Supreme Court to Hear Landmark Case on Constitutionality of Tennessee's Transgender Medical Care Ban

Nashville, Tennessee United States of America
The Biden administration and major US medical groups support their case, arguing that denying these treatments to transgender minors is a violation of parental rights and necessary care for children.
The Supreme Court's decision to take up the case signals its willingness to delve into another polarizing social issue.
The Supreme Court will hear a case challenging Tennessee's law banning certain medical treatments for transgender minors.
Three transgender teenagers, their parents, and a physician have argued that the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Supreme Court to Hear Landmark Case on Constitutionality of Tennessee's Transgender Medical Care Ban

The United States Supreme Court has announced that it will hear a case challenging the constitutionality of Tennessee's law banning certain medical treatments for transgender minors. The case, United States v. Skrmetti, marks the first time the justices will consider the issue of statewide bans on transgender medical care.

The challenge comes as a wave of Republican-led state legislatures have pushed to curtail transgender rights in recent years. These efforts include legislation targeting gender-transition care and regulations on other aspects of life, such as bathroom use and sports participation.

Three Tennessee transgender teenagers, their parents, and a physician who provides transgender care have argued that the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating on the basis of sex. The Biden administration and major US medical groups support their case, arguing that denying these treatments to transgender minors is a violation of parental rights and necessary care for children.

The Supreme Court's decision to take up the case signals its willingness to delve into another polarizing social issue. It comes as the justices have yet to rule on some of the biggest cases for this term, including emergency abortion care, disinformation on social media, and the scope of presidential power.

The Biden administration had asked the justices to intervene after a federal appeals court upheld Tennessee's ban. The law prohibits three types of transgender medical care for minors: puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender-transition surgeries.

In their petition to the court, Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote that the law bans transgender medical care but leaves it unrestricted if prescribed for any other purpose. She argued that this inflicts profound harm on transgender adolescents and their families by denying appropriate and necessary treatment for a serious medical condition.

The justices are expected to hear oral arguments in the case during their next term, which typically begins on the first Monday in October. No date has been set yet for oral argument.



Confidence

85%

Doubts
  • It is unclear what the outcome of the Supreme Court case will be.
  • The article does not provide specific details about the three types of transgender medical care banned in Tennessee.

Sources

98%

  • Unique Points
    • The US Supreme Court will review a lawsuit challenging a Tennessee law banning hormone therapy and puberty blockers for children under age 18.
    • Three Tennessee transgender teenagers, their parents, and a physician who provides transgender care allege the 2023 Tennessee ban violates the US constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law by discriminating on the basis of sex.
    • The Biden administration and major US medical groups support their case, arguing that the law prohibits transgender individuals from accessing drugs and therapies available to other adolescents with medical need, and that it is a violation of parental right to access necessary care for their children.
    • US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar claims the Tennessee law inflicts profound harm on transgender adolescents and their families by denying appropriate and necessary treatment for a serious medical condition.
  • Accuracy
    • This marks the first time the current nine Supreme Court justices will consider transgender care restrictions.
    • Three Tennessee transgender teenagers, their parents, and a physician who provides transgender care allege the 2023 Tennessee ban violates the US constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law by discriminating on the basis of sex.
    • The Biden administration and major US medical groups support their case, arguing that the law prohibits transgender individuals from accessing drugs and therapies available to other adolescents with medical need, and that it is a violation of parental right to access necessary care for their children.
    • US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar claims the Tennessee law inflicts profound harm on transgender adolescents and their families by denying appropriate and necessary treatment for a serious medical condition.
    • Lawyers for the state of Tennessee argue that the transgender law reflects the will of elected lawmakers and addresses a pressing public concern, aiming to ensure minors receive treatments only after fully understanding their lifelong consequences or when science is developed further.
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

97%

  • Unique Points
    • The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of state bans on gender-affirming care for transgender minors.
    • Gender dysphoria, the unease a person may have because their assigned gender and gender identity don’t match, has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts.
    • At least 14 Democratic-controlled states have adopted laws intended to protect access to gender-affirming care.
  • Accuracy
    • Gender-affirming care includes a range of medical and mental health services to support a person’s gender identity.
    • The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Tennessee case in the term that starts later this year
    • Three Tennessee transgender teenagers, their parents, and a physician who provides transgender care allege the 2023 Tennessee ban violates the US constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law by discriminating on the basis of sex.
    • The Biden administration and major US medical groups support their case, arguing that the law prohibits transgender individuals from accessing drugs and therapies available to other adolescents with medical need, and that it is a violation of parental right to access necessary care for their children.
    • In 2020, a six-justice majority in the court ruled that federal law prohibits discrimination against transgender employees.
    • Amy Coney Barrett replaced Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, potentially shifting its balance.
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

99%

  • Unique Points
    • The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to Tennessee’s law banning certain medical treatments for transgender minors.
    • The Biden administration has argued that the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because it frames the prohibition in explicitly sex-based terms.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

83%

  • Unique Points
    • The decision, expected next term, will determine the fate of laws in more than two dozen states that restrict or criminalize transgender minors’ access to health care.
    • There is a chance that the Supreme Court could issue a surprise decision mandating equality for trans Americans and their families but it appears more likely that they will greenlight bans on gender-affirming care for minors.
    • The ruling will establish whether laws targeting the rights of transgender children and adults are constitutionally suspect.
    • U.S. v. Skrmetti is a challenge to a Tennessee law that bars health care professionals from providing certain kinds of medicines to minors, specifically puberty-suppressing drugs and cross-sex hormone therapy.
    • Tennessee’s ban was part of a spate of legislation promoted by Republicans to mandate their narrow definition of gender by erasing transgender people’s existence.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (35%)
    The article provides a clear and detailed explanation of the case at hand and its implications for transgender rights. It also discusses the different interpretations of anti-trans legislation as it relates to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. However, there are no direct quotes from the author that demonstrate deceptive practices as outlined in the rules.
    • But a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit shot down their claims by a 2–1 vote, finding no violation of the 14th Amendment.
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (80%)
    The author expresses a clear bias towards transgender rights and against states that restrict or criminalize transgender minors' access to gender-affirming care. He uses language that depicts these laws as 'draconian' and 'devastating' for transgender people, implying that they are unjust and harmful.
    • It is possible, though, to make the case that five justices may see the unconstitutional foundations of Tennessee’s law for what it is: discrimination against transgender people that is inherently rooted in sex-based bias.
      • There is cause for some very cautious optimism. In 2020’s Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court ruled that 'it is impossible to discriminate against a person' for being transgender 'without discriminating against that individual based on sex.'
        • The ruling will establish whether laws targeting the rights of transgender children and adults are constitutionally suspect.
          • These judges have seized upon these passages to Dobbs-ify the law of equality, refusing to protect transgender rights because they did not exist in the 18th and 19th centuries. And this Supreme Court is disinclined toward respecting, let alone expanding, LGBTQ+ rights.
            • The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will decide whether states have the constitutional authority to prohibit gender-affirming care for minors. Its decision, expected next term, will determine the fate of laws in more than two dozen states that severely restrict or even criminalize transgender minors’ access to health care.
              • Yet other courts have reached the opposite conclusion, often fueled by the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022’s Dobbs decision. In Dobbs, the court warned against the acknowledgment of any constitutional right that is not 'deeply rooted' in the nation’s 'history and tradition.' It also arguably cut back the equal protection clause’s protections against sex discrimination, narrowing the definition of gender-based discrimination.
              • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication
              • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication