The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will hear the Biden administration’s challenge to a Tennessee law banning gender-transition procedures for minors. This marks the first time the Court will engage in the controversial debate over the government’s role in protecting children from experimental procedures with lifelong medical consequences.
The case, United States v. Skrmetti, was brought by multiple transgender plaintiffs and their families against a Tennessee law that prohibits minors from receiving puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and invasive transgender surgical procedures. The Biden administration has joined the case in support of the plaintiffs.
Oral arguments are scheduled for the fall, and the justices are expected to rule on the case around this time next year. The decision could have significant implications, as more than two dozen Republican-led states have enacted similar bans on transgender procedures for minors.
“We fought hard to defend Tennessee’s law protecting kids from irreversible gender treatments and secured a thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion from the Sixth Circuit. I look forward to finishing the fight in the United States Supreme Court. This case will bring much-needed clarity to whether the Constitution contains special protections for gender identity,” Skrmetti said in a statement.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Tennessee ban and a similar law passed in Kentucky last fall, ruling that these laws did not violate anti-discrimination laws based on sex.
Most mainstream medical associations support gender-transition procedures despite well-documented risks, following the lead of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). However, internal documents released earlier this year showed that WPATH staffers recognize that child gender-transition procedures are experimental and that children opting for them are often unaware of the lifelong medical ramifications.
Many European nations have significantly scaled back minors’ access to transgender procedures after reviewing scientific literature. The U.K.’s National Health Service commissioned an independent review of the evidence, known as the “Cass Review,” which noted the “remarkably weak” evidence supporting gender-transition procedures. Similarly, the World Health Organization noted in January that the evidence to support minors receiving gender-transition treatment is lacking.
A growing number of individuals who underwent transition procedures only to later renounce their transgender identity are now warning distressed children against rushing into life-altering medical decisions. These detransitioners are speaking out to raise awareness of their experiences and have filed lawsuits against medical practitioners they accuse of wrongfully persuading them to undergo hormone therapies and surgeries, which often result in infertility and sexual dysfunction.
National Review reports that last year, gender-clinic whistleblower Jamie Reed, a progressive woman who identifies as Queer, raised alarms about rushed gender transitions for severely distressed teenage patients at Washington University’s transgender treatment facility in St. Louis, Missouri. Reed’s warning prompted Missouri to pass legislation banning gender-transition procedures for minors and had a noticeable impact on the public debate surrounding this contentious issue. A New York Times investigation later vindicated Reed’s account of events.