High Court overturns puberty blocker restrictions

The court has ruled the government’s regulations banning new prescriptions of puberty blockers for young people with gender dysphoria were unlawful, finding the consultation inadequate and the restrictions a breach of the Bill of Rights, Henry Oliver writes in today’s excerpt from The Bulletin.

The regulations, introduced in November 2025, prohibited new prescriptions of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria or gender incongruence in children and adolescents. They remained available for other medical conditions and for people who already had a prescription. The rules were due to take effect on 19 December but were halted by interim High Court orders after the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa (PATHA) launched judicial review proceedings, RNZ reported.

In a decision released yesterday, Justice La Hood found the government breached consultation requirements under the Medicines Act and unjustifiably discriminated against gender-diverse young people on the basis of disability, breaching the Bill of Rights.

He found differential treatment between young people with gender-related health needs and those who could access puberty blockers for other conditions. “This differential treatment imposed a material disadvantage on young people with gender-related health needs, as they are at high risk of seriously poor health outcomes, particularly self-harm and suicide,” he wrote in his decision.

‘Overwhelming clinical support’

Stuff reports La Hood accepted there was a rational basis for some restrictions, but that “indefinitely prohibiting access to this medicine for those at high risk of seriously poor health outcomes... was not a justifiable limit on the right to freedom from discrimination.” He noted there was “overwhelming clinical support in New Zealand” for the treatment, and “no doubt” about the short-term benefit of preventing distress from permanent physical changes.

On consultation, he found the 2024–25 process – 5,800 online responses and 2,800 emails, the majority opposing further restrictions – did not make clear a total prohibition on new prescriptions was contemplated. “A prohibition on new prescriptions was a far more serious and concerning step than anything that had been proposed." Planned consultation with gender-diverse young people and their families never took place.

La Hood rejected PATHA's claims that the minister abdicated decision-making to cabinet or acted to advance NZ First’s “anti-woke” agenda. “I am not in a position to reject the Minister’s evidence that he made his own independent decision,” he wrote.

The reaction

PATHA president Jennifer Shields said the organisation was “incredibly relieved” and that the court had agreed the ban was “an act of unjustified discrimination.” Vice-president Dr Elizabeth McElrea said the decision belonged “in the consult room”.

Family First chief executive Bob McCoskrie said he was “shocked,” arguing there was no settled scientific consensus and that the court had sided with activists over vulnerable children.

A spokesperson for health minister Simeon Brown said the government remained committed to new safeguards and was “taking a precautionary approach” given a lack of high-quality evidence.

NZ First leader Winston Peters told Stuff he would demand an immediate appeal: “Our country needs to come to our senses and base these critical health decisions on evidence. Not on process.”

The background

Newsroom’s Marc Daalder reported in December last year that cabinet overrode ministry of health advice in making the ban. Officials preferred the status quo or enhanced monitoring, warning the regulated option carried “a high risk of adverse health outcomes” and that some young people might order medication online. A child impact assessment did not support restricting access. Briefings were premised on the ban being paired with expanded gender care services; cabinet instead opted for a webpage pointing to existing resources.

What next?

Brown must now re-make the decision. He said in a statement he would take advice on next steps, and the government said it remained committed to introducing new safeguards while ensuring patients with medical needs could continue to access care. Any replacement regulations would have to clear the consultation hurdle the court identified – specifically, consulting on the substance of what is proposed, and directly with the young people affected. Stuff notes Brown previously said the settings would hold until the outcome of a UK clinical trial expected in 2031, which Newsroom reported was not made clear in the cabinet paper.