WASHINGTON – The conservative majority Supreme Court Wednesday dives into the culture war issue of transgender rights as she argues that states can’t restrict gender transition care for minors.
President-elect Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly voiced anti-transgender rights messages during the recently concluded election. Among other things, he has promised limit access to gender-affirming health care and reinstate restrictions on transgender people in the military after taking office in January.
Democrats, including the Biden administration in the case now in court, have sought to increase protections for transgender people.
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority of three Trump appointees, is considering a challenge to a newly passed law in Tennessee by the Biden administration and transgender teenagers and their families.
Wednesday morning’s oral argument is the most important yet of the court’s last term, which began in October and ends in June.
Before the arguments, there was a noisy scene in front of the court with supporters of both sides. “Every child deserves the chance to fly as their true self,” said one sign held by a transgender rights activist. Another woman was caught by a woman who supported the state law, saying, “Stop the transfer of children.”
A state measure passed in 2023 bans sex-reassignment surgery for minors, as well as puberty blockers and hormone therapy. The surgery ban is not up for debate in the Supreme Court case after a lower court judge said the plaintiffs had no legal standing to challenge it.
Regardless of how the court rules, it will have far-reaching implications More than 20 other states They passed laws similar to Tennessee’s.
“Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical care is an active threat to the future my daughter deserves,” said Brian Williams, the father of a 16-year-old transgender girl in Nashville. call with journalists.
She said that LW, as her daughter is named in court documents, “openly and honestly shares her pain of not being able to live as she really is.”
LW started puberty blockers at age 13 and hormone therapy a year later.
“Today, he’s a happy and healthy 16-year-old with a future ahead of him,” Williams said. But as a result of the ban, the family will now have to travel out of state to get the necessary treatment, he added.
The petitioners argue that the Tennessee law is a form of sex discrimination and violates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which requires equal treatment before the law. They say the law discriminates against transgender patients because there are other cases where non-transgender patients can be treated with puberty blockers and hormone therapy for other reasons.
Among other things, Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar, who represents the Biden administration, said in court filings that laws targeting transgender people should be reviewed by courts under a strict standard called “heightened scrutiny.” If the court were to adopt this approach, it would make it easier for legal challenges against restrictions affecting transgender people to succeed.
Prelogar also often appealed to the court A surprise 6-3 verdict in 2020 written by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch. He ruled that a federal law banning sex discrimination in employment protected transgender and gay people, a decision that angered conservatives.
In defending the Tennessee law, state Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti highlighted in court filings a rapid shift in approach to how to treat juveniles diagnosed with gender dysphoria, the clinical term given to the distress people may experience when their gender identities are conflicted. with the sexes assigned to them at birth.
Skrmetti opposed efforts by the Biden administration to intervene and prevent states from acting on the issue.
“While the government is free to prefer a ask-first-ask-later approach to transition, the Constitution does not bind Tennessee to the same option,” Skrmetti wrote.
The state also argued that the law did not discriminate on the basis of gender, and was simply a form of medical regulation that applied equally to everyone.
Major medical organizations say that gender-affirming therapies are an effective way to treat gender dysphoria.
But Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, whose state has a ban similar to Tennessee’s, is one of the conservative figures to question the findings. He briefed medical experts describing what he called a “medical, legal and political scandal” led by activists to help them win the lawsuit.
Supporters of state restrictions also point to how some other countries that previously pioneered transitional treatment for minors, including the UK and Sweden, have since revised their approach and tightened standards.
In a related case that could show where the justices are leaning, the Supreme Court in April Idaho was allowed basically applying similar law. The court’s three liberal justices dissented.
The case reached the Supreme Court on Wednesday after the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year rejecting challenges to the Tennessee law and a similar measure in Kentucky. A district court judge blocked the law, but an appeals court allowed it to go into effect.
One potential wrinkle in the Tennessee case is that the incoming Trump administration could reverse the federal government’s position in the case and favor the state law before a court ruling. However, such a move may have no effect on how the case is resolved. The decision is expected to be made by the end of June.