Each ruling that discusses their testimony, by what it did for the side that called them. The counts are the profile's own, for the rulings it lists.
2012
Kosilek v. Spencer
NeitherRelied on
U.S. District Court, D. Massachusetts · trial (bench trial findings / conclusions of law) · court opinion
Their role: court-appointed expert (Fed. R. Evid. 706), initially retained to opine on whether Dr. Schmidt's (DOC's) proposed treatment was within prudent professional standards
The district court, having appointed Dr. Levine under Rule 706, found his trial testimony -- in which he ultimately opined that a prudent professional would not deny Kosilek sex reassignment surgery -- credible, and relied on it in part to conclude that Dr. Schmidt's recommended alternative treatment did not meet prudent professional standards. The court noted Levine's initial report had rested on erroneous assumptions (that Kosilek had not had the required real-life experience and could not afford surgery) which he abandoned after clarification at trial.
“Dr. Levine’s credible testimony at trial also contributes to the court’s conclusion that Dr. Schmidt is not a prudent professional”
Kosilek v. Spencer, 2012↗(opens another site)
“Most significantly, Dr. Levine testified that he did not believe a prudent professional would deny Kosilek sex reassignment surgery.”
Kosilek v. Spencer, 2012↗(opens another site)
Source: Kosilek v. Spencer, 2012↗(opens another site)
2012
Soneeya v. Spencer
NeitherCredited in part
U.S. District Court, D. Massachusetts · trial (bench trial findings of fact) · court opinion
Their role: defense expert witness; also separately served (outside this litigation) as the DOC mental-health contractor MHM's paid Gender Identity Disorder (GID) consultant, in which capacity he had evaluated the plaintiff in 2008
The court found that Levine and plaintiff's expert Dr. Kaufman agreed the plaintiff had a genuine, consolidated female gender identity and that continuing hormone therapy was appropriate, but disagreed on whether she had met the Standards of Care's readiness/eligibility criteria for surgery and on the long-term benefits of sex reassignment surgery. The court noted Levine's most recent evaluation of the plaintiff was conducted solely for this litigation, and that his opinions (like Dr. Kaufman's) were prepared for litigation and did not guide the plaintiff's actual treatment decisions.
“Both Dr. Levine and Dr. Kaufman concur that plaintiff has a genuine, consolidated female gender identity”
Soneeya v. Spencer, 2012↗(opens another site)
“Levine and Kaufman reports were prepared for litigation purposes and didn’t guide treatment decisions for Ms. Soneeya”
Soneeya v. Spencer, 2012↗(opens another site)
Source: Soneeya v. Spencer, 2012↗(opens another site)
2014
Kosilek v. Spencer
Discounted, criticized or limitedLimited
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (en banc) · appeal (en banc, reversing grant of injunctive relief) · court opinion
Their role: court-appointed expert (Fed. R. Evid. 706)
The en banc majority recounted that Levine's position changed during his testimony -- he initially found Dr. Schmidt's view reasonable, then, after being reminded the court had ordered him to evaluate Kosilek as a free person, concluded surgery should not be denied -- and for that reason declined to count him among the experts supportive of Dr. Schmidt. The majority nonetheless held that even disregarding Levine's opinion entirely, the record otherwise supported the district court's finding that Dr. Schmidt's approach was not prudent.
“We do not list Dr. Levine among these providers because, as the reader will recall, there was some change in his testimony.”
Kosilek v. Spencer, 2014↗(opens another site)
“even were we to disregard Dr. Levine's opinion entirely, there was ample evidentiary support for the court’s conclusion that Dr. Schmidt’s approach was not prudent”
Kosilek v. Spencer, 2014↗(opens another site)
Source: Kosilek v. Spencer, 2014↗(opens another site)
2014
Kosilek v. Spencer
NeitherCited in a separate opinionlow confidence
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (en banc) · appeal (en banc) -- authorship of this passage within the opinion is not clear from the chunk (first-person singular "I do not list..." suggests a separate concurring/dissenting writing rather than the per curiam majority voice) · court opinion
Their role: court-appointed expert (Fed. R. Evid. 706)
A separate opinion in the en banc decision (it writes in the first person, so it is not the majority's) says he ultimately testified that a prudent professional would not deny surgery, and for that reason does not count him among the prison doctor's critics or supporters.
