The US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard verbal arguments in a landmark case that could define the legal rights of transgender minors seeking gender-affirming medical care.
The case, US v. Skrmetti, challenges a Tennessee law banning the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors, marking the first time the court has directly addressed legislation targeting transgender individuals.
The Biden administration and three families with transgender teenagers are asking the justices to strike down the law, arguing it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Tennessee’s SB1, enacted in 2023, prohibits transgender minors from receiving medical treatments widely endorsed by major American medical associations. However, the law allows these same treatments for minors who are not transgender if prescribed for other medical conditions.
“Put simply, an adolescent assigned female at birth cannot receive puberty blockers or testosterone to live as a male, but an adolescent assigned male at birth can,” the administration stated in its brief to the court.
The plaintiffs include 16-year-old LW and her parents, Brian and Samantha Williams, from Nashville. LW, who has been on hormone therapy for several years, says the treatment has significantly improved her life. “I feel normal now,” she shared in an interview.
Her parents argue that the state’s decision contradicts its previous advocacy for parental rights. “Our state legislature made such a big deal about parents’ rights during COVID, yet they’ve taken away our ability to make medical decisions for our child,” Samantha Williams said.
The state defends the law as a necessary regulation to protect minors from potential long-term risks associated with gender-affirming treatments. Republican lawmakers cite concerns over insufficient scientific evidence and instances of regret among those who transitioned.
“When you look at the totality of the medical research, there is more than enough uncertainty to warrant caution,” said Tennessee Senate GOP Leader Jack Johnson.
However, opponents argue that the law discriminates based on sex and gender identity, violating constitutional protections. David Cole, an attorney for the plaintiffs, emphasised the historical significance of the court’s decision. “There’s no question that, in 25 years, the court will recognize this as sex discrimination. The question is whether they want to write a decision now that will stand or one that will be overturned in the future,” he said.
The medical community largely supports gender-affirming care as a standard practice for transgender youth. Major associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, endorse treatments like puberty blockers as reversible interventions that alleviate gender dysphoria and improve mental health outcomes.
“It all begins and ends with science. This is not about any sort of agenda,” said Dr. Ben Hoffman, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Tennessee’s law aligns with a growing trend across 26 states that have moved to restrict access to gender-affirming care for minors. Critics argue these laws reflect a broader cultural and political divide over transgender rights.
“This case is about much more than medical treatments, It’s about the fundamental rights of transgender people and the scope of state power to regulate their lives”, said Supreme Court litigator, Deepak Gupta.
A federal district court initially blocked SB1, siding with the plaintiffs, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld the law, concluding Tennessee had a “rational basis” for the ban.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, expected by June 2025, will not only impact the lives of thousands of transgender minors but could also shape the legal landscape for how communities and institutions address transgender rights nationwide.
This landmark decision has drawn widespread public attention, with more than 60% of Americans opposing bans on gender-affirming treatments for minors, according to recent polling.
Advocates on both sides agree that the stakes of the case are immense, as it could set a precedent for future legislation and judicial decisions involving transgender individuals.
ALSO READ FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
US: Trump may dismiss 15,000 transgender officers from military — Report
and then