After more than two hours of oral arguments last Wednesday, the Supreme Court appears likely to uphold Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
For both local and national journalists, stories covering this case shouldn’t understate its potential implications for transgender rights and health care access in every state.
This case, known as U.S. v. Skrmetti, challenges a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors and represents the second major transgender rights case to reach the Supreme Court. It arrives at a time when 25 other states have enacted similar legislation, reflecting a broader trend in controlling aspects of transgender individuals’ lives.
Background of the case
Current Tennessee law prohibits the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapies for transgender minors. The Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, questions whether such laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which mandates equal treatment under the law.
Chase Strangio, the first openly transgender attorney to argue before the Supreme Court, represents the plaintiffs, including transgender youths and their families. They argue that Tennessee’s law constitutes sex discrimination by denying transgender minors access to medical treatments available to their cisgender peers for other conditions. The Biden administration supports this challenge, advocating for heightened scrutiny of laws affecting transgender people.
During last Wednesday’s hearing, several conservative justices, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, expressed significant reservations about judicial intervention in this matter. The court’s three liberal justices seemed united in their support for transgender youth and their families challenging the law. Justice Neil Gorsuch, a key conservative voice, remained silent throughout the proceedings.
Why this case matters
The Supreme Court’s decision could set a precedent for how transgender rights are treated under U.S. law, particularly concerning health care access and discrimination. A ruling upholding Tennessee’s ban could restrict access to gender-affirming care nationwide, forcing families to seek treatment out-of-state or forego it altogether. The case tests the boundaries of civil rights protections for transgender people under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
The Court’s decision directly affects transgender youths’ ability to access necessary medical treatments that many health care professionals deem essential for treating gender dysphoria.
The Court’s decision will also influence how courts evaluate laws that impact transgender individuals, potentially affecting future legislation and legal challenges.
Depending on the ruling, it could pave the way for more restrictive health care policies affecting not only transgender care but also other areas like reproductive health.
Story ideas
- The changing landscape of civil rights. U.S. v. Skrmetti tests the boundaries of civil rights protections for transgender people under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Outside the Supreme Court, demonstrators from both sides of the issue have gathered, highlighting the case’s significance in the ongoing cultural and political debate surrounding transgender rights. Analyze how this case fits into the broader context of LGBTQ+ rights in America. Compare it to previous landmark cases, such as the 2020 decision on workplace discrimination, and explore how the court’s ruling could shape the future of transgender rights and protections.
- The personal stories. While the legal battle centers around gender-affirming care for minors, some adults who live in states where these laws are enacted have also been denied care, suggesting this is not just a youth issue. Personal narratives can illustrate the real-world impact of sweeping and precedent-setting legal decisions. Feature interviews with transgender people affected by these bans, which include youth and adults.
- The science behind the law. Major physician groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics support gender-affirming care, suggesting a tug-a-war between medical consensus and legal debate. Consider investigating the disconnect between major medical associations’ support for gender-affirming care and the legal arguments against it.
- The fallout. The hearing has also intensified discussions about the role of medical professionals, parents, and the government in decisions regarding transgender youth health care. Any direction the Supreme Court rules will set a precedent for changes in transgender health care, and it’s worth exploring exactly what those changes will be.
- The ripple effects. Examine how the Supreme Court’s decision could impact other areas of health care beyond transgender rights. Explore potential consequences for access to birth control, IVF, and abortion, drawing parallels with the Dobbs decision.
- And, of course, the court’s decision. The ruling, expected by summer 2025, will be critical in shaping future discussions on transgender rights. If Tennessee’s ban is upheld, it could restrict access to gender-affirming care nationwide, affecting more than 110,000 teenagers residing in states with such restrictions. The ruling itself will be a story.
Reporting strategies
This case underscores the complex intersection of health care, civil rights, and constitutional law. Be sure to:
Provide context. Explain the legal and social context surrounding transgender rights and health care. Highlight past rulings and current trends in state legislation to give readers a comprehensive understanding
Use accurate terminology. Ensure that the language used in reporting is respectful and accurate. Terms like “gender-affirming care” should be clearly defined to avoid misconceptions.
Consult experts. Include insights from legal experts, health care professionals, and civil rights advocates to provide balanced perspectives on potential outcomes and implications
Consult science. Here’s a roundup of what the research on transgender health care suggests, and notes that current research is limited. Many experts acknowledge the critical need for more transgender health research, especially community-led studies that can help improve care and inform policies that protect the rights of transgender and gender-diverse people.
