New Zealand High Court strikes down ban on 'gender affirming' puberty blockers

The New Zealand High Court this week struck down a ban on puberty blockers as so-called gender affirming care for gender-confused minors, ruling the ban was unlawful and amounted to unjustified discrimination.

Justice Dale LaHood ruled in a summary on Wednesday that the government failed to meet consultation obligations ​under the Medicines Act after groups approached by the Ministry ​of Health said they were not clearly told that an outright prohibition on new prescriptions was under consideration, according to Reuters.

The regulations, which passed in 2025, barred new patients under 18 from ​receiving gonadotropin-releasing hormones. The Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa Inc. challenged the regulations.

“The applicant successfully brought a claim for a breach of an obligation to consult under s 105 of the Medicines Act 1981,” a press release on the ruling reads. “The applicant was also successful in their claim that the minister unlawfully discriminated against young people with gender incongruence or gender dysphoria on the round of disability contrary to s 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The applicant’s claims that the minister abdicated his decision-making power to Cabinet and acted for an improper purpose were unsuccessful.”

The government had argued the restrictions were a precautionary response to uncertainty over the long-term benefits and risks of puberty blockers and mirrored other countries that imposed similar bans. 

Genspect New Zealand, which is a division of the international advocacy organization Genspect that opposes gender-affirming care, criticized the court for its ruling, stating it failed to adequately test claims concerning suicide risk.

"The Court could rule only on the evidence presented to it," the organization said in a news release. "For instance, Genspect NZ believes the hearing did not adequately test claims concerning suicide risk and the withholding of puberty blockers. 

"In contrast to witness statements from the plaintiffs, which focussed heavily on the suicide risk, information from the Crown’s expert witnesses was challenged and disallowed because it had not been made available to the Minister as he made his decision," the group added.

Misty Severi is a news reporter for Just The News. You can follow her on X for more coverage.