Debate › Legal · Last reviewed 2026-05-16

Legal cases

Key figures: see people register (Bell, Cass). Chronology: Bell 2020-12 · Court of Appeal 2021-09 · Skrmetti oral arguments 2024-12 · Skrmetti ruling 2025-06.

1. Bell v Tavistock (UK, 2020/2021)

The case Bell v Tavistock was brought by Keira Bell, a former GIDS patient who received GnRHa at 16 and later detransitioned. The High Court ruled in December 2020 that it was "highly unlikely" that a child under 13 could be competent to consent to GnRHa treatment.¹ The Court of Appeal overturned this ruling in September 2021 on procedural — not substantive — grounds and held that individual assessments of capacity rest with treating clinicians. See also /international/united-kingdom/.

2. AB v CD (UK, 2021)

In AB v CD the High Court ruled that parents are competent to consent to GnRHa treatment for their child, even where the child would not be considered competent under Bell criteria.²

3. Re Kelvin (Australia, 2017)

Before Re Kelvin, Australian law required court authorisation for Stage 2 treatment (CSH). In Re Kelvin the Family Court of Australia ruled that such authorisation was no longer required where parents, child and treating clinicians agree.³ See also /international/australia/.

4. United States v Skrmetti (US, 2024–2025)

On 4 December 2024 the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in US v Skrmetti — a review of the Tennessee law banning hormone treatment for minors. On 18 June 2025 the Court ruled 6–3 that the law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause: because it classifies by age and medical use rather than by sex or transgender status, only rational-basis review applies, under which the law survives.⁴ See also /international/united-states/.