Douglas County Judge Blocks Kansas State Enforcement

A Douglas County judge issued a temporary order on May 15, 2026, blocking the State of Kansas from enforcing sections of a law that prohibits minors from receiving gender-affirming care. The ruling halts the application of Senate Bill 63 while a lawsuit challenging the law’s constitutionality proceeds.

Judge Carl Folsom III stated in his 116-page decision that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a reasonable probability that they would suffer irreparable harm if the law remained in effect during the pendency of the legal proceedings.

The legal challenge was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of two transgender teenagers, identified as Lily Loe and Ryan Roe. One of the plaintiffs is a resident of Douglas County.

The ACLU sought the injunction to prevent the state from enforcing the law, arguing that the plaintiffs and their families were immediately harmed by its application and would face further irreparable harm if the law continued to be enforced pending a final determination of the case.

Senate Bill 63 was passed by the Kansas Legislature in 2025. The law specifically bans gender-affirming medical treatments for minors, including the use of hormone therapies and puberty blockers. The legislation was enacted after the Kansas Legislature overrode a veto from Governor Laura Kelly.

During closing arguments in November 2025, Harper Seldin, representing the ACLU, argued that Senate Bill 63 violates the Kansas Constitution. Seldin asserted that the state constitution explicitly protects natural rights, which include the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children.

The ACLU further contended that the law was impermissibly targeted at transgender individuals for a discriminatory purpose and that the state’s enforcement of these restrictions would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs.

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach responded to the ruling on May 16, 2026, stating that he intends to appeal the decision.

Kobach characterized Judge Folsom’s decision as a stark example of judicial activism.

The temporary order prevents the state from enforcing the ban on gender-affirming care for minors until the court reaches a final decision or the order is overturned on appeal.