Washington (AP) In just its second significant transgender rights case, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Wednesday. The case challenges a Tennessee statute that prohibits gender-affirming care for minors.
The justice’s ruling, which is not anticipated for several months, may have an impact on similar legislation passed by an additional 25 states as well as various other initiatives to control the lives of transgender individuals, such as limiting their access to certain sports leagues and restrooms.
Following a presidential election in which Donald Trump and his supporters pledged to repeal rights for transgender individuals, the issue is being heard by a conservative-dominated court.
Aimee Stephens was dismissed by a funeral company in Michigan after telling the owner she was transgender, and the court decided in her favor four years ago. The court said that a historic federal civil rights provision that forbids sex discrimination in the workplace protects transgender individuals as well as gay and lesbian individuals.
In the case four years ago, the majority of liberal and conservative justices found that sex clearly plays a role in employers’ decisions to punish transgender people for characteristics and behavior they otherwise tolerate. The Biden administration, along with the families and healthcare providers who challenged the Tennessee law, are calling on the justices to adopt the same kind of analysis.
The question in the Tennessee case is whether the legislation infringes with the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which mandates that the government treat people in comparable circumstances equally.
Attorneys for the families stated in their Supreme Court brief that Tennessee law prohibits hormone therapy and puberty blockers for transgender minors, but not all of them. The American Civil Liberties Union’s Chase Strangio, the main attorney, is the first openly transgender person to present their case before the justices.
The administration contends that without taking the kid’s sex into account, it is impossible to decide whether or not treatments must be denied to any specific minor.
In her major court submission, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar stated that this constituted sex discrimination.
The same treatments that are prohibited for transgender adolescents may be provided for other purposes, the state admits. However, it denies the allegation of sex-based discrimination. Rather, it claims that lawmakers took action to shield children from the dangers of gender-transition surgeries that might change their lives.
Minors who seek medications for gender transition and those who want drugs for other medical reasons are separated by the law. In the state’s Supreme Court brief, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti stated that both boys and girls fall on either side of that border.
Tennessee cites the court’s precedent-setting Dobbs decision in 2022, which abolished nationwide safeguards for abortion and gave the matter back to the states, while the challengers point to the 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County for support.
In their court documents, the two sides argued on how much scrutiny the court ought to apply. It’s not just a school assignment.
The rational foundation evaluation is the lowest level, and practically all laws that are assessed in this manner are eventually sustained. In fact, the Cincinnati federal appeals court that upheld the law’s enforcement determined that lawmakers had a legitimate reason for regulating medical treatments, and that this was well within their purview.
The trial court’s use of heightened scrutiny, or a greater level of review, in sex discrimination cases was overturned by the appeals court. The state must specify a significant goal and demonstrate how the law contributes to achieving it under this more thorough scrutiny.
The case might be sent back to the appeals court for application if the justices decide to apply heightened scrutiny.
Every significant medical association, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association, supports gender-affirming care for young people.
However, Tennessee is citing health authorities in Sweden, Finland, Norway, and the UK who concluded that the medical procedures have unknown benefits and carry serious hazards.
In response, Prelogar responded that none of those nations have enacted a prohibition like the one in Tennessee and that people are still able to receive therapy.
One of the families contesting the state statute is the Williams family from Nashville, Tennessee. Brian Williams said that as a result of puberty blockers and hormone treatments, his transgender daughter, L.W., is a 16-year-old planning for her future, making her own music and looking at colleges.
But because of Tennessee s ban, she has to travel to another state to receive the health care that we and her doctors know is right for her.
The Associated Press, 2024. All rights reserved. All rights reserved. It is prohibited to publish, broadcast, rewrite, or redistribute this content without authorization.
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!