Supreme Court upholds Tennessee's ban on medical care for transgender youth

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law barring transgender medical care for minors such as puberty blockers and hormone treatments.

SCOTUS Blog explained that in the 119-page decision, the court argued that the law is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause and satisfies rational basis review."

Chief Justice John Roberts read the opinion upon the announcement. The last paragraph of his ruling said that this "case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound."

Roberts said that the court's role is "only to ensure that" the law "does not violate" the equal protection clause. "Having concluded that it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process."

Elena Kagan wrote a separate dissent echoing some of the concerns Roberts had.

In the full dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that Tennessee's bill, SB1, "warrants heightened judicial scrutiny."

"I take no view on how SB1 would fare under heightened scrutiny, and therefore do not join Part V. The record evidence here is extensive, complex, and disputed, and the Court of Appeals (because it applied only rational-basis review) never addressed the relevant issues," she wrote.

"[T]he majority subjects a law that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere rational-basis review. By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent," she added.

Explaining the ruling on MSNBC, University of Michigan Assistant Professor of Law Leah Litman explained that it means states now have a pathway to restrict gender affirming care for transgender minors.

"In addition to concluding that this law does not discriminate on the basis of sex and trigger heightened careful scrutiny for that reason. The court also said that a law restricting gender affirming care and treatment for gender dysphoria does not discriminate on the basis of gender identity, does not discriminate against trans individuals as trans individuals," Litman said.

She noted that portion of the law alarmed her "because in order to reach it, the court had to rely on some very outdated equal protection cases that said, state laws that discriminate against pregnant individuals don't discriminate on the basis of sex because even though the group harmed includes only women in that case, and here includes only transgender individuals, the group of individuals who can still obtain gender affirming care for other reasons, like the congenital diseases that Lisa [Rubin] mentioned, includes both trans and non-trans individuals. And the concern with that logic is that it allows states to enact laws that burden only the transgender community, and seems to invite them to create more of those laws."

See that clip below or at the link here.

- YouTubeyoutu.be