Washington The Tennessee legislation that limits gender transition therapies was upheld by the conservative-majority Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Conservative judges’ belief that the statute constituted a form of sex discrimination, which would require courts to closely examine it, did not seem to be supported by a protracted oral argument. All three of the court’s liberal judges seemed to believe that the law classified people according to their sex.
The Biden administration, transgender youth, and their families have challenged the recently passed law before the court, which has a conservative 6-3 majority that includes three Trump appointees.
The 2023 state law prohibits hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and gender reassignment surgery for minors. A lower court judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to challenge the surgery prohibition, therefore it is no longer a factor in the Supreme Court case.
Given that over 20 other states have enacted legislation akin to Tennessee’s, the court’s decision will undoubtedly have a significant effect.
On a medical matter that is hotly debated, conservative judges asked if the court could question the state legislature. The state contends that the rule is just a type of medical regulation that is applied uniformly to all people, and therefore it does not amount to sex discrimination.
A number of justices questioned the evolving perspectives and growing hesitancy of European health authorities on specific facets of gender-affirming therapies.
“It strikes me as a pretty heavy yellow light, if not red light, for this court to come in, the nine of us, and to constitutionalize the whole area, when the rest of the world, or at least the people who the countries that have been at the forefront of this, are pumping the brakes on this kind of treatment,” said Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative justice.
Similar worries were voiced by Chief Justice John Roberts, who stated that the judges are “not the best situated to address issues like that” where opposing viewpoints on medical matters must be considered.
“Doesn’t that make a stronger case for us to leave those determinations to the legislative bodies rather than trying to determine them for ourselves?” he said.
Chase Strangio, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who became the first openly transgender person to argue in court, was one of the challengers who faced the most difficult questions from conservative Justice Samuel Alito.
The Biden administration has claimed that the medical data supporting the effectiveness of hormone therapy and puberty blockers is overwhelming, but Alito questioned this.Additionally, he questioned Strangio on whether being transgender is a “immutable characteristic” in the same sense as, say, color.
Alito was one among several who cited recent actions taken by European countries, such as those in Sweden and the United Kingdom, to strengthen guidelines for adolescents receiving care during gender change.
Although the Biden administration’s Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, recognized that there is “a lot of debate” regarding the best treatment model, who should receive it, and when, she maintained that there is general agreement that some adolescents may require the care for medical reasons.
Sweden and the United Kingdom, she noted, have not explicitly prohibited such therapies.
She went on to say, “I think that’s because of the recognition that this care can provide critical, sometimes life-saving benefits for individuals with severe gender dysphoria,” a clinical term for the distress that people can feel when their gender identities conflict with the genders that were assigned to them at birth.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the most outspoken liberal justice when it came to pointing out how state prohibitions affect transgender youngsters.
“The evidence is very clear that there are some children who actually need this treatment,” Sotomayor stated. Courts must therefore carefully consider the government’s justification for passing legislation “to ensure that those children who are going to suffer all of these consequences will be made to do so only when it’s compelling,” she continued.
The argument made orally The most important day of the court’s most recent term, which began in October and concludes in June, is Wednesday morning.
Before arguments began, there was a raucous scene outside the court with supporters from both sides. “Every child deserves the chance to fly as their true self,” read one sign held by a person who supported transgender rights. “Stop transgender children,” said a woman who supported the state’s legislation.
The challengers contend that the Tennessee legislation violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees equal treatment under the law, by engaging in sex discrimination. They claim that while non-transgender individuals can receive hormone therapy and puberty blockers for other reasons, the law discriminates against transgender patients.
In court documents, Prelogar stated, among other things, that judges should apply a stringent threshold known as “heightened scrutiny” when evaluating legislation that target transgender individuals. Legal challenges against restrictions that harm transgender individuals would have an easier time succeeding if the court took that stance. But from the oral arguments, it didn’t seem plausible that the court would do that.
Additionally, Prelogar often cited the court’s unexpected 6-3 decision in 2020, which was authored by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch. His conclusion, which infuriated conservatives, was that transgender and gay persons were protected by federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace.
Gorusch’s opinions on the subject are unclear because he remained silent during the argument on Wednesday.
Jonathan Skrmetti, the state attorney general for Tennessee, highlighted in court documents the swift shift in treatment of children with gender dysphoria.
Gender dysphoria can be effectively treated with gender-affirming therapies, according to major medical organizations.
However, one conservative who has questioned such conclusions is Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, whose state has a restriction identical to Tennessee’s. In a brief he described a “medical, legal and political scandal” in which campaigners influenced medical professionals to support their legal claims.
The Supreme Court in April permitted Idaho to largely execute a similar statute, which may reveal the justices’ slant. The three liberal justices on the court dissented.
After the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected challenges to the Tennessee statute and a similar measure in Kentucky last year, the case that is being debated Wednesday made its way to the Supreme Court. The appeals court permitted the law to take effect after a district court judge stopped it.
Before the court makes a decision, the new Trump administration may reverse the federal government’s stance in the Tennessee case and support the state’s legislation. However, the outcome of the case may not be affected in any way by such a move. By the end of June, a decision should be made.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!