Cases involving transgender rights are piling up as the Supreme Court begins writing opinions on whether states can ban gender-affirming care for minors.
In a recent closed session, the justices took up disputes over whether school sports teams can play on transgender athletes, parental rights, and whether government-funded health insurance must cover transgender care, among other issues. I have been considering.
Two justices appointed by President-elect Trump actively highlighted these battles waiting behind the scenes during oral arguments this month in a major gender-affirming care case.
“If you were to win under the criteria here, what would that mean for women's sports and women's sports in particular?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked.
Mr. Kavanaugh kept going back to questioning — that is, until Judge Amy Coney Barrett beat him to the floor by the time the last lawyer took the podium.
“Can you answer Judge Kavanaugh's question about how this case impacts the sports context and the restroom context?” she pressed.
Lawyers argued that the cases were legally separate.
“We do not disagree with the clear language that this decision does not, or should not be understood, to affect individual national interests that must be evaluated on their own terms,” the U.S. Attorney General said. Elizabeth Preloger said.
However, the court ruled that until the current dispute over whether Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors constitutes unconstitutional sex discrimination is resolved, there is enough overlap that most of the petitions They seem to have concluded that it should be put on hold. The decision is expected by the summer and will impact similar laws passed in half the country.
Last month, in two consecutive sessions, the justices considered whether to accept appeals from the states of Idaho and West Virginia defending their bans on transgender girls from competing on girls' school sports teams.
The justices took no action and did not reconsider the petition at their December conference, effectively leaving the case in limbo indefinitely, according to court records. Although the court has not provided any explanation, this pattern typically occurs when a judge decides to put a petition on hold pending disposition of the current case.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) did not oppose the move. The group includes transgender youth who are currently challenging Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care in the Supreme Court, and students who have filed lawsuits over West Virginia and Idaho's bans on transgender athletes. represents both.
“There is no reason to award grants in this case to answer the same question,” the ACLU said in a court filing.
Both West Virginia and Idaho unsuccessfully warned the Supreme Court not to wait.
“The injunction will delay resolution of these important issues by at least one year, and by three years if remanded, and female athletes will continue to face serious consequences,” the West Virginia Attorney General's Office said in a court filing. They will be exposed to harm.” .
The Idaho Attorney General's Office similarly wrote, “There has never been a better time to protect women and girls on the playing field and in the locker room.”
A similar dynamic played out in the fight over West Virginia and North Carolina's refusal to allow government-sponsored health insurance to cover certain care for transgender people.
After losing in lower courts, the states petitioned the justices to dismiss their appeals.
Two days after the debate on gender-affirming care, the Supreme Court considered the petition at its weekly session on Dec. 6, after which the case was left in limbo.
The justices are currently on vacation and are not expected to return until January.
Meanwhile, other petitions related to transgender protections continue to be addressed in writing. They will soon head to a panel of judges who will decide whether to take up the case.
Those challenging Alabama's ban on gender-affirming care filed a petition with the Supreme Court just before Thanksgiving.
In Arizona, state lawmakers have filed a petition with the Supreme Court to reinstate suspensions for transgender athletes. The lawmakers are represented by Democrat John Sauer, President-elect Trump's nominee for U.S. attorney general. Two transgender girls challenging the bill are expected to respond by Monday as to why a judge should not take up the case.
Meanwhile, Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal authority, represents professional counselors challenging Colorado's ban on treatments that attempt to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. Serving as a person. Twelve Republican-led states support the counselor's appeal to the Supreme Court.
But it remains unclear whether judges are willing to get involved in high-profile cases.
Earlier this year, a court rejected an opportunity to consider a case in Indiana that examined whether schools could ban transgender students from using the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity.
And this month, the justices declined to hear an appeal brought by a group of Wisconsin parents who sued their child's school district over policies supporting transgender students. The lower court did not consider the merits of the parents' claims, determining that they did not have legal standing to proceed.
Three conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Kavanaugh, said they would have heard the case. However, 4 votes are required.
“I am concerned that some federal courts have succumbed to the temptation to use Article III principles as a means to avoid particularly contentious constitutional issues,” Alito wrote in his dissenting opinion. '' he said in his dissenting opinion.
