Conservative Justices Signal Support for Tennessee’s Gender-Affirming Care Ban
The conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed support for a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. This case, part of a broader culture war over transgender rights, could influence similar laws across the country.
The court heard arguments in an appeal by President Joe Biden’s administration challenging the law, which prohibits treatments such as puberty blockers and hormones for individuals under 18 experiencing gender dysphoria. Tennessee is one of 24 states with similar laws targeting transgender individuals.
Conservative Justices Highlight Policy Debate
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on the ongoing debate among medical experts and policymakers about the risks and benefits of gender-affirming treatments for minors.
“Doesn’t that make a stronger case for us to leave those determinations to the legislative bodies?” Roberts asked Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration. Kavanaugh pointed to countries like England and Sweden scaling back such treatments, describing it as “a pretty heavy yellow light, if not red light, for this court.”
Prelogar argued that Tennessee’s law discriminates based on sex and transgender status, violating the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. She emphasized that these medications have long been safely prescribed for various medical conditions, but Tennessee bans them specifically when they address gender dysphoria.
Liberal Justices Question Discrimination
Liberal justices expressed concern about the law’s discriminatory intent and its impact on transgender minors. Justice Elena Kagan questioned Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice, suggesting the law’s purpose seemed rooted in rejecting the validity of transitioning youth. Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted the mental health risks faced by transgender minors, including high suicide rates.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson drew parallels between the arguments supporting Tennessee’s law and those once used to justify bans on interracial marriage, warning against undermining foundational equal-protection principles.
Rice defended the law, claiming it aims to protect minors from “risky, unproven medical interventions” with potentially irreversible consequences. He compared the restricted use of these treatments for gender dysphoria to their permitted use for other medical conditions, arguing the law targets medical purpose rather than discrimination.
Broader Implications for Transgender Rights
A ruling in favor of Tennessee could strengthen the legal standing of other state laws restricting transgender rights, including those governing bathroom access and sports participation. The case also brought ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, the first openly transgender lawyer to argue before the Supreme Court, into the spotlight.
Strangio warned of growing political challenges for transgender people, emphasizing the exclusion they face under laws like Tennessee’s. He argued that the court’s decision could have far-reaching implications for the rights of transgender individuals in the U.S.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling by the end of June.