“Considering this incongruity, I do not list Dr. Levine as one of Dr. Schmidt’s critics.”
Kosilek v. Spencer, 2014↗(opens another site)
Source: Kosilek v. Spencer, 2014↗(opens another site)
2015
Norsworthy v. Beard
Discounted, criticized or limitedGiven little weight
U.S. District Court, N.D. California · preliminary injunction · court opinion
Their role: expert retained by defendants (California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
The court declined to strike his report but gave it very little weight in granting a preliminary injunction. It found the report misrepresented the WPATH Standards of Care, relied on generalizations about incarcerated people rather than an assessment of the plaintiff, contained illogical inferences, and cited an inmate who had supposedly received surgery in California custody when, as he later confirmed, none ever had.
“The Court gives very little weight to the opinions of Levine, whose report misrepresents the Standards of Care; overwhelmingly relies on generalizations about gender dysphoric prisoners, rather than an individualized assessment of Norsworthy; contains illogical inferences; and admittedly includes references to a fabricated anecdote.”
Norsworthy v. Beard, 2015↗(opens another site)
“But, as Levine has now confirmed, no CDCR inmate has ever received SRS.”
Norsworthy v. Beard, 2015↗(opens another site)
“these serious weaknesses in Levine’s report undermine his credibility as an expert”
Norsworthy v. Beard, 2015↗(opens another site)
Source: Norsworthy v. Beard, 2015↗(opens another site)
2018
Edmo v. Idaho Dep't of Corr.
Discounted, criticized or limitedGiven little weight
U.S. District Court, D. Idaho · trial (findings of fact after bench trial) · court opinion
Their role: retained by a contracted prison-medical vendor (Corizon) to lead a training on medical necessity of gender confirmation surgery for incarcerated patients; also cited as having been retained as a defense expert in Norsworthy v. Beard
The court found Levine an outlier in the field of gender dysphoria who does not ascribe to the WPATH Standards of Care and whose training materials do not reflect generally accepted opinions in the field. Citing Norsworthy v. Beard, the court noted that another federal court had already given his opinion virtually no weight, and it gave virtually no weight to the opinions of defense experts whose views traced back to Levine's training and the guidelines it shaped.
“Dr. Levine is considered an outlier in the field of gender dysphoria and does not ascribe to the WPATH Standards of Care.”
Edmo v. Idaho Dep't of Corr., 2018↗(opens another site)
“the Court gives virtually no weight to the opinions of Defendants' experts”
Edmo v. Idaho Dep't of Corr., 2018↗(opens another site)
Source: Edmo v. Idaho Dep't of Corr., 2018↗(opens another site)
2018
Keohane v. Jones
Credited against the side that called themRelied on
U.S. District Court, N.D. Florida · trial (bench trial order granting relief) · court order
Their role: defendant's own retained expert witness
In an unusual posture, the court found the defendant's own expert Dr. Levine credible and relied heavily on his trial testimony -- that allowing the plaintiff to socially transition (grooming, clothing, undergarments) would be psychologically helpful/compassionate and that failing to treat gender dysphoria is destructive -- to rule for the plaintiff and against the prison, notwithstanding that Levine was called by the defense.
“In Dr. Levine’s opinion, “it’s destructive to ignore this mental
complaint of gender dysphoria.””
Keohane v. Jones: Order
“Even Defendant’s own expert, Dr. Levine, agrees that allowing
Ms. Keohane to dress and groom as a woman would be “psychologically helpful” in
treating her gender dysphoria.”
Keohane v. Jones: Order
Source: Keohane v. Jones: Order
2019
Adree Edmo v. Corizon, Inc.
NeitherDescribed, not weighed
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · appeal (affirming preliminary injunction) · court opinion
Their role: court-appointed expert in the earlier Kosilek litigation, discussed here only as precedent
Rejecting the Fifth Circuit's broader reading of Kosilek in Gibson v. Collier, the Ninth Circuit clarified that Dr. Schmidt's and Dr. Levine's Kosilek testimony -- that surgery was not necessary for Kosilek specifically -- did not support a categorical rule that gender confirmation surgery is never medically necessary for any inmate.
“Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Levine testified that GCS was not necessary
in the factual circumstances of that case”
Adree Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., 2019↗(opens another site)
Source: Adree Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., 2019↗(opens another site)
2019
Scott Gibson v. Bryan Collier
Helped the side that called themRelied on
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · appeal · court opinion
Their role: court-appointed expert in Kosilek (discussed as persuasive precedent), co-author of the WPATH Standards of Care 5th edition
The Fifth Circuit relied on the First Circuit's account of Kosilek, including Dr. Levine's testimony that later WPATH Standards of Care revisions were driven by political/advocacy considerations rather than medical judgment and that prudent professionals can reasonably differ over adequate gender-dysphoria treatment, to support its own holding that no Eighth Amendment violation occurs where genuine debate exists in the medical community.
“Dr. Levine ultimately agreed with Dr.
Schmidt’s testimony”
Scott Gibson v. Bryan Collier, 2019↗(opens another site)
“Dr. Levine had helped to author the
fifth version of the [WPATH] Standards of Care”
Scott Gibson v. Bryan Collier, 2019↗(opens another site)
Source: Scott Gibson v. Bryan Collier, 2019↗(opens another site)
2020
Hecox v. Little
Discounted, criticized or limitedGiven little weight
U.S. District Court, D. Idaho · preliminary injunction · court order
Their role: expert relied on by intervenor-defendants for the proposition that policies allowing transgender women to compete on women's teams are harmful to transgender individuals
The court noted that another judge of the same district (in Edmo) had already determined Levine is an outlier in the field and placed virtually no weight on his opinion, and cited Norsworthy v. Beard's criticism of his report; the court accepted plaintiff's evidence instead and granted the preliminary injunction.
“another judge of this Court
previously determined that Dr. Levine is an outlier in the field of gender dysphoria and placed “virtually
no weight” on his opinion”
Hecox v. Little: Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Source: Hecox v. Little: Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
2021
Hennessy-Waller v. Snyder
Helped the side that called themRelied onmedium confidence
U.S. District Court, D. Arizona · preliminary injunction · court order
Their role: defendant's retained expert (declaration)
The court denied a preliminary injunction, relying in part on "the conflicting opinions provided by well-qualified experts" -- including Levine's declaration opposing coverage of gender-confirmation surgery for a minor -- together with the lack of evidence the plaintiffs had been evaluated by a psychologist or psychiatrist, to find the merits of the EPSDT Medicaid claim doubtful.
“the conflicting opinions provided by well-
qualified experts and the lack of any evidence showing Plaintiffs have been evaluated by a
psychologist or psychiatrist, the Court finds Plaintiffs have not clearly shown the surgery
is medically necessary”
Hennessy-Waller v. Snyder: Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Source: Hennessy-Waller v. Snyder: Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
2023
DOE v. LADAPO
Credited against the side that called themCredited in part
U.S. District Court, N.D. Florida · preliminary injunction · court order
Their role: defendants' retained expert
The court singled Levine out as the only defense expert who had actually treated a significant number of transgender patients and found he addressed the issues conscientiously rather than as a biased advocate. The court credited his concession that gender-affirming hormone treatment is sometimes appropriate and used his proposed safeguards as a benchmark, while declining to adopt his broader skepticism of the standards of care (crediting instead the testimony of plaintiffs' experts on that score).
“That
expert is Dr. Stephen B. Levine, the only defense expert who has actually treated a
significant number of transgender patients. He addressed the issues
conscientiously, on the merits, rather than as a biased advocate.”
DOE v. LADAPO: Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
“Even the defendants’ expert Dr. Levine testified that treatment with GnRH
agonists and cross-sex hormones is sometimes appropriate.”
DOE v. LADAPO: Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Source: DOE v. LADAPO: Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
2023
Dekker v. Weida
Credited against the side that called themCredited in part
U.S. District Court, N.D. Florida · trial (order on the merits) · court opinion
Their role: defendants' retained expert
In this earlier companion case (Levine's "first appearance" per the later DOE v. LADAPO opinion), the court found Levine, the only defense expert who had actually treated a significant number of transgender patients, addressed the issues conscientiously rather than as a biased advocate, and credited his testimony that cross-sex hormones are sometimes appropriate and that treatment should not be banned outright, while ruling for the plaintiffs.
“He addressed the issues
conscientiously, on the merits, rather than as a biased advocate.”
Dekker v. Weida: Order
“These plaintiffs qualify for treatment under Dr. Levine’s proposed safeguards.”
