Medical Treatments for Transgender Minors--Oral argument in Supreme Court

 Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments about the Tennessee ban on transgender treatment for minors.

Supreme Ct. Hears Case on Medical Treatments for Transgender Minors
"The Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Skrmetti, a case on whether Tennessee’s ban on transgender medical treatments for minors violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Tennessee enacted its law in March of 2023, which stated that there was a “compelling interest” to protect minors from physical and emotional harm by banning health care providers from administering hormone/puberty blockers and surgery to minors for transgender purposes. Transgender minors and their families sued the state, and the Justice Department intervened on their behalf, arguing the law discriminated on the basis of sex. A district court then stopped the ban on hormone and puberty blockers, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. The Justice Department then appealed to the Supreme Court. Chase Strangio, who argued on behalf of trans minors and their parents, was the first openly transgender lawyer to argue before the Court. 

Opening statement (text compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning):

"MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, AND MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, THIS CASE IS ABOUT ACCESS TO MEDICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SAFELY PRESCRIBED FOR DECADES TO TREAT MANY CONDITIONS INCLUDING GENDER DYSPHORIA. BUT SB-1 SINGLES OUT AND BANS ONE PARTICULAR USE. IN TENNESSEE THESE MEDICATIONS CAN'T BE PRESCRIBED TO ALLOW A MINOR TO IDENTIFY WITH OR LIVE AS A GENDER INCONSISTENT WITH THE MINOR SEX. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT PARENTS DECIDE IS BEST FOR THEIR CHILDREN. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT PATIENTS WOULD CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF DOCTORS BELIEVE THIS TREATMENT IS ESSENTIAL FOR INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS. SB 1 CATEGORICALLY BANS TREATMENT WHEN AND ONLY WHEN IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE PATIENT'S BIRTH SEX. TENNESSEE SAYS THAT SWEEPING BAN IS JUSTIFIED TO PROTECT ADOLESCENT HEALTH, BUT THE STATE MAINLY ARGUES THAT IT HAD NO OBLIGATION TO JUSTIFY THE LAW AND THAT SB 1 SHOULD BE UPHELD SO LONG AS IT'S NOT WHOLLY IRRATIONAL. THAT'S WRONG. SB 1 REGULATES BY DRAWING SEX-BASED LINES AND DECLARES THAT THOSE LINES ARE DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE MINORS TO APPRECIATE THEIR SEX. THE LAW RESTRICTS MEDICAL CARE ONLY WHEN PROVIDED TO INDUCE PHYSICAL EFFECTS INCONSISTENT WITH BIRTH SEX. SOMEONE ASSIGNED FEMALE AT BIRTH CAN'T RECEIVE MEDICATION TO LIVE AS A MALE, BUT SOMEONE ASSIGNED MALE CAN. IF YOU CHANGE THE INDIVIDUAL SEX, IT CHANGES THE RESULT. THAT'S A SEX CLASSIFICATION FULL STOP, AND A LAW LIKE THAT CAN'T STAND ON BARE RATIONALITY. HERE TENNESSEE MADE NO ATTEMPT TO TAILOR ITS LAW TO ITS STATED HEALTH CONCERNS. RATHER THAN IMPOSE MEASURED GUARDRAILS SB 1 BANS THE CARE OUTRIGHT NO MATTER HOW CRITICAL IT IS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL PATIENT. THAT IS A STARK DEPARTURE OF PEDIATRIC CARE IN ALL OTHER CONTEXT. SB 1 LEAVES THE SAME MEDICATIONS AND MANY OTHERS ENTIRELY UNRESTRICTED WHEN USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE EVEN WHEN THOSE USES PREVENT SIMILAR RISKS. THE SIXTH CIRCUIT NEVER CONSIDERED WHETHER TENNESSEE COULD JUSTIFY THAT SEX-BASED LINE BECAUSE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE REQUIRES MORE, THIS COURT SHOULD REMAND SO THAT SB 1 CAN BE UNDER THE CORRECT STANDARD. I WELCOME THE COURT'S QUESTIONS. 

########

HT: Kim Krawiec

 

Medpage Today summarized the hearings under this headline:

Supreme Court Appears Likely to Uphold Bans on Transgender Care for Minors
— Justices' decision is not expected for several months