BREAKING: On Wednesday, a federal court ruled against Florida's administrative and statutory bans on Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming medical care for minors (puberty blockers and hormones) following a trial.

Two notes …

This is — as U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle notes in the opinion — effectively a case related to the Doe v. Ladapo preliminary injunction issued on June 6 (with Wednesday’s ruling borrowing language from the June 6 ruling).

As to the scope of Wednesday’s decision, the case is about the Medicaid coverage bans, so that's what the ruling is limited to.

But then, is the decision also limited to the plaintiffs? No. #2 in Hinkle’s order is limited to the plaintiffs, yes, BUT #1 is a declaratory judgment that applies to the law/rules — and that declares those laws/rules, as complete bans, “are invalid.” Additionally, as per #3, the declaratory judgment “binds” all of the defendants and related officials.

There is a lot that is *not* included in that, and more litigation will be needed to address the other limits/restrictions of Florida’s S.B. 254 — including the adult gender-affirming medical care restrictions — but this is *not* a ruling limited only to the plaintiffs.