Court may enter debate on care for trans youths
THIS IS A CRISIS, AND THE ONLY COURT THAT CAN WEIGH IN TO REMEDY IT IS THE SUPREME COURT. Chase Strangio, the ACLU’s deputy director for transgender justice
After steering clear of the divisive issue for months, the Supreme Court may be on the verge of deciding whether to jump into the national debate over medical treatment for transgender youths.
Last week, justices were considering voting behind closed doors on whether to grant an appeal that seeks to block a new Tennessee law prohibiting medical treatments that enable a “minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.”
They have been in no hurry to act, however, and it’s possible they will put off the issue again. For weeks, they have repeatedly delayed a vote on the case, likely reflecting a division — either between liberals and conservatives, or perhaps inside the conservative majority.
At stake is the fate of a wave of a new state laws in the South and Midwest that bar transgender teens and their parents from obtaining puberty blockers and other hormones prescribed by doctors.
Some 24 conservative states have passed restrictions on treatment for transgender youths, potentially affecting about 114,000 minors, or more than a third of transgender youths in the United States, according to The Williams Institute at the UCLA Law School. Many of those state laws have been blocked temporarily by judges.
If the court turns down the Tennessee appeal and says nothing more, it could signal that treatment bans for transgender youths are likely to take effect in about half of the nation. Then the map of the states would largely match the red state-blue state divide on abortion.
If justices agree to hear the appeal, it could put the issue on track for arguments later this year.
Advocates for transgender youths are looking to the Supreme Court for help.
“This is a crisis, and the only court that can weigh in to remedy it is the Supreme Court,” said Chase
Strangio, the ACLU’s deputy director for transgender justice. “This is wreaking havoc with families who have to leave their homes to protect their children.”
The ACLU and Lambda Legal sued to challenge the Tennessee law on behalf of three transgender adolescents and their parents who had been obtaining hormones from the Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
A federal judge initially blocked the new law. But last July, the Ohio-based 6th Circuit Court in a 2-1 decision became the first appeals court to rule such a law may go into effect.
The state’s lawmakers had questioned the safety and effectiveness of hormone treatments for teens, and 6th Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton said “states may reasonably exercise caution in these circumstances.”
Biden administration Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said the state laws impose “a categorical ban on evidencebased treatments supported by the overwhelming consensus of the medical community.” The high court’s “intervention is warranted now,” she said.
Conservative skepticism toward “gender affirming care” was bolstered by a recent report prepared for the National Health Service in England. Dr. Hilary Cass, who led the fouryear review, called for caution in treating young people who have gender distress.
“This is an area of remarkably weak evidence,” she wrote. “The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.”
So far, the justices have avoided a clear ruling on the rights of transgender students. When pressed, they have handed down narrow decisions.
Last year, they turned down an emergency appeal from West Virginia’s attorney general and allowed a 12-year-old transgender girl to compete on the girl’s track team at her middle school. The court issued no opinion, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.