Hudacko v. Regents of the University of California, et al.

On October 19, 2026, Do No Harm filed an amicus brief in Hudacko v. Regents of the University of California supporting a dad who is fighting back against the University of California system, its UCSF hospital personnel, and his ex-wife, among others, who he alleges worked together to have a sex-rejecting surgical procedure performed on his minor son in violation of his parental rights. The Ninth Circuit held that the UCSF state actors in the case were protected by qualified immunity and dismissed Ted Hudacko’s claims against them. Hudacko is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to revive those claims.

In our brief, we explain that harmful and unproven sex-rejecting procedures for minors have become a serious medical scandal, demonstrating the need for the Court to clarify the rules under which parents may protect their children from becoming the next victims.

Specifically, we explain in our brief that the defendants in the case are proponents of a radical ideology that erases sex and enshrines gender identity. Yet, sex isn’t so easily eliminated. Sex is objective, binary, and immutable — every single cell of the body is forever encoded and operating as either male or female.

“Gender identity,” by contrast, is based on a psychological state. It is about “feelings” and is thus subjective and mutable. As we note in our brief, there are many good reasons that parents of children with symptoms of gender dysphoria may approach such a diagnosis with skepticism — among them, the documented “likely” “role of social influence,” such as media and peers, to shape one’s feelings.

Further, we also point to the complete lack of reliable evidence for any benefit resulting from sex-rejecting procedures for minors and the reality that these interventions can further inflict serious harms.

In particular, we observe that “all well-designed systematic reviews — conducted by experts in Finland, England, Sweden, and elsewhere — conclude that the evidence for sex-denying interventions is weak; zero have come out the other way.” Moreover, experts have catalogued the various risks of sex-rejecting procedures, which demonstrate the danger of subjecting young people to them. These potential risks include adverse effects on fertility, brain development, and much more.

As parents across the country continue to seek to protect their children from the medical scandal of “gender-affirming care,” their rights to do so should be adjudicated under uniform rules established by the Supreme Court.