麻豆精品

Explore

Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Prohibition on Gender Affirming Care for Minors

GOP lawmakers weigh: a 'proud day for Tennessee,' a statement by the Tennessee House Republican Caucus said.

Transgender rights opponents and a supporter rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices hear arguments in a case on transgender health rights on December 04, 2024 in Washington, DC, where the Supreme Court heard arguments in US v. Skrmetti, a case about Tennessee鈥檚 law banning gender-affirming care for minors and if it violates the Constitution鈥檚 equal protection guarantee. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 麻豆精品 Newsletter

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a potential landmark decision, upheld Tennessee鈥檚 law prohibiting gender affirming care for minors, saying children who seek the treatment don鈥檛 qualify as a protected class.

In United States v. Skrmetti, the high court overturning a lower court鈥檚 finding that the restrictions violate the constitutional rights of children seeking puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria. The U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the district court鈥檚 decision and sent it to the high court.

The court鈥檚 three liberal justices dissented, writing that the court had abandoned transgender children and their families to 鈥減olitical whims.鈥

Tennessee lawmakers passed the legislation in 2023, leading to a lawsuit argued before the Supreme Court last December. The federal government, under the Biden administration, took up the case for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and three transgender teens, their families and a Memphis doctor who challenged the law, but the U.S. Department of Justice under President Donald Trump dropped its opposition.

In its ruling, the court said that the plaintiffs argued that Senate Bill 1 鈥渨arrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications.鈥 But the court found that neither of the classifications considered, those based on age and medical use, are determined on sex.

鈥淩ather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor鈥檚 sex,鈥 the ruling states.

The ruling says the application of the law 鈥渄oes not turn on sex,鈥 either, because it doesn鈥檛 prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing it for minors of the opposite sex.

The House Republican Caucus issued a statement saying, 鈥淭his is a proud day for the Volunteer State and for all who believe in protecting the innocence and well-being of America鈥檚 children. Tennessee House Republicans are pleased by the court鈥檚 courage to stand firm against ideology that denies biological reality. The sterilization and disfigurement of children will no longer be normalized. As we celebrate the precedent set by this decision, we remain committed to leading the nation in safeguarding the health, safety and future of all children.鈥

Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, who sponsored the bill, said he is grateful the court ruled that states hold the authority to protect children from 鈥渋rreversible medical procedures.鈥

鈥淭he simple message the Supreme Court has sent the world is 鈥榚nough is enough,’鈥 Johnson said in a statement.

The Tennessee Equality Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group, expressed dismay at the decision: 鈥淲e are profoundly disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 decision to side with the Tennessee legislature鈥檚 anti-transgender ideology and further erode the rights of transgender children and their families and doctors. We are grateful to the plaintiffs, families, and the ACLU for fighting on behalf of more than across the nation.鈥

The group said gender-affirming care saves lives and is supported by medical groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association.

The court also rejected plaintiffs鈥 argument that the law enforces 鈥渁 government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex.鈥 

The court found that laws that classify people on the basis of sex require closer scrutiny if they involve 鈥渋mpermissible stereotypes.鈥 But if the law鈥檚 classifications aren鈥檛 covertly or overtly based on sex, heightened review by the court isn鈥檛 required unless the law is motivated by 鈥渋nvidious discriminatory purpose.鈥

鈥淎nd regardless, the statutory findings on which SB1 is premised do not themselves evince sex-based stereotyping,鈥 the ruling says.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: [email protected].

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 麻豆精品鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.

Republish This Article

We want our stories to be shared as widely as possible 鈥 for free.

Please view 麻豆精品's republishing terms.





On 麻豆精品 Today