Washington – The Supreme Court announced Monday it will consider whether a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors is unconstitutional, setting the stage for a landmark ruling on transgender rights in the next term.
The Supreme Court agreed to review a lower court decision that upheld Tennessee’s ban, which the Justice Department and transgender youth appealed, arguing that the law fell outside the scope of the 14th Amendment.
The case will be heard by the Supreme Court’s next session, which begins in October, and a decision is expected by the end of June 2025. The fight has thrust the Supreme Court into the center of a politically fraught issue and sparked a flurry of legislative efforts by state legislatures.
More than 20 states have enacted laws in recent years restricting access to treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery for minors with gender dysphoria, so the outcome of this case could have nationwide implications.
The Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the constitutionality of these bans, but the justices did intervene on an emergency basis in one case involving an Idaho law. Idaho authorities agreed to carry out the execution. The state has overturned a statewide ban on gender-affirming medical care for nearly all transgender minors and narrowed the scope of a lower court order that had blocked the law from going into effect.
The Supreme Court’s order means that Idaho’s law no longer applies to two transgender teenagers who challenged the ban.
In a separate case involving a West Virginia law banning transgender athletes from competing on women’s sports teams, the Supreme Court State permission denied To enforce the law while legal proceedings are ongoing.
Tennessee Law
Known as SB1, the Tennessee law, which was enacted in March 2023, prohibits health care providers from “prescribing, administering, or dispensing puberty blockers or hormones” if the treatment is to enable a minor “to identify with or live as a self-identified identity that is inconsistent with the minor’s gender” or to treat “discomfort or distress purportedly resulting from a mismatch between the minor’s gender and self-identified identity.”
The law also bans surgical procedures performed for the same purpose, but that restriction is not at issue in the lawsuit. Puberty-blocking drugs and hormones can be administered to treat conditions such as precocious puberty, disease, birth defects and physical injuries.
Violation of Tennessee’s law carries a civil penalty of $25,000, professional disciplinary action and possible civil liability. The law went into effect on July 1, 2023, but prohibited treatments that began before then can continue until March 31.
One transgender girl and two transgender boys who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, along with a state doctor who treats transgender patients, challenged the ban, arguing that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Department of Justice intervened in the case.
A federal district court blocked state enforcement of the law, ruling that it was likely unconstitutional. The court wrote that the ban “explicitly and exclusively targets transgender people” and that “the benefits of the medical procedures the state has banned are [the law] It’s well established.”
But a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the injunction. The Sixth Circuit’s decision upheld not only Tennessee’s law, but also a similar ban in Kentucky. The court did not respond to a request to reconsider the Kentucky law.
“This is a relatively new diagnosis, and approaches to treatment have changed constantly over the past decade or two. Under these circumstances, it is difficult for anyone to predict the long-term consequences of removing any age restrictions on these treatments,” Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote.
He continued: “In precisely these circumstances, a lifetime judge interpreting a constitution that is difficult to amend must be humble and cautious about announcing new substantive due process and equal protection rights that limit the ability of responsible elected officials to resolve health care, social and policy challenges.”
The Department of Justice and transgender young people appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the Biden administration’s appeal.
in Filing The Biden administration, along with the justices, noted active legislative activity in nearly half of the states that would ban transgender teenagers from receiving medical care “in accordance with evidence-based standards that reflect the overwhelming consensus of the medical community.”
“Without this Court’s review, families in Tennessee and other states with laws like SB1 will lack access to basic health care,” Attorney General Elizabeth Preloger wrote. “Those who can afford it may leave their homes, jobs, schools and communities to move to states where they can get the care they need. Others won’t even have that option.”
Transgender youth and their families represented by the ACLU noted that appeals courts are divided on the constitutionality of laws banning gender-affirming treatment for transgender youth, and the appropriate level of review to apply to bans that target transgender individuals for medical purposes.
“This legal uncertainty surrounding medical care is causing confusion across the country for young people, families and physicians,” their lawyers told the Supreme Court. Filing.
But Tennessee’s lawyers say hormone and surgical treatments for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria “can have serious and irreversible side effects.” They argue that the ban on gender reassignment treatments is intended to prevent Tennessee youth from receiving these treatments “until the lifelong effects are fully understood or until science has developed such that Tennessee has a different view of the treatments’ effectiveness.”
Tennessee argued that the question of whether it can impose restrictions on medical intervention on minors is one of public policy and should be left to its elected representatives.
“Tennessee acted reasonably, rationally and compassionately to protect children, and this law will withstand any level of review,” the state’s attorneys said. I have written “Nothing in the Constitution empowers petitioners to ignore Congress’s judgment and demand the policy they consider more favorable,” the summary said.
