A federal appeals court this week ruled against Texas doctors who tried to sue President Biden's administration over its transgender policies.
The three judges who make up the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals did not rule on the merits of the case, but unanimously ruled that the doctors lacked standing to sue. Monday's court ruling maintained that the doctors had not violated any policies and faced no threat of enforcement.
Biden's policy prohibits discrimination against transgender people in the medical field. Monday's ruling overturns an earlier ruling in favor of the doctors by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmalik.
The Biden administration's Department of Health and Human Services announced a rule change in 2021, opting to extend provisions of the Affordable Care Act that prohibit discrimination based on gender to transgender people. Three Texas doctors argued that the interpretation went beyond the letter of the law.
Supreme Court could take major step toward blocking transgender athletes from historic hearing women's sports
Doctors in Texas are seeking to challenge President Biden's transgender policies. (Nathaniel Pawlowski, Reuters/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo)
Doctors also argued that the policy could force them to use treatments they do not support. They cite examples like prostate cancer in transgender women, which requires treatment based on a person's biological sex.
The decision came just weeks after the Supreme Court heard arguments in its own transgender policy case, which included a constitutional ban on states banning transgender surgeries on minors. The question was whether or not it was recognized.
President Trump's AG picks have a “history of consensus building''
During oral arguments, the Supreme Court's conservative justices appeared reluctant to overturn the Tennessee law at issue in the case. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh have suggested that state legislatures, rather than courts, are best placed to regulate medical practice. Roberts pointed out that the Constitution leaves such questions to “representatives of the people” rather than the nine Supreme Court justices who are “not doctors.”
Transgender rights supporters rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court. (Getty Images)
However, Justice Samuel Alito cited “overwhelming evidence” from specific medical studies that listed negative effects on young people undergoing sex reassignment treatment. If the justices rule along party lines to uphold the lower court's ruling, it would have far-reaching implications for the more than 20 U.S. states that are moving to enact similar laws.
The petitioners in the case, represented by the Biden administration and the ACLU, sued to overturn the Tennessee law on behalf of the parents of three transgender youth and a Memphis-based doctor.
A flag supporting LGBTQ+ rights adorns the Democratic desk in the Kansas House of Representatives during debate. (AP Photo/John Hannah, File)
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
At issue during Wednesday's oral argument was the level of scrutiny courts should apply to evaluate the constitutionality of state bans on transgender medical procedures for minors, such as SB1; The question was whether these laws would be considered discriminatory on the basis of sex, or whether they would be considered contrary to “quasi-discrimination.'' – class of suspects, warranting a higher level of oversight under the Equal Protection Clause. of the constitution.
FOX News' Brianne Despiche and Reuters contributed to this report.
