The Supreme Court on Wednesday delved into one of the most significant cases of its term, focusing on Tennessee's ban on transgender-affirming health care for minors. Similar laws have been enacted by other conservative-leaning states, sparking a heated debate. Challengers claim that these bans deprive kids of essential treatment, while the states defend them as safeguarding minors from life-altering decisions.

Key Takeaways from the Arguments

What did key conservative justices say?

During Wednesday's arguments, five out of the six conservatives on the court seemed doubtful about the claim that the ban on gender-affirming care for minors is discriminatory. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett repeatedly questioned the arguments put forth by lawyers challenging the ban. Roberts pondered whether judges should be involved in regulating medical procedures, an area typically left to state lawmakers. Barrett expressed skepticism regarding the administration's argument that the law discriminates based on sex. Notably, Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch remained silent and asked no questions. The court's other three conservatives appeared to support Tennessee, while the three liberals largely backed the challengers. Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized the high risk of suicide among kids with gender dysphoria.

What's the court's track record on the issue?

This litigation marked just the second time the high court has encountered a case that presented a fundamental test of transgender rights. Four years ago, in a case related to LGBTQ+ rights, two conservative justices, Roberts and Gorsuch, joined with the liberals to expand protections for transgender workers. At that time, Barrett was not on the bench and had no prior record on transgender rights. Gorsuch authored the opinion, leaving open the possibility of claims of discrimination in other situations.

What happens next?

The court is not expected to render a decision for several months. The outcome of this case could have immediate implications in the 26 states that have passed similar bans. Supporters of these measures argue that gender-affirming treatments are risky, and the laws protect kids from making hasty decisions. However, challengers contend that many medical interventions carry a certain level of risk, and families should be able to assess these risks against the potential benefits. Chase Strangio, the ACLU attorney representing three families challenging the law, pointed out that the arguments in favor of Tennessee's ban could potentially lead to federal restrictions. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti stated that his state's arguments would still allow each state to establish its own policy.