On October 11, the Supreme Court will hear a crucial case, United States v. Skrmetti, regarding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth. The heart of the debate is whether this ban violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, which prohibits sex discrimination. Tennessee’s law restricts access to puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy for trans youth, while cisgender youth can access these treatments for other medical conditions. The Department of Justice, Lambda Legal, and the American Civil Liberties Union argue that this law discriminates against trans youth and their families. They point out that Tennessee’s law sets age- and use-based limits on such treatments, targeting trans youth specifically.

The case has implications beyond Tennessee. Twenty-six states have enacted laws restricting gender-affirming care for trans youth. Lower courts have provided mixed rulings, with district courts often blocking these bans using a higher legal standard called "heightened scrutiny, " while appeals courts often overturn these decisions. The Supreme Court’s ruling could provide much-needed clarity on the legality of these bans.

Tennessee argues that its law does not specifically target trans youth, despite acknowledging it limits access to gender-affirming care. The law has been challenged since it was passed in March 2023, with the ACLU filing a lawsuit on behalf of a trans teen and two other families. The Department of Justice later joined the suit. The district court initially blocked the ban, but the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned this decision.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Tennessee, it could set a precedent that hinders protections against sex discrimination in medical care. Conversely, if the court applies "heightened scrutiny" as district courts have, it would affirm that bans on trans health care are unconstitutional. The outcome of this case can shape the future of trans youth health care and have broader implications for sex discrimination cases and health care rights overall.

Chase Strangio, an ACLU lawyer, highlights the philosophical aspect of the case. He notes that Tennessee's law reflects a view of normativity and gender conformity, aiming to force individuals to live according to societal expectations of their assigned sex at birth. The case comes at a critical time for trans rights in the U. S. , with many states passing restrictive laws and a future presidential administration promising to limit gender-affirming care.

Harleigh Walker, a 17-year-old trans girl from Alabama, feels betrayed by her state's law banning gender-affirming care. She has had to travel 200 miles to continue her treatment and is worried about the Supreme Court’s decision. Her story exemplifies the challenges faced by many trans youth across the U. S.

Legal experts and medical professionals worry that a ruling against the plaintiffs could have widespread negative implications, affecting not only trans youth but also health care overall. Advocates fear that it could make it harder for trans adults to access care and raise questions about the future of legal challenges around sex discrimination.

Medical professionals highlight that gender-affirming care is evidence-based and tailored to each patient. However, state restrictions have created a culture of fear, forcing families to travel and medical professionals to leave states with such bans. The impact on youth’s mental health is significant, with sleep issues, anxiety, and academic decline reported.

Morissa Ladinsky, a pediatrician, emphasizes that gender-affirming care is individualized and carefully delivered. However, states are losing medical professionals due to these restrictions.

Supreme Court Battles Over Trans Youth Health Care Rights

Actions