The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 18 scheduled oral argument in the federal government’s challenge to a Tennessee law that bans puberty blockers and other medical services for minors who identify as transgender.
The hearing in United States v. Skrmetti will take place on Dec. 4, the high court announced. Respondent Jonathan Skrmetti is the attorney general of Tennessee.
Several states have enacted legislation regarding persons who identify as transgender, encompassing participation in school sports, use of gender-specific bathrooms, and drag shows.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in the petition that the state legislation violates the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The problem with the Tennessee law is that it “does not merely ensure informed consent or otherwise regulate the covered treatments” but “categorically forbids them ... in explicitly sex-based terms,” she wrote.
The affected treatments are banned if they are prescribed for the purpose of enabling a minor “to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat discomfort associated with a conflict between the minor’s sex and asserted identity, according to the petition.
But at the same time, the legislation doesn’t affect treatments if they are prescribed “for any other purpose.” This means, for instance, that a male teenager can be prescribed testosterone but a female teenager cannot, Prelogar wrote in the petition.
“The Court realizes that today’s decision will likely stoke the already controversial fire regarding the rights of transgender individuals in American society on the one hand, and the countervailing power of states to control certain activities within their borders and to use that power to protect minors,” the judge wrote.
Richardson determined that Tennessee’s ban was unconstitutional. The court held that the statute violated parents’ “fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children.”
A divided panel of the Sixth Circuit disagreed and reversed. The circuit court overturned the injunction in July 2023 and held that the state’s appeal against the injunction was likely to succeed.
The circuit court said the problem with the injunction was that it affected millions of residents of the state, instead of only the nine individuals who brought the original legal complaint.
“A court order that goes beyond the injuries of a particular plaintiff to enjoin government action against nonparties exceeds the norms of judicial power. Even if courts may in some instances wield such power, the district court likely abused its discretion by deploying it here,” the circuit court ruled.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the case by June 2025.