Dekker v. Weida: Order
Source: Dekker v. Weida: Order
2023
Dylan Brandt v. Tim Griffin
Credited against the side that called themCredited in part
U.S. District Court, E.D. Arkansas · trial (findings of fact and conclusions of law, permanent injunction) · court opinion
Their role: the State's retained expert (the only state expert with experience treating gender-dysphoria patients)
The court found Levine "a very credible witness" struggling with a conflict between his scientific understanding and his faith, and relied on his own testimony that abruptly cutting off gender-affirming care already in progress would be "shocking" and "devastating" to support the ruling for plaintiffs. But the court declined to credit his (and Dr. Hruz's) opinion that there was insufficient evidence of efficacy, and separately found his testimony on desistance/regret "inconsistent and unreliable," preferring plaintiffs' experts on those points. The court struck down Arkansas's ban (Act 626).
“The Court found Dr. Levine a very credible witness who struggles with the conflict
between his scientific understanding for the need for transgender care and his faith.”
Dylan Brandt v. Tim Griffin: Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, Findings of Fac
“The State’s expert, Dr. Levine, described the psychological impact of cutting off gender-
affirming medical care for those currently receiving it as “shocking” and “devastating.””
Dylan Brandt v. Tim Griffin: Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, Findings of Fac
“The Court found Dr. Levine’s testimony to
be
inconsistent and unreliable in this area.”
Dylan Brandt v. Tim Griffin: Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, Findings of Fac
“The Court does not credit these opinions”
Dylan Brandt v. Tim Griffin: Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, Findings of Fac
Source: Dylan Brandt v. Tim Griffin: Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, Findings of Fac
2023
L. W. v. Jonathan Skrmetti
Discounted, criticized or limitedGiven little weight
U.S. District Court, M.D. Tennessee · preliminary injunction · court opinion
Their role: defendants' retained expert
The court found Levine's testimony on several specific risk claims (diminished sexual response, bone density, cardiovascular disease) unpersuasive and undermined by illogical inferences, noting he cited no studies for some claims and that his opinions on similar topics had already been treated with skepticism by other courts (citing Edmo and Norsworthy). The court credited plaintiffs' expert instead and granted the preliminary injunction in relevant part.
“The Court also notes that the testimony of both Dr. Laidlaw and Dr. Levine, on topics virtually identical
to those on which they testify on behalf of Defendants in this case, has been treated by courts with a dose
of skepticism.”
L. W. v. Jonathan Skrmetti: MEMORANDUM OPINION
“The Court also notes that it is not alone in observing that Dr. Levine’s testimony
includes illogical inferences that undermine his conclusions.”
L. W. v. Jonathan Skrmetti: MEMORANDUM OPINION
“the Court does not find Dr. Levine’s testimony on this subject
persuasive, particularly in light of the conclusions contained in the guidelines that contradict his
findings.”
L. W. v. Jonathan Skrmetti: MEMORANDUM OPINION
Source: L. W. v. Jonathan Skrmetti: MEMORANDUM OPINION
2024
DOE v. LADAPO
Credited against the side that called themCredited in part
U.S. District Court, N.D. Florida · trial (order/opinion on the merits, permanent injunction) · court opinion
Their role: defendants' retained expert (testified previously in the related Dekker v. Weida trial, and again in this case)
The court again described Levine as the only defense expert to have treated a significant number of transgender patients, and as having conscientiously addressed the issues in his first (Dekker) appearance; it found him "not as forthcoming" in his second appearance in this trial, though he stood by his prior testimony and again acknowledged gender-affirming care is sometimes appropriate. The court cited his suggested prerequisites/safeguards as a plausible model the legislature could have adopted instead of a categorical ban, while ultimately ruling for the plaintiffs and against the state's broader ban.
“He was not as forthcoming in his second
appearance—in the trial of this case—but he explicitly stood by his prior
testimony”
DOE v. LADAPO: ORDER ON THE MERITS
“The Legislature or Boards could have established
prerequisites to gender-affirming care, perhaps like those suggested by Dr. Levine.”
