SCOTUS to Hear Tennesse Gender-Reassignment Ban

Improve the News Foundation -
0:00
/1861

Facts

  • The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Monday agreed to hear US v. Skrmetti, a case involving a challenge to a Tennessee law banning gender-reassignment health care for transgender youth.1
  • Tennessee's 2023 law bans gender-reassignment care — including hormone treatments and surgeries — for transgender patients younger than 18. Three teenagers' families and a doctor who treats transgender patients filed suit in federal court.1
  • Last year, the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals — one step below SCOTUS — allowed Tennessee to continue enforcing the law while it's being challenged. SCOTUS similarly allowed Idaho to enforce its ban during litigation.2
  • After a federal appeals court upheld the law, the plaintiffs and the Biden administration appealed to SCOTUS, which is expected to hear the case in November. The plaintiffs argue the law violates the 14th Amendment by discriminating based on sex.3
  • In recent years, 26 Republican-led states have enacted restrictions on gender-reassignment treatments, but SCOTUS has never opined on the issue beyond its lifting of a stay in the Idaho case. More than a dozen Democrat-run states have passed laws protecting gender-reassignment care.4
  • Although major US medical groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association, oppose bans on gender-reassignment health care, many medical experts and government health officials internationally have taken a different position on the issue.4

Sources: 1SCOTUSblog, 2CBS, 3Politico and 4Associated Press.

Narratives

  • Democratic narrative, as provided by NBC. It's crucial that SCOTUS not only hear this case but also step in to protect the rights of these young people and their families. Republicans constantly boast about being in favor of parents' rights, yet the Tennessee law and others like it are prohibiting effective treatments that these vulnerable youth, their parents, and their doctors deem necessary. That's infringing on freedom, not protecting it.
  • Republican narrative, as provided by FOX News. Republican-led states have acted fully within their legal rights and passed laws that protect children from the irreversible harm that could be caused by receiving these treatments, some of which are experimental. Although SCOTUS shouldn't have taken this case in the first place, it will hopefully see the light and leave the regulation of child welfare up to the states.

Predictions