In a pivotal case with wide-reaching implications, U.S. Supreme Court justices appear inclined to uphold Tennessee’s controversial ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. This move comes as conservative justices express support for the state’s law, which bars treatments such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy for individuals under 18 who experience gender dysphoria.
The Court’s 6-3 conservative majority listened to arguments from U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, which is appealing a lower court’s ruling that upheld Tennessee’s ban. The state law, enacted in 2023, prohibits healthcare professionals from administering medical interventions to transgender minors, citing potential risks and irreversible consequences of such treatments. The law has ignited a broader debate about the rights of transgender youth and the role of states in regulating medical care.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled their openness to letting states like Tennessee make such decisions, questioning whether the federal courts should intervene in what they consider a complex and evolving issue. Kavanaugh referred to the fact that some European countries, such as Sweden and England, have recently limited gender-affirming treatments for minors, suggesting that this “yellow light” raises serious questions about the safety and efficacy of these treatments.
On the other side, liberal justices, including Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, expressed concern over the discriminatory nature of the law. Justice Kagan pointed to what she perceived as the law’s underlying intention: “We want boys to be boys, and we want girls to be girls,” she said. Justice Sotomayor highlighted the high rates of suicide and mental distress among transgender youth, raising alarms about the potential harm this ban could cause.
At the heart of the case is the constitutional issue of whether Tennessee’s law violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Prelogar argued that the law discriminates based on sex and transgender status, denying minors access to medical care that could alleviate their gender dysphoria. “This law ignores the decisions of parents, doctors, and patients,” she said, stressing that gender-affirming treatments have been used safely for decades to treat a variety of medical conditions.
However, Tennessee’s Solicitor General, Matthew Rice, defended the law as a necessary measure to protect minors from what he called “risky, unproven medical interventions.” He compared the use of hormones and puberty blockers for gender-affirming purposes to the use of morphine in pain management, asserting that the two are fundamentally different in intent and effect.
If the Supreme Court sides with Tennessee, the ruling could embolden other states to pass similar laws restricting transgender rights, particularly in areas like sports participation and access to public facilities. Already, 24 states have enacted policies targeting gender-affirming care, and this case could set a precedent for future legal battles.
In response, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has taken up the cause of transgender minors challenging the law. Chase Strangio, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, made history as the first openly transgender attorney to argue before the Supreme Court. He stressed the growing challenges for transgender people in the current political climate, pointing to rising discrimination and political exclusion.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling by the end of June 2025. The outcome will not only determine the fate of Tennessee’s law but could have a profound effect on transgender rights nationwide, potentially shaping the legal landscape for years to come. As the justices deliberate, the stakes have never been higher for transgender individuals and their families across the United States.
Related topics: