The classes include patients, parents and providers. (Jan Pietruszka/Canva)
A federal judge this week granted class action certification in a lawsuit challenging Indiana’s recent ban on transition-related care for Hoosier youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
U.S. District Court Judge James Patrick Hanlon certified three classes — for minor patients, their parents and their medical providers — plus two subclasses for patients and providers using Medicaid.
Hanlon, of the Southern District of Indiana, issued a preliminary injunction in June mostly blocking enforcement of the ban. He upheld a prohibition on surgical procedures, but court filings and public testimony at the Statehouse last year indicated Hoosier children aren’t receiving such operations.
Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb approved Senate Enrolled Act 480 in April 2023. The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed suit almost immediately.
The plaintiffs include four transgender children, their parents, Goshen-based family practice physician Dr. Catherine Bast and her employer Mosaic Health and Healing Arts. The defendants are Indiana’s Medical Licensing Board and a variety of state officials.
Hanlon applied a four-part case law test in making his decision.
First, numerosity: the number of people in each proposed class must be high enough to make it “extremely difficult or inconvenient” for all of them to join the case individually. Hanlon said the plaintiffs had provided evidence that there were more than 40 members in each class, which is the typical standard.
The minor patient class would apply to “hundreds” of transgender children, according to Hanlon — plus their parents and an estimated 50 providers in the other two classes.
The defendants argued that the dozens of providers all work for just three employers, and that the court could use those employers as a proxy instead of certifying a class.
Hanlon rejected that logic, writing that the law specifically refers to “physicians” and “other practitioners” — not entities.
Next, commonality and typicality: the lawsuit must offer “common questions … capable of class-wide resolution” and the plaintiffs’ claims must have the “same essential characteristics” as the classes.
Hanlon wrote that the plaintiffs’ claims of broad violations stem from the same law and legal theory, and involve all the proposed class members. They plaintiffs seek “similarly broad relief,” he added.
“There are therefore common questions central to the Classes’ and Subclasses’ claims, and a shared legal analysis will determine whether Plaintiffs are entitles to any of the injunctive relief they seek,” Hanlon wrote.
Finally, adequacy of representation: the plaintiffs and their lawyers must “fairly and adequately” represent the classes’ interests.
Hanlon wrote that the plaintiffs interests “appear entirely consistent” with the members of the proposed classes, and noted the experience of the attorneys involved.
There’s another test: a rule requiring that legal relief would actually benefit all the members of the class. The defendants argued that the classes didn’t pass because final relief would involve highly individualized medical decisions. Hanlon, however, wrote that the plaintiffs are bringing a broad challenge and are seeking broad relief.
This article originally appeared on Indiana Capital Chronicle.
