Judge Robert Hinkle of Florida’s Northern District issued a preliminary order Tuesday to stop the state from banning gender-transition treatment for minors.

In recent months, states such as Nebraska and Texas have adopted guardrails. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis passed a law banning hormones and puberty blocking agents for transgender children last month.

Hinkle, a judge appointed by Bill Clinton in Doe v. Lapado, stated that “gender is real” and “the overwhelming majority of medical authorities support the treatment of transgender individuals with GnRH-agonists and other cross-sex hormonal treatments in appropriate circumstances.”

DeSantis, along with Republicans in the State Legislature, have refuted that claim, citing a growing body of evidence suggesting that procedures like puberty blocks and cross-sex hormonal treatments can cause lifelong medical problems such as decreased bone density, infertility and other types of sexual dysfunction.

The Florida House Health and Human Services Committee issued subpoenas in late April to two medical groups as part of an investigation into whether “gender affirming care” should be the standard care for minors with gender dysphoria.

Hinkle wrote: “I find that, on the basis of the evidence now before the Court, the plaintiffs will likely succeed in their claim that their children have received appropriate medical treatment up to this point.”

The plaintiffs, seven parents with transgender children, argued in court that “banning the treatment of GnRH-agonists and hormones used to treat cross-sex” violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Hinkle cited a case, Brandt v. Rutledge, where the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a preliminarily injunction to prevent enforcement of an Arkansas law that was identical to the Florida ban in the relevant respects.

The judge determined that the plaintiffs had a good chance of success on their equal protection claim, and also on their separate assertion of parental right under the Due Process Clause.

It is possible that the decision will be appealed. The Supreme Court will likely have to consider the constitutionality and adjacent limitations of a growing number bans that are being implemented in different parts of the nation.

National Review reached out for a comment to the Florida Governor’s Office but had not heard back before press time.