Kansas Judge Blocks Enforcement of Gender-Transition Treatment Ban for Minors

On May 16, 2026, District Judge Carl Folsom III granted an injunction after parents of two Kansas teens sued to stop the ban on hormone therapy and puberty blockers for minors with gender dysphoria. The ban, passed by the Republican-controlled legislature in January 2026 over Governor Laura Kelly’s veto, also prohibits gender-transition surgeries. Folsom’s 117-page opinion said the ban likely violates Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which guarantees personal autonomy and a parent’s fundamental right to make medical decisions for children. He cited expert testimony that gender-affirming care is safe and warned that enforcement would cause irreparable harm, so the injunction blocks the hormone-treatment and puberty-blocker provisions while the case proceeds.

The GuardianNew York Times

ACLU attorney Harper Seldin called the ruling a “momentous win” for families seeking gender-affirming care and stressed parents’ right to decide treatment. Kansas Attorney General Kris W. Kobach denounced the decision as judicial activism, arguing the judge created a new constitutional right absent from the state constitution. Governor Kelly, who vetoed the ban, said the legislation represented government interference in private medical decisions. Republican legislators echoed Kobach’s view that the judiciary is overstepping and that the legislature has authority to protect minors.

The Guardian

• Jan 2026: Legislature passes ban, overriding Gov. Kelly’s veto.

New York Times

• May 16, 2026: Judge Folsom issues injunction blocking hormone and puberty-blocker provisions.

New York Times

• May 17, 2026: AG Kobach announces appeal.

The Guardian

The injunction offers immediate relief to the two teen plaintiffs and provides a precedent for challenges to similar bans elsewhere. Yet it pits the U.S. Supreme Court’s endorsement of state bans against the Kansas Constitution’s autonomy clause, leaving the hierarchy unsettled. The suit lacks data on how many Kansas minors receive hormone therapy or puberty blockers, obscuring the ban’s impact. Kobach’s appeal will go to the Kansas Court of Appeals, with possible review by the state Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Guardian

The case pits the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision upholding state bans on gender-affirming care for minors against the Kansas Constitution’s personal-autonomy guarantee, creating an unresolved legal hierarchy. The lawsuit also provides no statistics on how many Kansas minors receive hormone therapy or puberty blockers, leaving the ban’s effect unknown.

The Guardian

• “This is a momentous win for not just our plaintiffs, but for everyone who is affected in Kansas,” — Harper Seldin, ACLU attorney

New York Times

• “The judge invented a new constitutional right out of whole cloth,” — Kris W. Kobach, Kansas Attorney General

New York Times

• “Specifically, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail * based on the right to personal autonomy set out in Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights and a parent’s fundamental right to make medical decisions for their children,” — Judge Carl Folsom III

The Guardian

• “a stark example of judicial activism” — Kris W. Kobach, Kansas Attorney General

The Guardian