On Oct. 21, 2026 (New Zealand time), the High Court of New Zealand released its judgment in *Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa Inc v Minister of Health* [2026] NZHC 3248. Justice Dale La Hood declared the regulations "unlawful and invalid" and set them aside.
The regulations
On Nov. 17, 2025, Health Minister Simeon Brown recommended the Medicines (Restriction on Prescribing Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Analogues) Amendment Regulations 2025. They prohibited new prescriptions of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria or gender incongruence in children and adolescents. Patients already receiving the drugs, and patients prescribed them for other conditions, were not affected.
The regulations were due to take effect Dec. 19, 2025. On Dec. 17, 2025, the High Court made interim orders preventing their enforcement pending the judicial review ([2025] NZHC 4045). The Court of Appeal later held those orders were effective ([2026] NZCA 8).
The ruling
The court found:
- Consultation. The Ministry of Health's consultation did not meet the requirements of s 105 of the Medicines Act 1981. Those consulted "would not have understood" that a prohibition on new prescriptions was being proposed, and the Ministry did not consult directly with "gender diverse young people."
- Discrimination. The regulations breached s 19 of the Bill of Rights on the prohibited ground of disability. The court compared minors with gender dysphoria to minors who receive the same drugs for other conditions. It held that "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."
- Rejected grounds. The court rejected claims that the minister had abdicated his decision to Cabinet or acted for the improper purpose of advancing NZ First's "anti-woke" agenda. It found 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 court did not decide claims under ss 8, 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights.
The judgment states that the long-term benefits of puberty blockers for this group "are uncertain," and that "it is for the Minister and Cabinet to decide what, if any, restrictions should be placed on access to puberty blockers" for this group.
Responses
- A spokesperson for the Health Minister told RNZ there was "a lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating the benefits or risks" of the medication for treating gender dysphoria or incongruence, and that the government "is seeking advice on next steps."
- NZ First called for the decision to be appealed immediately.
- Family First NZ said it was "shocked" by the decision, RNZ reported.
Other jurisdictions
In the United Kingdom, the sale and supply of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria or gender incongruence in under-18s not already taking them is banned indefinitely, with exceptions for existing NHS patients and authorized clinical trials. The judgment also discusses the position in Australia, Canada (including Alberta) and Europe.