The Supreme Court of Ohio will hear a case next week regarding a state law that prohibits doctors from prescribing medications that assist minors with gender transitions. The Supreme Court will weigh whether the Ohio Constitution gives parents the right to make these medical care decisions.

The case is the first of two the Court will consider during oral arguments on March 24. Two more appeals will be heard on March 25. Arguments begin at 9 a.m. each day and can be watched live by streaming them online at SupremeCourt.Ohio.gov or the Ohio Channel. The Ohio Channel also archives the Court’s oral arguments.

Detailed case previews from the Office of Public Information are available by clicking on the case names throughout the article or in the list of cases in the sidebar.

Tuesday, March 24
Medications for Adolescents
House Bill 68 took effect in 2024 and included prescription bans on puberty-blocking medications and sex hormones for transgender adolescents. A Cincinnati family and a Columbus family sued the state. They each have a transgender child who has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The families argued the law infringes on their rights under the Ohio Constitution’s due course of law clause and the Health Care Freedom Amendment (HCFA), which voters approved in 2011.

In Moe v. Yost, the attorney general contends there is no textual or historical background that supports a substantive right in the Ohio Constitution’s due course of law clause for minors to change genders through medical interventions. The attorney general also asserts that the HCFA only protects legal medical care, but these medications are now illegal for minors to use for gender transitions.

The families respond that parents have a fundamental right in the constitution to seek appropriate medical care for their children. In addition, these medications are part of the medical profession’s standard-of-care treatment for gender dysphoria, and a parent’s right to seek this type of health care is protected by the HCFA, the families argue.

Reprimand Recommended for Attorney
Mansfield lawyer Darin Avery is contesting a proposed public reprimand related to his representation in one case and an order to pay $1,205 in costs for disciplinary proceedings. Avery told an appeals court he may have provided ineffective assistance to his client because the appeals court didn’t give him the time and money to adequately complete the job. He was appointed to represent a Richland County man who was convicted in what the county prosecutor described as one of the most complex cases in county history.

The man’s initial trial attorney urged the trial court to appoint the Ohio Public Defender's Office to represent the man on appeal because of the complexity. Instead, Avery was appointed. In Disciplinary Counsel v. Avery, the Court will consider whether Avery should be sanctioned for three violations of professional conduct rules.

Wednesday, March 25
Appeal of Ditch Improvement Plan
A Licking County township sought to improve the drainage of a ditch leading to Blacklick Creek. Because Cole Ditch runs through Franklin and Licking counties, state law required that landowners affected by the ditch improvements be notified and a hearing be conducted by a joint board of county commissioners from both counties. At the December 2023 hearing, a homeowners association opposed the plan. The commissioners adopted a resolution to have the county engineer’s office proceed with the next step of planning. The homeowners filed lawsuits in both counties to block the effort.

In Colt’s Neck Homeowners Association v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners, the Court will consider whether the association could appeal the decision to move forward or must wait until any improvement plans are finalized.

Rights of Prosecutors to Appeal
In 2025, a trial court amended an indictment, lowering a third-degree domestic violence charge to a fourth-degree offense. The third-degree felony was charged based on the defendant’s two prior domestic violence convictions. However, the trial court determined that the man wasn’t properly informed in his 2011 case before waiving his right to an attorney, so the 2011 conviction couldn’t be used as one of the two convictions needed to elevate the 2025 charge to a more serious felony.

In State v. Burrell, the Muskingum County Prosecutor’s Office argues it has the right to appeal the trial court’s action. The amended indictment amounts to a dismissal of the third-degree domestic violence charge, and prosecutors can appeal dismissals, the office maintains. The man counters that amended indictments and dismissals aren’t the same, pointing to the different criminal rules for courts when handling each of them. A state law delineates when prosecutors can appeal a trial court decision in a criminal case, and amended indictments aren’t part of that law, the man asserts.