The Supreme Court's Ruling on Tennessee's Transgender Care Law
Background and the Tennessee Law
Enacted in 2023, Tennessee's SB1 law declares a "compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex during puberty." It prohibits doctors from performing certain surgeries and prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender teens, while allowing their use for other purposes like treating early puberty or delayed puberty. Three transgender teens and their parents sued the state officials, arguing that the law violates the Constitution's equal protection guarantee. A federal district court in Nashville determined that SB1 likely violates this right and granted a temporary hold on the ban. However, a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed and upheld the ban, applying a "rational basis" review.The federal government joined the case, relying on a federal law that allows it to do so in equal protection cases. It and the families came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to review the 6th Circuit's decision. The justices granted only the Biden administration's petition for review, but a lawyer for the families will also argue.
The Focus of the Case
As the case reaches the Supreme Court, the focus is on the standard of review the lower courts should have used to determine the law's constitutionality, particularly whether it draws distinctions based on sex. The Biden administration and the families contend that the ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy "explicitly classifies based on sex" and should be subject to heightened scrutiny. They reason that the law distinguishes between medical care based on a patient's sex at birth and point to the Supreme Court's 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision.Transgender individuals make up about 0.5% of adults and 1.4% of teens. The federal government argues that they have historically faced discrimination and that SB1 should be subjected to heightened scrutiny due to their "quasi-suspect" class status. Tennessee counters that the law simply regulates medicine differently, drawing lines between adults and minors and based on the purpose of medical procedures.
The Arguments and Counterarguments
The federal government and the families emphasize that major medical groups support the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy for trans teens. Studies have shown that these treatments can reduce the suicide rate among transgender people. Tennessee insists that SB1 does not classify based on sex but distinguishes between minors' purposes for using the treatments.The state also pushes back against claims of under- and overinclusiveness. Regarding underinclusiveness, it argues that the risks of the drugs differ depending on the purpose. Regarding overinclusiveness, it claims that SB1 leaves open other, less invasive treatments. Both sides agree that the court's ruling could have far-reaching effects beyond the Tennessee law.
Tennessee warns that if the government and families prevail, it could affect other laws restricting access to women's facilities. A decision in the case is expected by summer 2025.