• Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Investing
  • Stock
Editor's Pick

Supreme Court to weigh state ban on transgender ‘medical treatments’ for minors

by December 4, 2024
written by December 4, 2024

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a high-profile case involving the right of transgender minors to receive gender transition care, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, in one of the most closely watched, potentially impactful cases slated to come before the high court this year.

The case, United States v. Skrmetti, centers on a Tennessee law that bans gender-transition treatments for adolescents in the state. The law also takes aim at health care providers in Tennessee who continue to provide gender-transition treatments to transgender minors, opening them up to fines, lawsuits and other liability.  

The petitioners in the case are the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which sued to overturn the Tennessee law on behalf of parents of three transgender adolescents, and a Memphis-based doctor who treats transgender patients. The petitioners were also joined by the Biden administration earlier this year under a federal law that allows the administration to intervene in certain cases certified by the attorney general to be of ‘general public importance.’ 

The petitioners argue the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The state has responded by insisting the law does not discriminate based on gender, arguing it sets parameters on age- and use-based restrictions on certain drugs and is therefore not a violation of the Constitution.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court website, the key question posed in the case is ‘whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SBl), which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow ‘a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex’ or to treat ‘purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,’ Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.’

Wednesday’s oral arguments mark the first time the Supreme Court will consider restrictions on puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery for minors, giving the case importance in Tennessee and in other states across the country. 

Tennessee passed its law, Senate Bill 1, in March 2023. But it is just one of at least 25 U.S. states that has banned gender transition care for transgender adolescents, making the case — and Wednesday’s oral arguments — one of the most high-profile cases to be heard this session.  

The oral arguments have been anticipated for months. The controversial case comes at a time in Washington when Republicans will regain control of the White House and both chambers of Congress next month, giving them heavy influence and, some fear, more control over the federal judiciary. 

Here’s what you need to know ahead of Wednesday’s oral arguments.

The petitioners will be represented by U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and Chase Strangio, an ACLU attorney who represented the original parties in the lawsuit.

Strangio, the deputy director for transgender justice for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, will be the first openly transgender person to argue before the Supreme Court.

The respondents in the case, namely the state of Tennessee, will be represented in court by Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice and the state attorney general, Jonathan Skrmetti. 

In a court filing submitted ahead of Wednesday’s oral arguments, Prelogar’s office argued the Tennessee law has a deliberate focus on ‘sex and gender conformity,’ asserting Senate Bill 1 ‘declares that its very purpose is to ‘encourag[e] minors to appreciate their sex’ and to ban treatments ‘that might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex.”

‘That,’ the federal government wrote, ‘is sex discrimination.’

Counsel for the petitioners will argue that the Tennessee law imposes ‘differential treatment based on the sex an individual is assigned at birth,’ triggering a higher level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

They will also argue that upholding the ban will represent a ‘dangerous and discriminatory affront’ to transgender minors not just in Tennessee, but across the country, a point that has been emphasized by Strangio.

The state argued in a court filing that the law ‘contains no sex classification’ warranting the heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Rather, it said, it ‘creates two groups: minors seeking drugs for gender transition and minors seeking drugs for other medical purposes.’

The Supreme Court has determined three different levels of scrutiny that help determine whether a law is permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution: Strict scrutiny, heightened scrutiny and rational basis. The highest level, strict scrutiny, requires a law be passed to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to minimize harm. 

The second level of scrutiny, or ‘heightened scrutiny,’ requires the governmental body to prove its actions further an ‘important government interest’ by using means ‘substantially related to that interest.’ 

The lowest bar, rational basis, is the most deferential of the tests and requires the law only serve a legitimate interest with a ‘rational connection’ to the means and goals of the statute.

Wednesday’s oral arguments will center on whether banning gender transition care for minors violates protections under the Equal Protection Clause, either via gender discrimination or discrimination against their transgender status.

The petitioners in the case will argue that the Tennessee law discriminates against individuals and their right to receive the same medical treatments based on their sex. Under the law, the petitioners argued in their court filing, ‘an adolescent assigned female at birth cannot receive puberty blockers or testosterone to live as a male, but an adolescent assigned male at birth can.’

Separately, they will argue that discriminating against individuals based on their transgender status is also sufficient to trigger higher scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, noting that transgender individuals ‘satisfy all of the hallmarks of a quasi-suspect class,’ including being subject to discrimination, representing a ‘discrete and identifiable minority’ and other components outlined by the Supreme Court, thereby necessitating that heightened scrutiny be applied.

The respondents will argue that Senate Bill 1, places age- and use-based restrictions on certain drugs and, therefore, is not an example of unconstitutional discrimination. 

