Idaho asks Supreme Court to allow enforcement of gender-affirming care ban

The state of Idaho argued that the district court’s injunction went too far and asked the Supreme Court to take emergency action to allow the state to enforce its felony ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors.

In April, Idaho became the second state after Alabama to make it a felony for health care workers to treat transgender youth with treatments such as puberty blockers, hormones or surgery. The doctor who performed the treatment could face up to 10 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

Three other states have since followed suit with felony bans, and nearly half the country now significantly limits or prohibits gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors.

A federal judge in December temporarily blocked Idaho’s ban, known as the Vulnerable Children Protection Act, days before it was scheduled to go into effect. In issuing the preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled that gender-affirming health care provided in accordance with guidelines established by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the Endocrine Society is “safe, effective, and medically safe.” “It is necessary for this,” he wrote. For some adolescents. ”

Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador (R) appealed Winmill’s ruling in January, but a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected it in a one-sentence order. did. The same three-judge panel rejected Labrador’s second appeal to the entire Ninth Circuit seeking reconsideration of the injunction.

In an emergency motion filed Friday, Labrador told the Supreme Court that the state’s district court cannot prevent the state from enforcing its laws against individuals not directly involved in the case. asked that Winmill’s order be narrowed to include only two transgender teenagers who are challenging the law. Trans minors in the state.

“Idaho’s laws expose vulnerable children to dangerous and dangerous medical procedures every day and violate Idaho’s sovereignty to enforce democratically enacted laws,” Labrador’s premier said in a statement. stated in the motion. Alliance Defender Freedom and his law firm Cooper & Kirk.

“On the other hand, if the injunction applies to them and not to others, the plaintiffs suffer no harm at all, let alone irreparable harm,” they wrote in their complaint. writing. What was published was Monday at the Labrador office.

Legal challenges to state laws banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors have met with mixed results, with federal appeals courts divided on whether such bans are constitutional. Figures on both sides are asking the Supreme Court to comment.

In November, three Tennessee families with transgender children and a doctor asked the Supreme Court to provide gender-affirming care to the youth that had been blocked by a panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for a temporary restraining order. requested to prevent the state from enforcing the ban. The company accepted a request from the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office to terminate the contract.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in November that the conflicting court rulings are “causing confusion for youth, families, and physicians nationwide.”

“Neither the wave of state bans on gender-affirming drugs nor the lawsuits challenging them is likely to subside in the near future,” they added. “Given the disagreement among appellate courts regarding the appropriate level of scrutiny in these and related cases, any delay in this court’s review would pose a hurdle for transgender youth, their parents, and physicians. It only risks exposing their medical care to a patchwork of contradictory laws and legal standards. ”

The Supreme Court has so far been reluctant to intervene in transgender medical disputes, but two of its leading conservative justices, Justices Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, have It appears that they are willing to actively intervene in lawsuits related to protection.