The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Wednesday in a case that could shape the way gender-affirming health care is provided in the U.S. — specifically for minors.
The case in question comes from Tennessee, where the state banned medical care such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery for transgender minors regardless of parental consent and recommendations from a health care provider.
Tennessee’s ban, as it was passed, would require transgender minors who already received gender-affirming care to stop their treatments within nine months of the law’s effective date as well as establish a path of legal action against medical professionals who provide the treatments.
RELATED STORY | Ohio governor signs bill limiting bathroom use by transgender students
Shortly after the state’s legislation passed the ban in 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of three families with transgender youths and a Memphis-based medical doctor who wanted to block the ban from going into effect. The U.S. Justice Department later joined in opposition to the law.
The plaintiffs argue that Tennessee’s ban violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against trans youth on the basis of sex.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has said the law is meant to protect minors from harm in the state. In the lower courts, he claimed that there is uncertainty around the risks and benefits of transition care for minors.
RELATED STORY | Supreme Court will take up state bans on gender-affirming care for minors
Over half of the states in the U.S. have enacted some type of ban on gender-affirming care for minors to date. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case US v. Skirmetti could have implications across the country.
If the Supreme Court rules that Tennessee’s ban is unconstitutional, then similar bans passed by other states could also be deemed unconstitutional. But if the high court affirms that laws prohibiting healthcare for transgender minors do not violate the equal protection clause, then those bans could remain in place.
