New Zealand’s ban on new puberty blocker prescriptions for trans and gender-diverse young people is gone.

On Wednesday, October 21, Justice Dale La Hood of the High Court declared the government’s regulations unlawful and invalid and made an order setting them aside. He found they were made without the consultation the law requires, and that they unjustifiably discriminated against gender-diverse young people in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, The Spinoff reports.

The case was brought by the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa (PATHA), a group of clinicians and advocates. Its president, Jennifer Shields, said the organisation was “incredibly relieved.”

What the ban did

Health Minister Simeon Brown announced the regulations in November 2025. They stopped doctors from writing new prescriptions of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria or gender incongruence in children and adolescents. Young people who were already on blockers could keep going, and the medicine stayed available for other conditions, according to GCN.

The rules were due to start on December 19, 2025. They never did: PATHA filed for judicial review that December, and the High Court made interim orders pausing them until the case was decided.

According to LGBTQ Nation, the ban followed similar measures in other countries after the UK’s 2024 Cass Review.

Why the court struck it down

1. Nobody was asked about a total ban. The Ministry of Health had consulted in 2024–25 on extra safety measures for prescribing. That drew 5,800 online responses and 2,800 emails, most of them opposed to more restrictions. But Justice La Hood found the consultation never made clear that a complete ban on new prescriptions was on the table, calling it “a far more serious and concerning step than anything that had been proposed.” A planned consultation with gender-diverse young people and their families never happened, The Spinoff reports.

2. It was discrimination. Under the ban, a young person could get puberty blockers for one condition but not for gender dysphoria. The judge found that gap was discriminatory. “This differential treatment imposed a material disadvantage on young people with gender-related health needs,” he wrote, as they are at high risk of seriously poor health outcomes, including self-harm and suicide, the NZ Herald and RNZ report.

PATHA explains that the court treated this as discrimination on the ground of disability, because gender dysphoria and gender incongruence are recognised clinical diagnoses covered by that ground in the Human Rights Act 1993 (PATHA’s statement).

3. A complete ban went too far. The judge accepted there was a rational basis for some restrictions. But he said “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 be free from discrimination. He also noted “overwhelming clinical support in New Zealand” for the treatment.

What PATHA didn’t win

This wasn’t a clean sweep, and it’s worth being precise. The court rejected PATHA’s arguments that Brown had handed his decision over to Cabinet, or that he acted to advance NZ First’s “anti-woke” agenda. Justice La Hood said he could not reject the minister’s evidence that he made his own, independent decision, according to The Spinoff.

Separately, Newsroom reported in December 2025 that Cabinet had gone against Ministry of Health advice, which preferred keeping the status quo or adding monitoring, as The Spinoff recounts.

The reaction

PATHA vice-president Dr Elizabeth McElrea, a GP, put it simply: “Decisions about this healthcare are best made by patients and their doctors.” She said the ruling puts that decision “back in the consult room.”

Not everyone was relieved. Family First NZ said it was “shocked,” with chief executive Bob McCoskrie arguing there is no settled scientific consensus on gender-affirming care for minors.

A spokesperson for Brown said the government would keep a “precautionary approach” and is “seeking advice on next steps.” NZ First leader Winston Peters went further, telling 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.”

What happens next

For now, PATHA says prescribing can continue as normal. Brown has to remake the decision, and any new regulations would have to clear the consultation requirements the court spelled out: consulting on the actual proposal, and with the young people it affects. Stuff had reported that Brown said the restrictions would stay until a UK clinical trial reports, expected in 2031.

Whether the government appeals is the big open question. As of October 24, it had not announced one.

Why it matters

Trans young people and their families in Aotearoa have spent almost a year waiting to hear whether a door was about to close. This ruling doesn’t end the political fight, and an appeal may come. But it does something important: it says a government can’t single out one group of young patients for a total ban without asking them first, and without a justification that holds up in court.

If you’re a young trans person reading this from New Zealand, or anywhere: the people who know your care best said, loudly and in public, that it belongs with you and your doctor. A judge agreed.