The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a pivotal case challenging Tennessee’s 2023 ban on gender-affirming care for minors to include hormone treatments and puberty blockers. The court will decide whether the law violates the Equal Protection Clause, marking its first major examination of transgender rights under constitutional law.
The Tennessee law, SB 1, prohibits minors from receiving puberty blockers and hormone therapy for gender dysphoria. The state argues these treatments are experimental and claims a “compelling interest” in protecting children who lack the maturity to make irreversible decisions. However, the law allows these same treatments for cisgender minors addressing congenital defects or early puberty. Opponents argue the law constitutes unconstitutional sex discrimination and targets transgender youth unfairly.
SB 1 was initially blocked in June 2023 by a federal judge, who ruled the law likely violated the Constitution under heightened scrutiny, a legal standard requiring states to show a significant interest narrowly served by the law. A federal appeals court reversed the decision, applying the lower rational basis review standard, which the Supreme Court will now examine.
The Biden administration, alongside transgender youth and their families, argues that the law reinforces harmful stereotypes and fails to meet constitutional standards. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar has called for heightened scrutiny, asserting that transgender individuals meet the criteria for legal protections as a quasi-suspect class.
Tennessee, backed by conservative groups, defends the law as neutral and not based on sex discrimination. State attorneys warn that granting heightened protections to transgender individuals could undermine women’s rights in areas like sports and facilities access.
Conservatives have constantly voiced their concern for making gender-affirming care available to youth. Without the emotional, mental, and physical maturity to make an irreversible and life-altering decision, parents, lawmakers, and advocacy groups alike are urging SCOTUS to uphold SB 1.
SCOTUS previously sided with the state of Idaho, allowing the state to temporarily ban gender-affirming care for minors while other lawsuits were pending. It is still unknown how the court will weigh in on this issue.
The case holds broader implications for anti-transgender laws nationwide, including restrictions on bathrooms, sports participation, and pronoun use. The court’s ruling, expected by July, will set a critical precedent for legal battles on transgender rights in the U.S.
This is a developing story.
