Cort Lannin’s commentary appeared in a Bloomberg Law article about the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama denying an appeal by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health of a discovery order to produce information related to its treatment guidelines for treating gender dysphoria in minors.
The court said that producing the documents requested by the defendants wouldn’t interfere with WPATH’s First Amendment rights because of a protective order and the organization’s ability to redact identifying information.
According to Cort, who represents WPATH, “state officials made it clear their intent is to find internal dissent at WPATH. The information could be erroneously used to demonstrate that politics, not science, informed the development of the guidelines and to justify the state ban.”
“The idea is to provide space for those members to have a candid discussion,” he added. “If a member writes something critical and says, ‘We should look harder at this study,’ the state can say members disagreed about guidelines and misrepresent what happened. That is why redactions won’t help.”
The decision to redact identifying details could also be revisited in another case. “We can’t guarantee that a future court—and I think there probably will be future courts—would reach the same decision,” Cort said.
At the moment, WPATH is considering what, if any, additional options it has to appeal the court’s decision on the discovery information.
Click here to read the full article.
Back
