The US Supreme Court has agreed to review a law in Tennessee that prohibits providing transgender care to those under 18 years old. Since 2021, more than twenty states have passed similar bans or restrictions.
Last autumn, transgender youth, their families, and healthcare providers requested the Court to overturn a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld Tennessee’s law prohibiting transgender minors from accessing puberty blockers and hormones.
Civil rights advocates argue that the law violates the equal protection rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti vowed to continue defending the law, stating its purpose is to “protect children from irreversible gender treatments.” Skrmetti said in a statement on social media, “This case will urgently need to clarify whether the Constitution includes special protections for gender identity.”
The Court is expected to hear oral arguments in this case during the next term starting in October. Supreme Court justices are racing against the clock to wrap up their work for this term, with ten highly anticipated rulings expected to be announced this week or next. These cases include determining whether Donald Trump will be prosecuted for his actions during the January 6th Capitol attack, access to emergency abortion care, and the future of free speech on social media platforms.
Legal experts have long believed that the Supreme Court will ultimately have to rule on whether states banning gender-affirming care for minors violate the Constitution, but the Court has significant flexibility in deciding when and how to handle such cases. In the months leading up to Monday’s announcement, cases from Tennessee and another case from Kentucky have sporadically appeared on the Supreme Court’s private conference agenda. This delay indicates that justices are privately deliberating on how the Court should address this issue.
In another lawsuit in April, the Supreme Court allowed Idaho to enforce its ban on providing gender-affirming medical services to minors while the case proceeds in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court’s brief order stated that Idaho’s ban cannot immediately apply to two transgender teenagers suing the state, but did not address the overall constitutionality of the medical ban.
Lawyers representing transgender youth wrote in court documents, “These teenagers’ gender dysphoria has significantly improved due to puberty blockers and estrogen therapy.”
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador stated in a release that the law “ensures that children are not impacted by these life-altering drugs and procedures.” He added, “Those suffering from gender dysphoria should receive love, support, and medical care based on biological reality. Denying the basic fact that boys and girls are physically different will harm our children.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear this case in August.