MISSOULA — A Missoula District Court Judge heard arguments for and against Montana Senate Bill 99 on Thursday, a law that bans gender-affirming care for minors.

SB 99 has already been subject to a preliminary injunction, which the Montana Supreme Court upheld unanimously. The law is currently on hold, waiting for a court to decide whether it is constitutional under Montana’s Constitution.

Watch the full story:

The attorneys representing the state of Montana argued to the judge that minors cannot give informed consent on gender-affirming procedures, which the state argues can cause irreparable harm, such as infertility, body disfigurement and an increased risk of mental health instability.

Missoula District Court Judge Jason Marks questioned the state rigorously during their argument, largely asking how the law is in line with Montana’s constitutional right to privacy and why the state views that banning gender-affirming care is in line with protecting minors.

The ACLU of Montana represented the plaintiffs in the case, arguing that SB 99 infringes on transgender minors' right to privacy under the Montana Constitution as well as the Constitution’s equal protection clause. The ACLU pointed to previous cases where courts have ruled against other laws based on sex based discrimination.

“It's a blatant violation of our right to privacy because in order to justify a law like this, the state needs to demonstrate that it's necessary, right? And the state has no compelling interest and has offered no evidence demonstrating that a ban like this is effective or necessary. This gender-affirming care is a necessary medical treatment for gender dysphoria, which is a diagnosed condition. And the state should be in the business of leaving decisions between patients and their doctors,” said ALCU of Montana deputy director Alex Rate.

In a statement to MTN, a spokesperson for the attorney general’s office stated: “The state has a compelling interest in protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation (or what you refer to as “gender affirming care”) because of the negative effects it has on children.”

A judgment from Judge Jason Marks is expected to be issued soon.