T.D. v. Wrigley:
Sweeping coalition of medical and legal experts urge North Dakota Supreme Court to strike down ban on gender-affirming care for youth
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 30, 2026
CONTACT
Siena Iwasaki Milbauer, Communications Manager
[email protected]
651.789.2090 ext. 405
As the North Dakota Supreme Court hears oral arguments on June 30 in T.D. v. Wrigley, a sweeping coalition of medical organizations, constitutional law scholars, and civil rights advocates have filed amicus briefs urging the court to strike down the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The briefs represent the most authoritative voices in American medicine and law and they speak with one voice: this ban harms young people, violates North Dakota’s Constitution, and must be reversed.
At the center of the case is Dr. Luis Casas, a North Dakota-based pediatric endocrinologist who faces up to 360 days in prison and $3,000 in fines for providing care that major medical associations across the country recognize as safe, effective, and often medically necessary.
“Virtually every major medical organization in the country, leading constitutional scholars, and international human rights experts all agree that this law does not treat all North Dakotans equally and violates the personal autonomy and self-determination of North Dakota families. This ban doesn’t protect children. It harms them and strips families of the freedom to make private medical decisions for their own kids,” said Jess Braverman, Legal Director at Gender Justice.
The Medical Community Speaks with One Voice
Nineteen of the nation’s most respected medical and scientific organizations — including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Endocrine Society — filed a joint amicus brief making clear that the medical evidence is not in dispute.
As the medical amici state: “This North Dakota healthcare ban irreparably harms adolescents with gender dysphoria by denying them access to medical care designed to improve health outcomes and alleviate suffering — care that is grounded in science and endorsed by the medical community.”
North Dakota’s Constitution Provides Stronger Protections Than Federal Law
The National Women’s Law Center, joined by two leading legal scholars of gender and the law, argues that North Dakota’s Supreme Court is not bound by recent federal rollbacks on transgender rights.
North Dakota’s Constitution has long provided stronger equal protection guarantees than the federal Constitution. The state’s highest court has repeatedly recognized broader individual rights under its own constitution than those available under federal law. The brief argues that a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling used by the lower court to uphold the ban — United States v. Skrmetti — is an anomaly even in federal law, and has no place in North Dakota constitutional analysis.
Put plainly: what medical care a young person in North Dakota can access should not turn on the outcome of a federal case that broke with decades of equal protection precedent. North Dakota’s Constitution demands more.
Constitutional Scholars Urge Independent Interpretation
The Brennan Center for Justice and Professor Robert F. Williams, one of the nation’s foremost authorities on state constitutional law, argue that North Dakota’s Supreme Court has both the authority and the obligation to interpret its own constitution on its own terms. Deferring to weakened federal standards, they argue, doesn’t just shortchange North Dakota families — it undermines the very system of federalism the U.S. Constitution was designed to create.
Many states have charted their own course on equal protection and fundamental rights, staying truer to their own constitutional promises rather than simply following federal precedent. North Dakota can and should do the same.
International Human Rights Law Agrees
The Global Justice Center argues that North Dakota’s ban doesn’t just conflict with the state’s own constitution — it conflicts with human rights principles recognized around the world. The ban violates the rights to life, liberty, bodily autonomy, and private life. And it overrides parents’ right to make medical decisions in the best interest of their children.
North Dakota’s ban is out of step not only with medical consensus and constitutional principles, but with human rights standards recognized globally.
Background on the Case
In 2023, Gender Justice and the Lawyering Project filed suit on behalf of Dr. Casas, challenging North Dakota’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth as a violation of the state constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and personal autonomy. In 2025, a district court upheld the ban. Dr. Casas appealed that ruling to the North Dakota Supreme Court, which will now decide whether the state’s sweeping constitutional protections for individual liberty prohibit the government from criminalizing established medical care. The North Dakota Supreme Court heard oral arguments on June 30, 2026.
For more on this case, visit: genderjustice.us/work/td-v-wrigley
Amici curiae in this case include: the National Women’s Law Center; Wendy Hess, Associate Professor at the University of South Dakota School of Law; Ann Tweedy, Professor of Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law; the American Academy of Pediatrics; the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; the American Academy of Family Physicians; the American Academy of Nursing; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; the American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians; the American College of Physicians; the Academic Pediatric Association; the American Pediatric Society; the Association of American Medical Colleges; the Endocrine Society; GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality; the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners; the Pediatric Endocrine Society; the Pediatric Endocrinology Nursing Society; the Societies for Pediatric Urology; the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine; the Society of Pediatric Nurses; the World Professional Association for Transgender Health; the Global Justice Center; the Brennan Center for Justice; and Professor Robert F. Williams, Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus at Rutgers University School of Law.
###
Gender Justice is a legal and policy advocacy organization dedicated to advancing gender equity through the law. Our vision is a world where people of all genders, gender identities and expressions, and sexual orientations have the opportunity to thrive. We work toward our vision through impact litigation, advocacy, movement building, and public education.
The Lawyering Project uses the law to improve abortion access and uphold the rights and dignity of people seeking and providing abortion care. Our goal is a legal system that enables each of us to make decisions about intensely personal matters like sex, pregnancy, family, and health care based on our own beliefs and values — and ensures that we all have the resources we need to carry those decisions out.
How We Make Change
What We Fight For
Where Barriers Occur
Related Work