Oklahoma’s children won a victory Thursday. A federal appeals court upheld Senate Bill 613, banning sex change surgeries and drugs for minors. The ruling slaps down progressive claims of constitutional violations.

Breitbart reported that in 2023, Oklahoma passed Senate Bill 613, making it a felony for doctors to perform gender transition surgeries or prescribe puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to those under 18.

Five families with transgender-identifying children, alongside a physician, challenged the law, claiming it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Their argument leaned heavily on accusations of discrimination based on sex and transgender status.

Circuit Judge Joel M. Carson, a Trump appointee, rejected the plaintiffs’ claims with clear reasoning. He ruled the law targets age and specific medical procedures, not sex or transgender identity. This sidesteps the progressive narrative that such laws are inherently bigoted.

Court Cites Supreme Court Precedent

Carson leaned on the Supreme Court’s June 2025 ruling in United States v. Skrmetti. The Tennessee case upheld a similar ban, finding it met the “rational basis inquiry” and didn’t breach the Fourteenth Amendment. Oklahoma’s law, Carson noted, is “functionally indistinguishable” from Tennessee’s.

“Where there exist plausible reasons for the relevant government action, our inquiry is at an end,” the Supreme Court stated in Skrmetti.

This quote shuts down activist attempts to override state legislatures with judicial overreach. Courts aren’t here to rewrite laws based on feelings.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys, from the ACLU, ACLU of Oklahoma, and Lambda Legal, called the ban “openly discriminatory” and harmful to transgender youth. Their claim puts political ideology over the state’s duty to protect kids from irreversible medical choices. Oklahoma’s law prioritizes caution amid heated medical debates.

Oklahoma’s law aims to safeguard minors’ physical and psychological health. Medical experts remain divided on the risks and benefits of gender transition procedures for children. The state’s decision reflects prudence, not prejudice, despite activist outcries.

“We recognize the importance of this issue to all involved,” Carson wrote. He acknowledged the debate’s weight but refused to let courts override legislative judgment. This restraint respects democracy over activist demands.

“We will not usurp the legislature’s judgment when it engages in earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality, and practicality of gender transition procedures for minors,” Carson added.

His words affirm that elected officials, not judges, should tackle these complex issues. The progressive push to frame this as a civil rights violation falls flat.

Plaintiffs’ Claims Fall Short

The plaintiffs argued the law infringes on parental rights under the Due Process Clause. Carson dismissed this, stating they failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The court’s denial of their preliminary injunction keeps the law intact.

“While we respect that Plaintiffs disagree with the legislature assessment of such procedures’ risks, that alone does not invalidate a democratically enacted law on rational-basis grounds,” Carson wrote. This cuts through the emotional rhetoric often used to sway public opinion. Facts, not feelings, guide the law here.

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond celebrated the ruling as a win for common sense. “For years, radical left activists pushed the lie of ‘gender transition’ procedures for minors,” he said. His bluntness highlights the conservative view that these procedures are experimental and risky for kids.

Drummond added, “This is a victory for our children, for our Constitution, and for common sense.” His statement resonates with those who see the law as protecting vulnerable minors from irreversible decisions. The progressive agenda often ignores these concerns in favor of ideology.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys vowed to keep fighting, claiming the ban puts “political dogma above parents, their children, and their family doctors.”

Their rhetoric frames the issue as a battle for personal freedom, but it sidesteps the state’s role in regulating unproven medical interventions. Oklahoma’s law stands firm for now.

The case, Poe v. Drummond, No. 23-5110, in the Tenth Circuit, marks another win for states pushing back against progressive overreach. While transgender advocates plan their next move, Oklahoma’s children remain shielded from debated medical procedures. This ruling signals courts are prioritizing reason over ideology.