On August 21, 2014, Hinkle issued a ruling in Brenner v. Scott that denied the state defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the same-sex couple plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. In ordering the injunction, Judge Hinkle found that Florida's statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriage were federally unconstitutional.[3][4]
Hinkle heard the case Jones et al v. DeSantis which concerned a Florida law, SB 7066, which "required felons to pay legal fees as part of their sentences before
regaining the vote".[5] On May 24, 2020, he ruled that the law was "unconstitutional for those unable to pay, or unable to find out how much they owe".[5]
Hinkle's decision was overturned and the requirement found constitutional by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.[6]
In June 2021, Hinkle preliminarily enjoined Senate Bill 7072,[7] which levies fines and imposes additional penalties against social media platforms that blocked or otherwise inhibited content from political candidates and media organizations.
In June 2023, Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking a Florida law that prohibited transgender minors from receiving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. His ruling allowed three transgender children to continue their treatment, emphasizing that gender identity is real and that denying these treatments could lead to significant harm, such as anxiety, depression, and even suicidal ideation.[8]
In June 2024, Hinkle struck down the aforementioned law, while also striking down new requirements by the Florida Board of Medicine that required prescriptions for gender-affirming care to be made by a physician instead of a registered nurse or other medical professional, and required in-person appointments for gender-affirming care instead of remote or telehealth appointments. In his ruling, Hinkle reiterated that 'the defendants have explicitly admitted prohibiting or impeding individuals from pursuing their transgender
identities is not a legitimate state interest' and yet 'a significant number of legislators and others involved in the adoption of the statute and rules at issue pursued this admittedly illegitimate interest.'[9][10]
