must justify a compelling government interest in regulating an issue and prove its actions advance that compelling interest in a narrowly tailored way.
Kobach and state lawmakers have argued that SB 63 protects kids from experimental and harmful medical interventions and shields the integrity of the medical profession.
“Protecting children and regulating the medical profession are likely legitimate and important state interests,” Folsom wrote, “but such broad articulations are likely insufficiently specific to satisfy the strict-scrutiny standard.”
Folsom came to the decision to issue a temporary injunction after two days of testimony in November. The four witnesses for the teens and their mothers included pediatric endocrinologists, a pediatric and adult hospitalist and bioethicist, and a child and adult psychiatrist. Folsom deemed each of the witnesses credible, gave full weight to their testimony and relied heavily upon their facts in his decision.
The state’s eight witnesses included a plastic surgeon, a medical ethicist, an endocrinologist who treats adults and a neuroscientist. Folsom gave little weight to three of the eight, some weight to one and little-to-no weight to another. Folsom deemed Chloe Cole, who received puberty blockers and hormone therapy treatment as a minor in California, credible but gave her testimony less than full weight because her experiences didn’t occur in Kansas.
Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT & HIV Rights Project, said the decision was “an enormous relief.”
The ACLU and ACLU of Kansas represent the two teens and their parents, along with lawyers from the Philadelphia-based law firm Ballard Spahr.
“Our brave clients invested tremendous effort to represent not only their interests but also the interests of all transgender youth in Kansas,” said Kristen Broz, partner in the firm’s litigation department.
In addition to the Attorney General’s Office, the state is being represented by First and Fourteenth, a Colorado-based boutique law firm that is also assisting the attorney general in a lawsuit in Johnson County challenging the validity of a set of anti-abortion laws.
The Republican-led Legislature passed SB 63 in January 2025, and Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed it. Republicans overrode her veto, the bill became law in February 2025, and the ACLU and ACLU of Kansas challenged it that May.








