What is U.S. v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court case that could change gender-affirming care forever?
by Curated November 22, 2024 · Gay News / Gay Pride / Gay Rights / The Advocate
Author: Trudy Ring
The controversy over gender-affirming care for trans minors is coming to the U.S. Supreme Court December 4. U.S. v. Skrmetti,”There are a range of different outcomes that are foreseeable in a final ruling,” Buchert said. “A ruling in favor of the families would return the case to the lower courts to apply the appropriate standard of review for improper sex-based classifications. If the Court upholds the ban, the Tennessee law would remain in effect, depriving trans minors from receiving hormone therapy, greenlighting similar bans already enacted in other states, and potentially emboldening even more states to pass similarly restrictive laws and perhaps even more draconian bans. However the case is decided, it is likely to have a significant impact on how much deference courts give to bans on medical care to treat gender dysphoria.”
“Beyond this case, the Supreme Court may soon address other issues affecting transgender rights,” Buchert added. “For example, West Virginia and North Carolina have recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review rulings out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in two successful lawsuits brought by Lambda Legal challenging each state’s policies denying medical care for transgender people, specifically transgender state employees in North Carolina and transgender Medicaid beneficiaries in West Virginia. West Virginia has also asked the Court to review another ruling out of the Fourth Circuit where Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia and Cooley LLP successfully challenged West Virginia’s law barring transgender girls from participating in interscholastic athletics. There is a lot at stake for trans and nonbinary people in the upcoming cases and Lambda Legal is working around the clock to represent our trans and nonbinary community and fight back against these attacks.”
How did U.S. v. Skrmetti get to the Supreme Court?
U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson granted a preliminary injunction in June 2023, blocking the law from being enforced. However, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit lifted that in September 2023. So the plaintiffs are asking the court to review the Sixth Circuit’s decision.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, emphasized the need for the court’s intervention, highlighting the “profound uncertainty” faced by transgender adolescents and their families due to conflicting lower court decisions. “This Court’s input is urgently needed to resolve whether these bans are discriminatory,” she said in the government’s petition to the court.
The high court announced in June that it would hear the case.
How might the court rule?
It’s anyone’s guess. The court delivered a major victory for LGBTQ+ people in 2020 in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which it ruled 6-3 that workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is sex discrimination and therefore banned by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s first Supreme Court appointee, wrote the ruling. He was joined by another conservative, Chief Justice John Roberts, and the court’s four liberals — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer. Dissenting were conservatives Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas.
Now the court’s makeup has changed, however. Ginsburg died in 2020 and was replaced by a conservative, Amy Coney Barrett. Breyer retired in 2022 and was succeeded by another liberal, Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first justice appointed by President Joe Biden.
And while Gorsuch and Roberts joined in the Bostock ruling, now the conservatives appear to have dug in, as indicated by the Dobbs ruling, the 6-3 presidential immunity ruling, and the ruling in 303 Creative Services v. Elenis,also 6-3. In the latter, the majority held that Colorado’s LGBTQ-inclusive nondiscrimination law violated a web designer’s freedom of speech — the designer was willing to create wedding websites for heterosexual couples only.
But the plaintiffs have many on their side. In addition to their legal team, they have numerous friend-of-the-court briefs supporting their case. Such briefs are filed by parties not directly involved in a case but wanting to offer an opinion. They have come from both Democratic and Republican politicians, Planned Parenthood, the American Bar Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Women’s Law Center, the American Academy of Pediatrics, trans youth, and many more. Of course, there have been briefs filed supporting Tennessee as well. So we’ll see who convinces the justices.
From Your Site Articles
Original Article on The Advocate
Author: Trudy Ring
