From Monday to Wednesday of this week (13-15 July 2026) the High Court heard presentations from Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa (PATHA) and Health Minister Simeon Brown on the matter of the Minister’s decision to ban all new puberty blockers prescriptions for those with gender incongruence related issues. The hearing was the result of PATHA’s request for a judicial review of the decision: judicial reviews deal with whether a decision was constitutional. Enforcement of the ban, that was set to be in place in December last year, has been paused until the decision of the Court.
PATHA’s argument is that the ban was completely unexpected and devastating for trans young people and their whānau. It argued that the Health Minister’s decision was irrational, defied facts, there was insufficient consultation and the wrong person/people made the decision. The ban, claims PATHA, was nothing to do with medicine but rather the outcome of Trumpian style rhetoric espoused by New Zealand First and the ACT Party, and the ban was the fulfilment of NZ First election promises. A PATHA lawyer presented a blow-by-blow timeline of decision-making. By instituting a complete ban on new prescriptions, PATHA argues, the Minister ignored all advice from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry’s Position Statement and the Evidence Brief. A ban, according to PATHA and submissions it presented, was not even on the table at the time of consultation. Counsel for PATHA repeatedly claimed that there was nothing controversial about puberty blockers and multiple times talked of the irrefutable fact that young people were going to be harmed. Around an hour was taken up with reading out statements from various anonymous doctors saying that banning puberty blockers would lead to harm and suicide/suicidality.
The NZ Human Rights Commission (HRC) was an intervener in the hearing and spent time arguing that this was an appropriate forum to rule that sex, one of the grounds for discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993, included gender identity. This is the position held by the HRC based on a 2006 Crown Law opinion. It has never been tested in court. The HRC stated that there are not two sexes but that sex is a spectrum. One observer noted the arguments about the meaning of sex in the Human Rights Act seemed tacked on to the case with no clear explanation provided of why it related to puberty blockers or the hearing.
Counsel for the Minister of Health argued that the puberty blocker decision was perfectly in line with how decisions are made and that associated political speech making was not the subject of the judicial review. The Minister, Counsel argued, had assessed appropriately, had consulted appropriately and had looked to changes to approaches to puberty blockers in other jurisdictions and the findings of the Cass Review. The Minister, said Counsel, was acting on findings from systematic-evidence based reviews about puberty blockers and was perfectly entitled to come to a conclusion different to the recommended option put forward by his Ministry. Testimony from doctors did not override the source material that assessed evidence. There was a back and forth between the Minister’s lawyers and Justice Dale La Hood on whether there was a difference between restrictions and a ban. The Minister’s lawyers also spent time refuting the idea presented by PATHA and the HRC, that it was up to courts to decide and develop the interpretation of sex in the Human Rights Act.
During the hearing, it looked like the Justice La Hood was mostly interested in arguments about the rationality of the puberty blocker decision in light of PATHA’s claims that no other jurisdiction had instituted a complete ban and that some children desperately ‘needed’ blockers.
The judge’s decision is yet to be published.
Bid to overturn ban on puberty blockers goes to the High Court.
LawNews, 13 July 2026. Coverage of the first day, presenting PATHA’s arguments.
PATHA challenges puberty blocker ban in High Court judicial review.
NZ Herald, 13 July 2026. Coverage of the first day (PATHA) with some responses from the Minister. Reposted on RNZ under the alternative heading ‘This is about identity’: Court challenge to puberty blocker ban begins
Trans advocate group takes puberty blocker ban battle to Wellington High Court.
Australasian Lawyer, 14 July 2026. I like the candid headline.
High Court told politics, not science, behind puberty blocker ban.
LawNews, 14 July 2026. Coverage of day two, presenting PATHA’s arguments.
Puberty blockers: Denying treatment with blanket bans unethical, doctors say.
NZ Herald, 17 July 2026; discusses an NZMJ article written by PATHA executive members, an expert witness used by PATHA and others. I think the headline could have made the PATHA connection explicit.
Midday, 17 July 2026
Here’s my Backgrounder on PATHA. I have, inevitably, more thoughts on this matter.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.