Oklahoma’s Gender Law Survives Court Challenge

A federal appeals court just fortified states’ authority to protect children from experimental gender procedures, rejecting claims that Oklahoma’s law is unconstitutional.

Story Highlights

10th Circuit upheld Oklahoma’s SB 613, keeping the state’s ban on gender-transition drugs and surgeries for minors in force.
Court said the law is age- and purpose-based, passes rational-basis review, and does not violate Equal Protection.
Ruling leaned on the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision upholding Tennessee’s similar law.
Oklahoma officials praised the win; plaintiffs’ attorneys criticized the outcome and signaled potential next steps.

Appeals Court Affirms SB 613’s Constitutionality

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed Oklahoma’s SB 613, holding that restricting gender-transition-related drugs and surgeries for minors is constitutional under rational-basis review. The panel determined the statute does not discriminate based on transgender status, reasoning the law classifies by age and medical purpose and therefore does not trigger heightened scrutiny. The decision keeps Oklahoma’s 2023 protections for minors in effect and rejects Equal Protection claims pressed by families and providers challenging the statute.

The panel’s analysis closely tracked the Supreme Court’s June 2025 ruling upholding a functionally indistinguishable Tennessee law, which guided both the standard of review and the Equal Protection framework. The court concluded there was no evidence the Oklahoma Legislature acted with discriminatory pretext. Portions of the case involving plaintiffs who turned 18 were deemed moot, because SB 613 applies only to minors. The opinion underscored judicial deference to state policy judgments on a novel medical and regulatory issue.

How the Ruling Fits the Post-Supreme Court Landscape

The Supreme Court’s Tennessee decision set the stage, signaling strong judicial tolerance for state limits on pediatric gender medicine where laws are written to regulate age and treatment purpose rather than status. By aligning with that precedent, the Tenth Circuit clarified that SB 613 satisfies rational-basis review and that a minor’s eligibility for treatments does not turn on transgender status. The court framed Oklahoma’s objective—protecting children from contested and potentially irreversible interventions—as a legitimate legislative judgment.

With appellate affirmation, Oklahoma’s ban remains enforceable, and providers must refrain from prescribing or performing prohibited interventions for minors. Families seeking such interventions face in-state legal barriers and may consider out-of-state options. The ruling narrows pathways for future constitutional challenges in the Tenth Circuit absent different legal theories or distinct factual records. Nationally, the decision will likely influence parallel litigation and embolden state lawmakers who favor clear-age safeguards over experimental protocols for children.

Reactions From State Leaders and Plaintiffs’ Counsel

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond praised the decision as the capstone of a two-year defense that he said protects children from damaging procedures and vindicates the legislature’s approach. Legislative leaders echoed that message, highlighting the court’s holding that the statute’s classifications are lawful and its purpose legitimate. Plaintiffs’ attorneys criticized the outcome as devastating for transgender youth and linked it to what they described as the Supreme Court’s errant Tennessee ruling, signaling they are evaluating potential further steps.

The court’s reasoning carries practical and political consequences. Health systems will adjust protocols to ensure compliance, while advocacy groups on both sides recalibrate strategies. Parents and schools will navigate a legal landscape that separates psychosocial support from medical interventions restricted by age and purpose. As similar laws advance across states, the Tenth Circuit’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s framework suggests a durable judicial posture: elected legislatures retain wide latitude to regulate contested pediatric treatments unless clear constitutional prohibitions are shown.