Washington— The Supreme Court on Friday said it will consider whether a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming health care for transgender minors violates the Constitution, setting the stage for a major decision on transgender rights in the future.
The justices agreed to review a lower court ruling that upheld Tennessee’s ban, which was filed by the Justice Department and transgender youth who argued that the law fell outside the 14th Amendment.
The case will be argued in the Supreme Court’s next term, which begins in October, with a decision expected by the end of June 2025. The dispute has put the Supreme Court at the center of a political issue that has sparked a wave of legislative action. by the state legislature.
The outcome of the case could have an impact nationwide, as more than 20 countries in recent years have passed laws restricting treatments such as puberty-blocking drugs, hormone therapy or surgery for minors with gender dysphoria.
The Supreme Court never directly weighed in on the constitutionality of the ban, and the justices intervened in a case involving Idaho’s emergency law. In April, the court agreed to let Idaho officials enforce it The state ban on gender-affirming medical care for nearly all transgender minors statewide and narrowed the scope of the lower court order that blocked the law from taking effect.
Under the Supreme Court’s order, the Idaho law did not apply to two transgender teenagers who challenged the ban.
In a separate case involving a West Virginia law that prohibits transgender athletes from competing on women’s sports teams, the Supreme Court refused to allow state officials to enforce the law while the legal process continues.
Tennessee law
The Tennessee law, known as SB1 and enacted in March 2023, prohibits health care providers from “prescribing, administering or dispensing blockers or puberty hormones” if the treatment “enables a minor to identify, or live as, an assumed identity. inconsistent with the type of edit which” or treat “for example sadness or distress from the discordance between the type of edit and the affirming identity.”
While the law also restricts surgical procedures performed for the same purpose, the restriction is not at issue in this case. Puberty blockers or hormones can be used to treat conditions such as precocious puberty, diseases, congenital defects or physical injuries.
Violators of the Tennessee law can face civil penalties of $25,000, professional discipline and potential civil liability. When the law goes into effect on July 1, 2023, it allows prohibited treatments that began before that to continue until March 31.
One transgender girl and two transgender boys, all diagnosed with gender dysphoria, challenged the ban along with doctors in the country who work with transgender patients, arguing that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Department of Justice intervened in the case.
A federal district court blocked state officials from enforcing the law, saying it might be unconstitutional. The ban, the court said, “unequivocally and specifically targets transgender people,” and found that “the benefits of the medical procedures prohibited by (the law) are well established.”
But a divided panel of judges in the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed the injunction. The 6th Circuit’s decision upheld not only Tennessee’s law, but also a similar ban in Kentucky. The court did not act on the request to review Kentucky law.
“This is a relatively new diagnosis with a continuous approach to care during the last decade or two. In these circumstances, it is difficult for anyone to be sure about predicting the long-term consequences of leaving any age limit for the treatment. , “Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the 6th Circuit wrote.
He continued: “This is exactly the kind of situation where the surviving judges who consider the Constitution difficult to change should be humble and cautious about announcing new substantive procedures or equal protection rights that limit elected officials who are responsible for medical sorting. , social challenges, and policies.”
The Department of Justice and the transgender youth appealed to the Supreme Court. The justices agreed to accept the challenge of the administration of Biden.
In its filing with the judge, the Biden administration cited legislative activity in nearly half of the states that prohibit transgender youth from receiving medical care “in accordance with evidence-based standards that reflect the overwhelming consensus of the medical community.”
“Absent this judicial review, families in Tennessee and other states where laws like SB1 have taken effect will face the loss of essential medical care,” wrote Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar. “Those who have the resources may leave their homes, jobs, schools, and communities to move to countries where the care they need is still available. Others will not have that option.”
Represented by the ACLU, transgender youth and their families noted that the appeals court was divided on the constitutionality of laws that prohibit gender-affirming treatment for transgender youth, as well as the appropriate level of oversight to prohibit the targeting of transgender individuals for medical treatment. .
“The legal uncertainty surrounding this medical treatment is creating chaos across the country for teenagers, families and doctors,” the lawyer told the Supreme Court in a filing.
But attorneys for the state of Tennessee said hormonal and surgical interventions for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria “cause serious and irreversible side effects.” He argued against banning gender-affirming treatments to ensure young Tennesseans don’t receive the treatment “until we can understand the lifelong consequences or until the science is developed so that Tennessee might have a different view on its efficacy.”
The state contends that the question of whether Tennessee can enact regulations regarding medical intervention for minors is one of public policy and should be left to its elected representatives.
“Tennessee acted rationally, reasonably, and compassionately to protect its children, and the Act remains in force at any rate,” state attorneys wrote in a brief. “There is nothing in the Constitution deputizes petitioners to override the legislative judgment and ask for a policy they believe to be more favorable.”
