On Wednesday December 4, the case US v. Skrmetti was heard by the Supreme Court. This case questions the constitutionality of Tennessee Law SB1 that bans the use of hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers for residents under 18 years old.
The Tennessee bill SB 0126 would criminalize certain medical treatments for minors who had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Additionally, doctors who prescribe such therapies to their patients would face a criminal offense. This bill would also require trans youth currently receiving medical care that validates their gender identity to cease these medical treatments within nine months of the day the law would come into effect.
Lawyers representing the Tennessee legislature argue that irreversible medical procedures should not be performed on minors. They also argue that this law is well within the state’s ability to regulate medical procedures in their state. Jonathan Skrmetti, Tennessee Attorney general stated “We are here defending Tennessee’s law protecting children from irreversible and unproven gender transition procedures.”
This Tennessee bill was originally challenged in the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Nashville Division and then in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 4, arguments were heard in the Supreme Court. The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP are arguing in front of the Supreme Court for the family of a 15-year-old transgender girl (the girl, being under 18, will not be referred to by name), two other anonymous families with transgender children, and Dr. Susan Lacy, a Memphis-based doctor who provides comprehensive gender affirming care for families and children under 18.
This case could have broader implications, because the lawyers bringing this case to the Supreme Court argue that this Tennessee bill is violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Ratified in 1868, this Amendment states that all people born or naturalized in the United States are citizens and deserve equal protection under the law. Thus, any law or bill specifically targeting a group of people would be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
The ruling of this case will not have direct repercussions for the residents of Massachuseets because of the strong legislature in place to protect transgender youth, and all transgender people. The current governor of Massachuseets Maura Healey has continuously stated its support for gender-affirming care providers and patients. The administration of Healey and Driscoll have declared Massachusetts a safe haven for transgender youth, families, and all those affected by increased restrictions across the country. Governor Maura Healey stated in a press release on 22 June 2023, “Gender-affirming care is a fundamental right and a critical health care need…Massachusetts is, and will continue to be, a safe haven – for clinicians, for transgender and non-binary folks, and for the people who love them.”
If the Justices on the Supreme Court rule that the law in question isn’t in violation of the Equal Protection Clause or any other constitutional precedent, there could be a wave of similar laws that target the bodily autonomy of young people. These could ban not only gender affirming healthcare for minors, but also access to abortions, contraceptives, and birth control.
The decision on this case is expected in approximately six months.
Image Source: Yahoo News