You’re reading our series on 2025 state constitutional trends. All cases are handpicked and available by us state case database.
3 years later Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization The U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision removed the federal right to abortion. USA vs. Scumetti Upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, dealing another blow to bodily autonomy. As federal protections recede, state courts have become the front line for both reproductive and transgender rights, extending protections based on distinctive state constitutional provisions, deciding how far to depart from federal precedent, and determining who can challenge restrictive laws. Decisions in one area increasingly shape others, weaving together a shared and evolving state constitutional landscape. Below is a sample of the many cases in which we have addressed these issues in the first half of this year.
national privacy rights
In February, a Montana trial court struck down a 2023 law that defined the terms “female,” “male,” and “gender” as two binary categories based on reproductive capacity (sex chromosomes and gametes). The act inserted these definitions throughout state law, impacting driver’s licenses, demographic records, and state antidiscrimination laws.
Plaintiffs challenging the law included the nonprofit Montana Two Spirit Society, an organization representing Native individuals who identify and embody both masculine and feminine spirits, and a group of transgender, intersex, and nonbinary Montanans.
The court was held in edwards vs montana They argued that the law ostensibly violates the state’s constitutional right to privacy by interfering with an individual’s “ability to make personal and intimate decisions regarding his or her body and mind.” The report said Montana’s “unique” protections reflect a deep-seated “distrust of excessive government interference” and go beyond the scope of the federal Constitution. In this case, the court cited the state high court’s 2024 decision. Montana vs. State Family Planningrecognized minors’ right to privacy under the state constitution and allowed them to obtain abortions without parental consent.
The court also found that the state’s equal protection violations based on sex and cultural discrimination remain in place, reiterating that the protections afforded by the state constitution are broader than the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court explained that the term “culture” was “specifically incorporated” into Montana’s provisions protecting non-mainstream groups, particularly American Indians, and acknowledged that the Two Spirit plaintiffs’ identities were “not consistent” with laws rooted in gender binaries.
“Laws that define sex often wreak havoc on state law by incorporating binary definitions into multiple areas of the law,” explained Constance Van Kley, a professor at the University of Montana. State Court Report. Montana courts have found that intersex people, who are born with sexual characteristics that circumvent traditional binary classifications, are “effectively defined outside of the law,” Van Kley said.
In June, Montana’s high court used a broad interpretation of explicit privacy guarantees to strike down a law restricting access to abortion. The law included a 20-week abortion ban. Restrictions on medication abortion, including a ban on telemedicine and a 24-hour waiting period. And there is a requirement that health care providers give patients an ultrasound and an opportunity to listen to the fetal heartbeat before proceeding with the procedure.
The court reaffirmed its precedents interpreting the right to protect personal and reproductive autonomy and found that: Montana vs. State Family Planning The state had not demonstrated that its restrictions addressed legitimate medically recognized health risks or were narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. The court previously left a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law.
Medical Freedom Amendment
In March, the Ohio Court of Appeals struck down the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Maw vs. Yostargued that this violated the fundamental right of parents to receive adequate medical care for their children and violated the Medical Freedom Amendment of the state constitution.
An Ohio court remanded the case to the trial court to permanently block the state from enforcing its ban on puberty blockers and hormones “for the purpose of assisting minors in changing their gender.” The state attorney general appealed, and the Ohio Supreme Court suspended the ruling while it considered the case.
The health care freedom amendments, enshrined in six state constitutions, were adopted “as part of a conservative-led effort to limit the effects of the Affordable Care Act.” state court reportAlicia Bannon explains. Fifteen years later, advocates are increasingly using the law to challenge restrictions not only on abortion but also on gender-affirming care. For example, in late 2024, a Wyoming trial court issued an abortion ban based on a similar amendment. The high court heard oral arguments on the appeal in April.
Third party position
In January, the Georgia Supreme Court issued a ruling with far-reaching implications for who can bring challenges to abortion restrictions and other civil rights in state court.
court of Wasserman v. Franklin County held that the third-party doctrine was inconsistent with Georgia’s constitutional position requiring plaintiffs to assert their rights. The ruling effectively ended more than 17 years of application of this doctrine in Georgia. The court justified this decision as consistent with Georgia’s history and tradition, which holds that lawsuits are only admissible to vindicate one’s rights. The court added that it had erred in “uncritically importing” the federal status regulations, including third-party status.
Although there are fundamental challenges, wasserman This case had nothing to do with reproductive rights. The decision, which involved a landowner seeking to file an equal protection challenge against the county on behalf of a prospective buyer of his property, has ripple effects. Based on wassermanthe court in February remanded an ongoing challenge to the state’s six-week abortion ban in a separate case. georgia vs sister songdirected the trial court to assess whether plaintiffs’ reproductive rights organizations and health care providers have standing to challenge the ban. The ban remains in effect while the lawsuit progresses.
Continue wassermana Georgia court focused on the status of an association that had historically allowed the association to sue on behalf of injured members. I expand on the footnotes that question the validity of the relevant positions below. wassermanJudgment, the court Republican National Committee vs. Perpetual Vigilance Action In June, it overturned 42 years of legal precedent that held Georgia’s NAACP branch and the Georgia People’s Agenda Coalition were not eligible to claim voting rights for their members. The court explained:wassermanHis reasoning that there is no federal doctrine of third-party status under Georgia law applies here with equal force, since the Federal Association position is only one type of third-party status. ”
Georgia courts are not the first to grapple with the question of standing to challenge postwar abortion restrictions.dobbs. High courts in Kentucky and North Dakota have also considered whether health care providers have standing to challenge state abortion bans. A Kentucky court ruled they did not, but a North Dakota court allowed their claims to proceed. Meanwhile, an appellate court in Kentucky said Jewish plaintiffs had standing to challenge the state’s abortion ban on religious freedom grounds because they had stored embryos, canceled plans for another round of IVF, and feared the law would criminalize the disposal of nonviable or unused embryos.
• • •
As the federal vacuum forces states to chart their own course, state courts are increasingly drawing on their unique constitutional histories and cultures to shape the future of reproductive and transgender rights. Some use these traditions to strengthen precedent and extend protections for individuals. Some invoke them to roll back rights and narrow the path for challengers. What is clear is that state courts retain unprecedented power to shape individual rights in these areas, leaving behind a patchwork of decisions.
Chihiro Isozaki is a consultant in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Recommended citation: Chihiro Isozaki Case trends: post hocdobbs and scmetState courts are battlegrounds for transgender and reproductive rightsSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (October 10, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/case-trends-post-dobbs-and-skrmetti-state-courts-are-battlegrounds
