On Monday, the Biden administration decided to challenge a Tennessee statute that limits transgender operations for kids, and the Supreme Court decided to take the case.
The Supreme Court will make its first ruling on issues pertaining to the significant cultural debate over transgender medical treatments for youngsters with the decision to hear the case United States v. Skrmetti. The relevant Tennessee legislation limits minors’ access to hormone therapy, surgery, and puberty blockers.
The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the measure in late April, after Gov. Bill Lee (R-TN) signed it into law in March. Since more than 20 states have passed legislation imposing similar prohibitions, the case may determine whether comparable laws are lawful when the justices rule, perhaps by the end of June 2025. It is probable that an oral argument will take place before the year ends.
This case “will bring much-needed clarification to whether the Constitution contains specific protections for gender identification,” according to Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti (R).
“We vigorously defended Tennessee’s law shielding children from gender-based discrimination, and we were able to get the Sixth Circuit to provide a well-considered ruling. “I am eager to conclude the legal battle before the US Supreme Court,” Skrmetti continued.
The Biden administration claimed in its high court petition that the Tennessee legislation required “urgent” intervention after a federal judge struck down the state’s prohibition on hormone therapy and puberty blockers but kept the surgery ban in place.
“Families in Tennessee and other states where laws like SB1 have taken effect may face the loss of needed medical care absent this Court’s review,” the DOJ stated in court filings.
A group of parents and anonymous minors, including at least one doctor, challenged Tennessee’s transgender statute. The lawsuit claimed that the state statute prohibits transgender adolescents access to cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers “while permitting non-transgender minors to receive the same or similar procedures,” in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
The judges’ sole decision-making responsibility is to determine whether the state’s legislation transgresses the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment.
For a number of years, the high court has refrained from taking on cases involving transgender issues, such as litigation pertaining to transgender restroom rules.
Furthermore, in a related case in Kentucky, when a federal judge overturned the state’s prohibition on hormone therapy and puberty blockers, the high court did not intervene. The lawsuit’s plaintiffs did not contest the state’s limitations on procedures, including mastectomy and vaginoplasty.
In a statement to the Washington Examiner on Monday, Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee who opposes the state’s law, stated that the issue is about the “basic right to obtain crucial, life-saving healthcare.”
The case’s more complex question allows the justices to determine whether the Tennessee legislation constitutes sex discrimination and is subject to more scrutiny under the equal protection clause. In light of Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, many lower courts have struck down or limited similar laws. However, the case presents an opportunity for the recent 6-3 Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court to decide whether the Bostock precedent is more restricted to the context of employment disputes.
Given that the case was put up for review during an election year, the DOJ may decide to take a different stance in the case based on the outcome of either former President Donald Trump or President Joe Biden’s election to a second term in office.
The case will probably already be heard before the next president takes office, though a subsequent administration may decide differently after hearing oral arguments.
