The debate over gender-affirming care for trans minors will be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court on December 4th. United States vs. Scumetti, This lawsuit challenges Tennessee’s ban on such care. Here’s what you need to know about the case, which will be the first opportunity for the High Court to rule on the issue.
Stay up to date LGBTQ+ News and Politics. Sign up for The Advocate’s email newsletter.
What is the United States v. Scumetti Supreme Court case?
In March 2023, Republican Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed Senate Bill 1 into law. The law prohibits sex-change surgeries, puberty blockers, and hormone treatments for people under 18. The following month, three families with transgender children and a doctor filed a federal lawsuit challenging the law.
The lawsuit was filed by Samantha and Brian Williams of Nashville and their 15-year-old transgender daughter, two other anonymous plaintiff families, and Susan Williams of Memphis. Dr. Lacy. They are represented by Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union and its Tennessee chapter, and the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. The lawsuit was filed in April 2023 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. This incident was known as LW v. Scumetti Until the Biden administration joined it, and it still is. United States vs. Scumetti.
It names Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Scumetti, the Tennessee Department of Health, the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners, and various state officials as defendants.
The lawsuit alleges that the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection and due process guarantees and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits sex discrimination in health care.
“It was incredibly painful to watch my child struggle before she received the life-saving medical care she needed. Now we have a confident, happy daughter who is free and happy. She is now able to be herself and is thriving,” Samantha Williams said in a Lambda Legal-ACLU press release when the lawsuit was filed. “I’m very concerned about what this law means for her. We don’t want to leave Tennessee, but if this law is enacted, we will have to go to state regularly to get the medical care our daughter desperately needs.” Either we would have to leave, or we would have to uproot our entire lives and leave Tennessee completely. No family should have to make a choice like this.”
What’s at stake for gender-affirming care?
“Our legal challenge is limited to Tennessee’s prohibition, which covers hormonal treatments such as hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers, and does not involve surgical treatments,” the ACLU explained. I am doing it. Websitebecause genital surgery is rarely performed on minors.
“Tennessee’s ban, like other bills passed by politicians in recent years, is similar to other bills passed by politicians in recent years, in which Tennessee provides for a person’s gender if it is provided in a manner that is deemed to be “consistent with” a person’s sex assigned at birth. “Specifically authorizes the administration of these same hormones,” the ACLU continues. “This means, for example, that a doctor can prescribe estrogen to a cisgender teenage girl for a clinical diagnosis, but cannot do the same for a transgender girl who has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. .”
“This ban denies transgender youth the same treatment that is generally provided to cisgender youth,” said Sasha Butchart, Nonbinary Transgender Rights Project Director at Lambda Legal. “This violates the U.S. Constitution,” the group said in a recent Q&A. Website. “Medical decisions should be made appropriately by families and their doctors, and politicians should not intervene in these personal and private discussions.”
The ACLU warns that a ruling upholding the law could have implications for other types of medical care. “States with bans like Tennessee have relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s opinion when making arguments for transgender people and their families. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization; something turned upside down Roe vs. Wade and allowed states to ban abortion,” the group said. “USA vs. Scumetti This will be an important test of how far the court is willing to reach. dobbs Allow states to ban other medical treatments. The court’s decision could be a stepping stone to further restricting access to abortion, in vitro fertilization, and contraception. ”
“I want people to understand that this issue does not begin and end with the government intervening in the decision-making of transgender families,” said ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, who will argue before the Supreme Court. said. advocate Interview. “This is part of a broader agenda to limit people’s ability to access the medical care they need to make the decisions that are right for them.” He will be the first transgender person to argue in court.
“We anticipate a variety of outcomes in the final judgment,” Butchart said. “A ruling in favor of the families would send the case back to the lower court to apply the appropriate standard of review to unfair gender-based classification. If the court upholds the ban, Tennessee law will remain in effect. As a result, trans minors will be disqualified from receiving benefits.” therapy, green-lighting similar bans already enacted in other states, and potentially leading to more states passing similar restrictive laws and perhaps even stricter bans. Even if a judgment is reached, serious action may be taken. Affects how much deference courts will give to medical bans to treat gender dysphoria. ”
“Beyond this case, the Supreme Court may soon take up other issues impacting transgender rights,” Butchart added. “For example, West Virginia and North Carolina have recently been cited by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in two successful cases brought by Lambda Legal that specifically challenged states’ policies denying medical care to transgender people. asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its decision in North Carolina Transgender State Employees and West Virginia. Transgender Medicaid recipients in California also asked the court to reconsider another decision in the Fourth Circuit, by Lambda Legal, ACLU, ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley LLP. Circuit successfully challenges West Virginia law prohibiting student participation in interscholastic athletics There are many at stake for transgender and non-binary people in the upcoming lawsuits, and Lambda Legal is committed to fighting back against these attacks on behalf of our transgender and non-binary communities. We work 24 hours a day for this purpose.”
How did United States v. Scumetti reach the Supreme Court?
U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson issued a preliminary injunction in June 2023, blocking enforcement of the law. However, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit lifted it in September 2023. The plaintiffs are therefore asking the court to reconsider the Sixth Circuit’s decision.
On behalf of the Biden administration, Attorney General Elizabeth Prelauger highlighted the “grave uncertainty” facing transgender youth and their families due to conflicting lower court rulings and emphasized the need for court intervention. did. “This court’s opinion is urgently needed to resolve whether these bans are discriminatory,” she said in the government’s petition to the court.
The High Court announced it would hear the case in June.
What will the court rule?
That’s anyone’s guess. The court gave them a big victory. LGBTQ+ people in 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County; The court ruled 6-3 that workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is sex discrimination and is therefore prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first appointee to the Supreme Court, wrote the decision. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, another conservative, and the court’s liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer. . Those opposed were conservatives Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas.
But now the composition of the court has changed. Ginsburg died in 2020 and was replaced by conservative Amy Coney Barrett. Breyer will retire in 2022 and be replaced by another liberal, Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first justice appointed by President Joe Biden.
And while Gorsuch and Roberts were on board; bostock As the ruling showed, conservatives now appear to have had their back. Dobbs judgment, 6-3 presidential immunity verdict; 303 Creative Services v. Elenis.This is also 6-3. The latter argued that Colorado’s LGBTQ-inclusive anti-discrimination law violated the web designer’s free speech rights, meaning the designer intended to create a wedding website aimed only at straight couples. the majority argued.
However, many people are on the plaintiff’s side. In addition to their legal team, they have numerous friend-of-the-court briefs to support their cases. Such briefs are filed by parties who are not directly involved in the case but wish to give their opinion. They come from Democratic and Republican politicians, Planned Parenthood, the American Bar Association, American Psychological Association, National Women’s Law Center, American Academy of Pediatrics, transgender youth, and more. Of course, briefs supporting Tennessee have also been submitted. Then we’ll see who convinces the judges.
Source: Advocate.com – www.advocate.com
