Supreme Court appears divid­ed over state bans on gen­der tran­si­tion ‘treat­ments’ for minors

The Supreme Court appeared divid­ed Wednes­day over the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of state laws ban­ning gen­der-affirm­ing med­ical care for minors, a polit­i­cal­ly charged issue deal­ing with trans­gen­der rights. The jus­tices heard near­ly two-and-a-half hours of tense oral argu­ments over a chal­lenge to a Ten­nessee law.

At issue is whether the equal pro­tec­tion clause — which requires the gov­ern­ment to treat sim­i­lar­ly sit­u­at­ed peo­ple the same — pro­hibits states from allow­ing med­ical providers to deliv­er puber­ty block­ers and hor­mones to facil­i­tate a minor’s tran­si­tion to anoth­er sex.

The three jus­tices appoint­ed by for­mer Pres­i­dent Trump could be the key to decid­ing the social­ly divi­sive ques­tion. Jus­tices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Bar­rett asked tough ques­tions of both sides, and Jus­tice Neil Gor­such did not speak dur­ing the marathon pub­lic ses­sion.

Jus­tice Samuel Ali­to cit­ed “over­whelm­ing evi­dence” from some med­ical stud­ies that cit­ed the neg­a­tive con­se­quences from teens that under­went gen­der-affirm­ing care. But Jus­tice Sonia Sotomay­or coun­tered with evi­dence from under­age indi­vid­u­als that were denied treat­ment to address gen­der dys­pho­ria.

SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRANSGENDER YOUTH TREATMENTS IN LANDMARK CASE

Chief Jus­tice John Roberts vot­ed in the major­i­ty in a 2020 case favor­ing trans­gen­der employ­ees who claim work­place dis­crim­i­na­tion. That opin­ion was authored by Gor­such. But in Wednes­day’s argu­ments, Roberts sug­gest­ed state leg­is­la­tures – rather than courts – were in a bet­ter posi­tion to decide such ques­tions over reg­u­lat­ing med­ical pro­ce­dures.

TED CRUZ, GOP LAWMAKERS URGE SCOTUS TO END ‘MEXICO’S ASSAULT ON OUR SECOND AMENDMENT’

“The Con­sti­tu­tion leaves that ques­tion to the peo­ple’s rep­re­sen­ta­tives, rather than to nine peo­ple, none of whom is a doc­tor,” Roberts told ACLU lawyer Chase Stran­gio, who was rep­re­sent­ing trans­gen­der minors, par­ents and a doc­tor. Stran­gio is the first open­ly trans­gen­der attor­ney to argue a case before the Supreme Court.

He appeared along­side the U.S. solic­i­tor gen­er­al, rep­re­sent­ing the Biden admin­is­tra­tion in oppos­ing the law in Ten­nessee, one of about two dozen with sim­i­lar bans. Trump, who takes office again next month as pres­i­dent, had promised in his re-elec­tion cam­paign to imple­ment cer­tain pol­i­cy changes that would affect trans­gen­der indi­vid­u­als across var­i­ous sec­tors.

A rul­ing is expect­ed by late June 2025.

The case is U.S. v. Skrmet­ti (23–477).