Further, they will argue that the law easily passes even the test of heightened scrutiny. The state contends it has ‘compelling interests’ to protect the health and safety of minors in the state and ‘in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession.’

U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson, a Trump appointee, granted a preliminary inunction for part of the Tennessee ban in June, siding with the petitioners’ assertion that ‘parents have a fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children, which naturally includes the right of parent[s] to request certain medical treatments on behalf of their children[.]’

He said the ban on most types of gender care for transgender minors would likely not survive the heightened scrutiny test under the Equal Protection Clause, since the same treatments were not banned for their non-transgender peers. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit later overturned the district court’s decision and reinstated the full ban, using the lowest test of rational basis. The petitioners appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed in June to review the case.

The petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to remand the case to the 6th Circuit Court to hear it again, this time using the test of heightened scrutiny.

Strangio has repeatedly stressed the wide-ranging impact the Supreme Court decision could have on ‘countless transgender youth’ of current and future generations and has described the bans as a ‘dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country.’

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on United States v. Skrmetti by July 2025. The Supreme Court typically issues summer decisions on cases argued during the October term.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

previous post
Federal judge accuses President Biden of attempting to ‘rewrite history’ in Hunter Biden pardon
next post
5 wild ways Democrats have embraced the Monty Python strategy of politics

related articles

Trump denounces court’s ‘political’ tariff decision, calls on...

May 30, 2025

President Trump teases ‘last day, but not really’...

May 30, 2025

State Dept says DOGE’s changes will be permanent...

May 30, 2025

Jill Biden should have to answer for ‘cover...

May 29, 2025

DOGE staffing shakeup as Elon Musk hangs up...

May 29, 2025

Hawley urges DOJ probe of Chinese trucking company

May 29, 2025

Flashback: Top five wildest moments from Elon Musk’s...

May 29, 2025

Less than half of DOGE-terminated contracts can be...

May 29, 2025

Sen Ron Johnson suggests he may not run...

May 29, 2025

Justice Department tells American Bar Association it will...

May 29, 2025
Enter Your Information Below To Receive Free Trading Ideas, Latest News, And Articles.


Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!

Latest News

  • Harris launched ‘dark-arts operation’ against opponents for VP spot in 2020, new book claims

    April 9, 2025
  • Frustration at Elon Musk spills over after closed-door House GOP meeting: ‘Fed to the wolves’

    February 25, 2025
  • From Chili’s to burger chains, here are the restaurant industry winners and losers in 2024

    December 16, 2024
  • Does Iran’s hacking of the Trump campaign prove they want Kamala Harris to win the election? Experts weigh in

    September 25, 2024
  • A man once sued by the SEC wins Trump crypto contest to have dinner with the president

    May 21, 2025

Popular Posts

  • 1

    Secret Service admits leaning on ‘state and local partners’ after claim it ignored Trump team’s past requests

    July 21, 2024
  • 2

    Elon and Vivek should tackle US funding for this boondoogle organization and score a multimillion dollar win

    December 4, 2024
  • 3

    Forex Profit Calculator: Maximize Your Trading Potential

    July 10, 2024
  • 4

    Five more House Democrats call on Biden to drop out, third US senator

    July 19, 2024
  • 5

    Biden calls to ‘lower the temperature’ then bashes Trump in NAACP speech

    July 17, 2024

Categories

  • Economy (829)
  • Editor's Pick (4,723)
  • Investing (624)
  • Stock (773)

Latest Posts

  • Biden says ‘anyway’ at least 9 times while trailing off in press conference

    July 12, 2024
  • Trump pressures 4 GOP senators ahead of anti-Canadian tariff vote, accusing them of ‘TDS’

    April 2, 2025
  • Harris hours away from most consequential announcement of her career

    August 5, 2024

Recent Posts

  • Deep State resistance taught Trump he needed to tame bureaucrats

    February 18, 2025
  • Mideast oil powerhouse bans Russian ‘shadow fleet’ vessels that seek to undermine sanctions

    August 14, 2024
  • Graham urges Biden, Israel to take on Iran after hostages killed, calls Harris foreign policy ‘wrecking ball’

    September 1, 2024

Editor’s Pick

  • Elon Musk’s OpenAI bid sparks legal chaos and investor doubts: just as he planned?

    February 12, 2025
  • Biden to hold first public event of the week before flying to beach house

    August 8, 2024
  • How to watch the Fox News – CBS News Vice Presidential Debate Simulcast

    September 30, 2024
  • About us
  • Contacts
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Disclaimer: moneyrisetoday.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

Copyright © 2025 moneyrisetoday.com | All Rights Reserved

Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Investing
  • Stock