On December 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing a case about transgender affirming care for minors. US v. Skrmetti is a case about whether a state government can prohibit medical treatment such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender transitioning surgeries for transgender minors. The bill, originating in Tennessee in 2023, was to bar gender-affirming care to minors. U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson ultimately ruled against the ban arguing it violated the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment.
The argument of the petitioners, represented by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, is that the bill is a violation of the 14th Amendment because it discriminates against transgender individuals by denying medical treatment they believe is necessary. Tennessee, represented by Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, submits the law is necessary to protect minors from irreversible damage as a result of these surgeries. He argues that, just as in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, the state should be free to make healthcare decisions in the best interest of its citizens.
AG Skrmetti writes in the respondent’s brief that there is a difference between minors seeking drugs for gender transition and minors seeking drugs for other medical purposes. He points to Washington v. Gluckberg to explain how the Court has always allowed states to intervene in essential public health practices as presented in this case. He also argues the practice of transition intervention in minors is a recent experimental practice that is considered dangerous in many countries.
CWA submitted an amicus brief arguing the law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The brief states in part:
Laws protecting children from novel, sterilizing gender transition drugs and surgeries are not constitutionally suspect. These laws do not discriminate based on sex, for they apply equally to males and females: no minor may be subjected to these interventions. That some of these drugs are used for other purposes in minors does not show discrimination based on sex, but differentiation based on treatment—which does not give rise to heightened scrutiny. Ignoring this difference in use violates this Court’s precedent requiring comparison of similarly situated classes. Here, boys or girls—and minors of any gender identity—could seek regulated transitioning interventions, so the statute does not classify based on sex or gender identity.
This issue is not a new issue; it has been argued multiple times in courts in Kentucky, Florida, and Alabama, among others, but this will be the first time it will be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court.
CWA will be rallying in front of the Supreme Court on the day of oral arguments and invites those of you in the area to come and pray with us for this important case.