DOE v. LADAPO: ORDER ON THE MERITS
Source: DOE v. LADAPO: ORDER ON THE MERITS
2024
Maxwell Kadel v. Dale Folwell (consolidated with Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch)
NeitherAdmitted over objection
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (en banc) · appeal -- summarizing the district court's admissibility ruling · court opinion
Their role: defendants' retained expert (physician and professor of psychiatry)
The en banc court recounted that the district court (in the underlying Kadel proceedings) had found Dr. Levine qualified to testify as a mental-health provider on matters within his professional purview, while excluding certain other testimony from other experts outside their expertise.
“It also found that Dr. Stephen Levine, a
physician and professor of psychiatry, was qualified as a mental health provider”
Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch: Published authored opinion filed
Source: Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch: Published authored opinion filed
2024
Maxwell Kadel v. Dale Folwell (consolidated with Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch)
Discounted, criticized or limitedCriticized
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (en banc) · appeal (majority opinion) · court opinion
Their role: defense expert whose declaration appellants (the states) cited for the proposition that no reliable studies show the treatments improve patient wellbeing
The majority rejected the states' argument -- grounded on Stephen B. Levine's declaration -- that no reliable studies support the challenged treatments, calling the argument "unpersuasive" and instead anchoring its discussion of accepted facts in an amicus brief from medical organizations.
“citing J.A. 3698, n.3, Declaration of defense expert Stephen B. Levine”
Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch: Published authored opinion filed
“This argument is unpersuasive.”
Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch: Published authored opinion filed
Source: Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch: Published authored opinion filed
2024
Maxwell Kadel v. Dale Folwell (consolidated with Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch)
NeitherCited in a separate opinion
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (en banc) · appeal -- DISSENT (Judge Richardson, joined by Judges Wilkinson, Niemeyer, and others; this is not the court's holding) · court opinion
Their role: defense expert whose expert disclosure report is cited as evidence of a genuine, ongoing medical/scientific dispute over the necessity and efficacy of gender-dysphoria treatments
The principal dissent cited Dr. Stephen B. Levine's expert disclosure report (alongside Dr. Paul Hruz's declaration) as evidence that a genuine medical dispute exists over the necessity and efficacy of gender-dysphoria treatments, arguing this supplies a legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for the challenged coverage exclusions -- a position the en banc majority did not adopt.
“See Anderson, J.A. 1860–1935 (Expert Disclosure Report of Dr. Stephen
B. Levine, M.D)”
Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch: Published authored opinion filed
“it cannot be said that the plans obviously use gender dysphoria to
discriminate by proxy against transgender persons”
Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch: Published authored opinion filed
Source: Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch: Published authored opinion filed
2025
Clark v. Valletta
Helped the side that called themRelied on
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · appeal (qualified immunity / summary judgment) · court opinion
Their role: defendants' expert (report and deposition)
Reversing the district court's denial of qualified immunity, the Second Circuit relied on Levine's report -- describing "considerable growing disagreement within the medical and scientific communities" about treating gender dysphoria, and his deposition testimony that the plaintiff's treatment was "far less than ideal" but tempered by prison-culture context -- to hold that a genuine medical debate existed and that the defendants' course of treatment was not objectively unreasonable.
“considerable growing disagreement within the medical and
scientific communities on how to best treat people with gender”
Clark v. Valletta, 2025↗(opens another site)
“Levine testified that Clark’s treatment was “far
less than ideal.””
Clark v. Valletta, 2025↗(opens another site)
“Levine tempered that
assessment with an acknowledgment of “prison life and prison culture””
Clark v. Valletta, 2025↗(opens another site)
Source: Clark v. Valletta, 2025↗(opens another site)
L.B. v. Premera Blue Cross
NeitherDescribed, not weighed
U.S. District Court (Western District of Washington, per docket context) · class certification · court order
Their role: one of several experts whose reports the insurer submitted regarding medical necessity
In the course of ruling on a motion to certify a class, the court's order lists Dr. Stephen Levine, M.D. among several experts (Ayad, Burgo, Anderson, Mason, Montante) whose reports the insurer submitted; the order does not itself evaluate the weight or credibility of Levine's opinions.
“Reports of Sasha Ayad, Joseph Burgo, Ph.D., Erica Anderson, Ph.D., Stephen Levine, M.D.,
Julia Mason, M.D., and Steven Montante, M.D.”
L.B. v. Premera Blue Cross: Order on Motion to Certify Class
Source: L.B. v. Premera Blue Cross: Order on Motion to Certify Class