Conservative Justices Signal Skepticism In Case About Gender-Affirming Care For Minors
HuffPost
The landmark case could reshape transgender rights and sex-based discrimination laws nationwide.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority expressed skepticism about a challenge to Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth during oral arguments on Wednesday, in what experts say is the most important transgender rights case the court has ever heard.
The case will determine whether a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender youth violates the Constitution and is a form of sex-based discrimination. U.S. v. Skrmetti, which was first brought by three families of trans children and a Memphis-based doctor, challenges Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1, a state law barring certain young people from receiving medications like puberty blockers or hormone replacement therapy. The law is meant to encourage minors to “appreciate their sex” and prohibits doctors from prescribing these medications in order to help them live as an “identity inconsistent with [their] sex.”
Elizabeth Prelogar, the United States solicitor general, argued that the law violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it bars trans youth from taking puberty blockers while allowing cisgender youth to take the same medications to treat different conditions, such as early puberty. (The scope of the case is limited to medication treatments, not surgery.)
“The law restricts medical care only when it induces physical effects inconsistent with birth sex. Someone assigned female at birth can’t receive medication to live as a male but someone assigned male can,” Prelogar said. “That’s a facial sex-classification — full stop — and a law like that can’t stand on bare rationality.”
The United States, which argued on behalf of the trans youth and their families, is hoping that the highest court rules to send the case back down to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals with an instruction to apply “heightened scrutiny” — the highest legal standard, often used in civil rights cases. Such a move would force Tennessee to provide evidence as to why it has a compelling interest in upholding this law, posing another hurdle to its enforcement.
The president's holiday-like fantasy is getting roasted by critics.
The case had frustrated authorities for years as they had failed to identify the person responsible for placing the bombs.
Sydney Sweeney entered the Fox News conversation that came to an eye-rolling conclusion.
The lawsuit accuses the Defense Department of violating reporters' First Amendment rights.
“It’s become quite a messy and toxic situation,” a Eurovision expert said.
The Duke of Sussex jabbed the president during a Hallmark-inspired comedy bit with host Stephen Colbert.
The illustrated image is... something.
“These are serious charges, and that’s the reason we’re going to have special oversight,” said Sen. Roger Wicker, the Republican chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The network's senior medical analyst put an inventive twist on the president's drowsy appearance during his Cabinet meeting.
Many blasted the House minority leader's reaction to Trump pardoning a Democrat who was indicted on charges of bribery and acting as a foreign agent.
The Pentagon knew there were survivors after a September attack on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean Sea and the U.S. military still carried out a follow-up strike.
In a deal with federal prosecutors entered Tuesday, former Florissant Officer Julian Alcala pleaded guilty to 20 counts of willfully depriving someone of their right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
The initial findings ramp up the pressure on the former Fox News Channel host after lawmakers had called for the independent inquiry into his use of the commercially available app.