Earlier this week, a federal appeals court overrode a landmark decision in the caseDoe v. Ladapo, authorizing restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors and adults to go into law.In a 2-1 decision, judges with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals put a pause on a trial court ruling that overturned S.B. 254, a total ban on gender-affirming care for minors that also enforces some restrictions for adults. Related Federal judge overturns Floridas gender-affirming care ban in historic victory for trans rights Judge Robert Hinkle overturned a ban thats driven thousands of families out of the state This decision means that minors cannot access any medical gender-affirming care in the state, including hormone replacement therapy and surgery. Additionally, there are multiple restrictions for adults, including mandating that consent forms are signed in person thus creating a barrier for anyone who relies on telehealth appointments and mandating that only physicians can apply such care, depriving people of access to many medical providers. Stay connected to your community Connect with the issues and events that impact your community at home and beyond by subscribing to our newsletter. Subscribe to our Newsletter today The two judges that voted in favor of the state ban were the Trump-appointed Judges Britt Grant and Robert Luck, while the sole dissenter, Judge Charles Wilson, was a Clinton appointee.I would not find that the defendants have made a strong showing of likely success on the meritsparticularly given the evidence of transgender animus. In granting the stay, the majority quotes the district court, writing that the stay issue is close. The issue being close is not enough to warrant granting the stay and minimizing the thorough and careful analysis the district court engaged in, wrote Wilson in his dissenting opinion. The district court appropriately credited arguments on both sides of the case, and found that on balance, the plaintiffs should prevail. We should defer to such thoughtful decision-making.This ruling overturns Clinton-appointee Judge Robert Hinkles decision, in which he instituted a permanent injunction against the bill. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) also said in June that he expected the 11th Circuit Court to overturn this decision. According to legal journalist Chris Geidner, the judges argued in their decision that Hinkle had misstepped in his search for undue discrimination and that he had essentially found a loophole that they were trying to close, referencing a case from last year of Eknes-Tucker v. Governor of Alabama.We are deeply disappointed by this decision and the panels disregard for the district courts careful findings and adherence to the Eleventh Circuits recent precedent. Allowing these discriminatory restrictions to go back into effect will deny transgender adults and adolescents lifesaving care and prevent Florida parents from making medical decisions that are right for their children, wrote GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Human Rights Campaign, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Southern Legal Counsel, and Lowenstein Sandler LLP in a statement regarding the ruling.We will continue fighting for transgender Floridians and their families, and for everyones right to make healthcare decisions without government interference. It is possible that the plaintiffs in the case will try to appeal to the Supreme Court, as their legal counsel also said, The plaintiffs in this case are considering their options and will take every step possible to protect their right to equal treatment under Floridas laws. This wouldnt be the first case related to trans issues that the Supreme Court hears, as the Court is expected to hear L.W. v. Skrmetti, a case concerning Tennessees gender-affirming care ban. However, this case does not concern gender-affirming care for adults.According to Geidner, Luck had voted earlier this week to restrict the Biden administrations Title IX rule expanding protections for transgender students in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. Wilson, meanwhile, also was on the case and had dissented.The decision does not affect a separate ruling, Claire et al. v. Florida Dept of Mgmt Servs. et al., which overturns S.B. 254s restrictions for state employees getting gender-affirming healthcare on state insurance. However, it is expected that the Florida government will appeal this decision, where it will go to the same appeals court. Twenty-six other states have passed laws restricting gender-affirming care, and these include Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.The ACLU of Florida, the Florida Department of Management Services, and DeSantis office did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication. This article will be updated accordingly.