The Supreme Court’s decision to hear a challenge to Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors sets the stage for a potentially blockbuster case implicating protections for transgender people.
It’s the first time the justices will weigh in on the issue, which could impact laws passed by 24 Republican-led states since 2021 that ban medications like puberty blockers and hormones for trans children and teens. Legal challenges launched by transgender youth, their families, and medical providers have had mixed results.
A federal judge earlier this month struck down a Florida law that prohibits access to gender-affirming health care for minors and certain adults, and a similar Arkansas law was ruled unconstitutional last year. Federal court orders are blocking enforcement of bans in Montana and Ohio.
Monday’s announcement left LGBTQ rights advocates grateful to have the day at the nation’s highest court to oppose Tennessee’s ban, but also apprehensive about where the conservative-leaning court will land.
“The future of countless transgender young people in this and future generations depends on this Court’s adherence to the facts, the Constitution, and its own modern precedent,” said Chase Strangio, deputy director of transgender justice for the LGBTQ and HIV Project at the ACLU, in a statement. declaration.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case comes at the request of the Biden administration, which appealed to the judges after intervening in the challenge filed by a group of anonymous transgender children and their parents.
Tennessee Republicans passed the law, Senate Bill 1, in 2023, amid a wave of gender-affirming care bans enacted in states across the country.
The law prohibits health care providers from administering puberty blockers, hormones or surgeries to help with a minor transition, although the restrictions do not apply to adults. Violations can lead to professional discipline and carry a $25,000 civil fine and private lawsuits.
The Supreme Court is not expected to hear arguments until next fall, with a decision likely by June 2025.
The Justice Department asserts that the Tennessee statute, and others like it, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because they unconstitutionally discriminate against transgender individuals. Puberty blockers and doses of testosterone and estrogen are still available to minors who are not transgender under Tennessee and similar laws that restrict access to such care.
“These laws, and conflicting court decisions about their validity, are creating profound uncertainty for transgender teens and their families across the country – and inflicting particularly serious harm in Tennessee and other states where the laws have been allowed to take effect.” , said the US attorney. Gen. Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in the government’s petition.
The Justice Department and the White House declined to comment on the court’s decision to hear the case, saying they do not comment on pending litigation.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti (R), whose office argued the law was enacted to protect children, urged the justices to allow a lower ruling to uphold it.
“We fought hard to defend the Tennessee law that protects children from irreversible gender bias and secured a thoughtful, well-reasoned opinion from the Sixth Circuit. I look forward to ending the fight in the United States Supreme Court,” Skrmetti said in a statement Monday.
“This case will bring much-needed clarity on whether the Constitution contains special protections for gender identity,” he said.
In April, the Supreme Court lifted a preliminary injunction that blocked Idaho’s felony ban on gender-affirming care for minors. But that emergency ruling did not address the constitutionality of the law, and the court has refrained from intervening in most cases involving transgender rights.
“This is a high-stakes time for trans youth and their families, and we are happy that trans youth and their families will have their day in court to argue that the bans are unconstitutional, interfere with private medical decisions, and severely harm families.” , said Allison Scott, director of impact and innovation at the Campaign for Southern Equality, which supports LGBTQ people living in the South. “Everyone who needs gender-affirming care should be able to access it affordably and close to home. , and our team will never stop working to make that happen.”
Gender-affirming health care for transgender adults and minors is considered medically necessary by the all major medical organizations, although not all trans people choose to medically transition or access care. Groups like the Campaign for Southern Equality have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in emergency funds designed to ease the financial burden of traveling out of state for treatment. In a national survey conducted in February, more than half of trans people said they considered moving to another state due to laws that threaten access to gender-affirming health care.
Tara Borelli, senior counsel at Lambda Legal, in a statement Monday said the Supreme Court has historically rejected efforts to uphold discriminatory laws.
“Without similar action here, these punitive and categorical bans on providing gender-affirming care will continue to wreak havoc on the lives of transgender youth and their families,” she said.
Two of the Supreme Court’s top conservatives — Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — have long seemed eager to jump into disputes involving transgender rights.
The pair publicly disagreed with their colleagues when the court rejected defense of a school district of its transgender bathroom policy and an appeal of a ruling that found a transgender woman’s rights were violated in prison.
“This case presents an issue of great national importance that demands immediate review,” Alito wrote, joined by Thomas, in the latest case.
Agreeing to hear the challenge to Tennessee’s ban means at least four of the nine justices voted in favor. Cases worthy of high court review tend to be resolved after being assigned consecutively to two of the justices’ closed-door conferences, where they vote on which appeals should be heard.
The Biden administration’s challenge to the Tennessee law moved at an unusually slow pace, being granted after being listed in the last six conferences, according to the case docket.
Justices indicated that they sometimes relist briefs when persuading a colleague to provide the critical fourth vote. Monday’s vote count has not been released.
Despite the court’s conservative majority, advocates hope the justices’ ruling next term will be broad enough to overturn laws passed across the country that restrict access to gender-affirming care.
“We can certainly hope that there will be a ruling that summarily restores access to care,” said Cait Smith, director of LGBTQI+ policy at the Center for American Progress. “I think there is a path to restoration.”
Smith linked efforts to limit access to gender-affirming care to attempts to restrict or ban abortion. The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the Tennessee case comes on the second anniversary of its landmark decision that struck down federal abortion protections.
“The fight for access to abortion and reproductive care and the fight for access to transgender health care practices are intertwined,” Smith said. “This is all about access to best practices in healthcare.”
“This is all about bodily autonomy for all of us,” they added. “Yes, this is extremely crucial and important for trans youth and their families, but it is important for all of us and our access to health care.”
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
