New Zealand High Court sets aside ban on new puberty-blocker prescriptions for young people with gender dysphoria

As of 1:39 a.m. ET, Thursday, Oct. 22, 2026

New Zealand's High Court has declared unlawful and invalid the government's regulations prohibiting new prescriptions of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria or gender incongruence in children and adolescents, and has set them aside.

In a judgment dated Wednesday, Oct. 21, Justice La Hood granted an application for judicial review brought by the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa Inc, known as PATHA, against the Minister of Health. "I have concluded that the Regulations were not lawfully made. They were made in breach of the consultation requirements of s 105 of the Medicines Act and s 19 of the Bill of Rights," the judge wrote.

A spokesperson for Health Minister Simeon Brown said the government "will continue to take an evidence-based approach to this matter and is seeking advice on next steps," RNZ reported.

What the court found

The judge found that the Ministry of Health's consultation process "was insufficient to meet the consultation obligations in s 105 of the Medicines Act 1981," saying those consulted "would not have understood that the Ministry was contemplating or proposing a prohibition on new prescriptions for young people with gender incongruence or gender dysphoria." He said there was also "an insufficient timing imperative to justify the failure to undertake consultation directly with gender diverse young people."

He also found that the regulations breached the right to freedom from discrimination under section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the prohibited ground of disability. "While there was a rational basis for the Minister to impose restrictions on access to puberty blockers for this cohort, a complete prohibition on new prescriptions was a disproportionate response," the judgment said. "The indefinite prohibition was an unjustifiable limit on the right to freedom from discrimination, given the targeted cohort were young people who are at high risk of seriously poor health outcomes, particularly self-harm and suicide."

The judge wrote that the consultation breach "would, on its own, likely have required the setting aside of the Regulations." His orders read: "I declare that the Regulations are unlawful and invalid. The Regulations are set aside."

Arguments the court rejected

The judge rejected PATHA's arguments that Brown abdicated his decision-making power to Cabinet and that he acted for what the judgment calls "an improper purpose of advancing New Zealand First's (NZ First) 'anti-woke' agenda." He said he was "not in a position to reject the Minister's evidence that he made his own independent decision to promulgate the Regulations based on his assessment of puberty blockers' limited effectiveness and the risk of harm."

"The Minister had a rational basis to reach a different conclusion from the Ministry on the material before him, particularly in light of the United Kingdom position following the findings of the Cass Review," the judgment said.

The judge said PATHA's arguments under the rights to life, freedom from torture or cruel treatment and freedom from medical experimentation raised "novel and difficult issues" that should be left to a case where they would decide the outcome.

"It is for the Minister and Cabinet to decide what, if any, restrictions should be placed on access to puberty blockers for gender dysphoric/incongruent young people having regard to all relevant matters, including this judgment. My role is simply to decide whether the current Regulations were lawfully made," he wrote. Earlier in the judgment, he said that "it is neither possible nor appropriate for me to attempt to resolve the differences in expert opinion on this complex and important issue."

How the regulations came about

According to the judgment, Brown on Nov. 17, 2025, recommended that the Medicines (Restriction on Prescribing Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Analogues) Amendment Regulations 2025 be made by Order in Council. The regulations left puberty blockers available to pause puberty for young people with other medical conditions, and for gender-affirming care for those who had been prescribed them before the regulations.

The regulations were due to take effect on Dec. 19, 2025. PATHA applied for judicial review on Dec. 1, 2025, and on Dec. 17, 2025, the High Court made interim orders preventing their enforcement, the judgment said. The case was heard July 13 to 15, 2026, with the Human Rights Commission taking part as an interested party.

Reaction

The Health Minister's spokesperson said there was a lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating the benefits or risks of the medication for treating gender dysphoria or incongruence, RNZ reported. "While this uncertainty persists, the government is taking a precautionary approach," the spokesperson said. RNZ reported that the spokesperson said the government was committed to introducing new safeguards for prescribing puberty blockers, while ensuring patients with medical needs could continue to access care.

"We're incredibly relieved that the Court has come to this finding," PATHA President Jennifer Shields said in a statement. "I'm pleased that the Court agreed that this ban was an act of unjustified discrimination." PATHA said in the statement that prescriptions "can continue as per normal."

Family First NZ said in a statement that it was "shocked" by the decision. "If the evidence is contested ... then caution must prevail. Children deserve healthcare based on robust evidence, not ideology," Chief Executive Bob McCoskrie said.

What is not known

Whether the government will appeal. The Health Minister's spokesperson said the government is "seeking advice on next steps," according to RNZ.

What, if any, new restrictions will follow. The judge said that is for the Minister and Cabinet to decide, and the Health Minister's spokesperson said the government was committed to introducing new safeguards, RNZ reported.

Costs. The judgment leaves costs for the parties to agree or to return to the court.