Conservative justices are poised to uphold a Tennessee law barring transgender youth from receiving gender-affirming medical care as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments Wednesday in a case challenging the policy. It seems like there is.
Plaintiffs in United States v. Scrumetti, first filed last year by three transgender youth and their parents, argue that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because of sex discrimination. There is. A decision in the case is expected in June and could have far-reaching implications for transgender youth across the country. According to human rights campaignTwenty-six states have passed laws banning gender-affirming care, impacting 39.4% of transgender youth in the United States.
Throughout Wednesday's 2 1/2-hour oral arguments, conservatives repeatedly pointed to the potential harms of gender-affirming treatments, but the court's liberals painted the law, known as SB1, as a clear case of sex discrimination. Ta. It can cause serious psychological damage to transgender children.
Arguing in favor of the petitioners, U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Preloger specifically noted that medical procedures covered by Tennessee law, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, are still available to young patients for reasons other than gender-affirming care. pointed out.
“The law limits medical care only to cases where it is provided to cause a physical effect that is inconsistent with birth gender,” Preloger said Wednesday. “A person assigned as female at birth cannot receive medicine to live as a man, whereas a person assigned as male can. Changing an individual's gender also changes the outcome. It is completely “There is no such thing as a face-to-face gender classification, and such a law cannot stand on bare rationality.”
Supporters of bans like Tennessee's suggest They say it helps protect transgender children from “experimental” treatments, even as major medical and mental health groups support access to gender-affirming care. Conservatives on the court, including Chief Justice John Roberts, argued that this particular case differed from other decisions related to sex discrimination because of the medical implications.
“It seems to me that the medical issues are much more involved than a lot of the cases that you're looking at,” Roberts told Preloger. “If that were true, wouldn’t it make a stronger case for us to leave decisions to our legislative bodies instead of trying to make them ourselves?”
Tennessee Attorney General Matthew Rice argued on behalf of the state and continued to try to distinguish the use of drugs such as testosterone for gender-affirming care from other medical needs.
“These drugs must have a medical purpose,” Rice replied. “all [the plaintiffs’] The argument is based on confusing different medical objectives. ”
The court's three liberal justices slammed the law's implementation and disputed his assertion that the policy focused on health care rather than gender.
“Everything is imbued with sex,” said liberal Justice Elena Kagan. “There may be reasons to think this is an appropriate regulation, and those reasons should be examined and respected, but it would be a stretch to say this is not gender-based.” [and that] If the medical purpose is completely and completely about sex, then it is based on a medical purpose. ”
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed serious concerns about the potential effects of not having access to gender-affirming care for transgender children, including an increased risk of suicide. She gave the example of one of the claimants in the case who detailed how she vomited daily and became almost mute because she could not speak in a voice that reflected her identity.
But conservatives continued to question the treatment's potential harms, including possible infertility and regret in pursuing gender-affirming care. Chase Strangio of the American Civil Liberties Union, who made history Wednesday by becoming the first known transgender person to argue before the Supreme Court, defended the petitioners, arguing that many transgender people receive hormone therapy. However, they maintain their reproductive ability, and pointed out that: Reported rate They are less likely to regret seeking gender-affirming care.
“While Tennessee argues that this gender-based line is justified to protect children, SB1 deprives each of the adolescent plaintiffs of the only treatment to alleviate their long-standing suffering. '' said Strangio.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern that a decision upholding Tennessee's law could overturn other important Equal Protection Clause decisions, such as Loving v. Virginia. In this 1967 case, the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
“I'm concerned that some of the fundamentals of equal protection litigation that are our foundation are being undermined,” Jackson said.
“I share your concerns,” Strangio replied. “If Tennessee can avoid scrutiny by first claiming that biology justifies gender differences in its laws, it would undermine decades of precedent in this court.”
The incident comes as the anti-trans movement gains attention among far-right politicians and their supporters. The result of Donald Trump's successful presidential campaign advertisement Kamala Harris accused her of “making biological males compete with our girls in sports.” The widely shared ad concludes: “Kamala is for them. President Trump is on your side.”
Conservative justices have traditionally been found to side with Republicans in some of the court's most high-profile cases, but at least one recent ruling has given transgender rights advocates optimism. It provides some reason for that view. In the 2020 case Bostock v. Clayton County, conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Roberts joined the court's liberal wing, arguing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. I concluded that there is.
In another worrying sign for transgender rights advocates, Gorsuch declined to take questions during Wednesday's oral argument, raising concerns that he would ultimately side with his conservative colleagues. .
