The Department of Justice (DOJ) took steps Monday to halt a lawsuit that exposed how the Biden administration conspired with transgender medical groups to craft standards currently being used to defend child gender reassignment in the Supreme Court.
After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Biden administration’s challenge to Tennessee’s child sex-change ban, the Justice Department Asked Another lower court case It is challenging a similar Alabama ban, which is on hold pending a Supreme Court decision. The Justice Department requested a stay of the Alabama case to “avoid the possibility of reopening the case” after the Supreme Court’s decision, but the defense argued that the government likely has a different motive: to conceal from the Supreme Court information about its involvement in setting standards on which it relies heavily.
“The Supreme Court deserves to know the full facts, but the United States appears to be willing to tell only part of the story,” they said in a report on Wednesday. Filing“When the United States sought review from the Supreme Court, it chose its method carefully: a lawsuit arising from a preliminary injunction with an extremely limited evidentiary record.” (RELATED: Unsealed court documents show top gender health organization twists science for politics and colludes with Biden administration officials)
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear the case U.S. v. Scrummetti, which challenges Tennessee’s ban on sex-change medical procedures, such as sex-change hormones, puberty suppressants and surgery, for minors. simpleThe government has relied heavily on the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care version 8 (SOC 8) guidelines, arguing that treatments such as cross-sex hormones may be medically necessary for adolescents with gender identity disorder.
WPATH Claim The company’s SOC-8 is “the most expert, detailed, evidence-based and consensus-based guideline internationally” on transgender health care. But a published expert report by Canadian gender researcher James Cantor in the Alabama case revealed that members of the SOC-8 development team bowed to outside pressure and allowed the guidelines to be influenced by political pressure and litigation strategies.
A public expert report revealed that Under Secretary of Health Rachel Levin had pressured WPATH to accelerate the development of SOC 8 in order to advance the Administration’s political goals.
WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 22: Participants of the “Trans Youth Prom” pose for a photo in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC on May 22, 2023. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
“The United States has also long known that the authors of SOC-8 themselves decided what to include (and not include) in their vaunted ‘evidence-based practice guidelines’ based purely on political and legal considerations,” the defendants continue in the filing. “Given this discovery, it is not surprising that the United States rushed to the Supreme Court without a solid evidentiary record, and then quickly sought to halt the case.”
The Department of Justice previously tried In dismissing the Alabama lawsuit in December, the Supreme Court noted that the higher court had already been asked to consider “the appropriate standard of review for a similar equal protection challenge to a state law” banning sex-reassignment surgery for minors. Rejected He denied the request but noted it could be appropriate if the Supreme Court grants review in the future.
“The Supreme Court’s granting of review does not mean that this Court should reward the United States’ tactics,” the defendants argue. “Indeed, full discovery is even more important now that the Supreme Court has granted review. When considering decisions in cases with limited discovery, Courts should at least take cognizance of what discovery has revealed in cases with full discovery.”
In a report released in March, a three-judge panel found that 11 lawyers challenging Alabama’s ban had improperly engaged in “judge shopping” to steer their cases to more friendly judges. Conclusion They “intentionally sought to circumvent the random case assignment procedure,” U.S. District Judge Lyles Burke said. schedule A hearing on the matter is being held this week.
As an independent, nonpartisan news service, all content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation is available free of charge to any legitimate news publisher with a large readership. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and affiliation with the DCNF. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
