So the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday was momentous. Most notably, it affirmed Tennessee’s SB1, the law banning access to puberty blockers for trans minors, as constitutional. Three transgender minors, represented by their parents and a licensed physician, sued the state over the new legislation. They contended that it was sex discriminatory against them and discriminated against their gender identity. The ruling has generated a lot of outrage and justifiable fear from groups and advocates that support transgender rights and healthcare.
The plaintiffs’ main argument against SB1 was that the law was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment –that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under that law. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion for the court. The judges found that the plaintiffs had not shown the existence of a constitutional violation. The ruling was backed by the six conservative justices, a purely ideological divide.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent from the majority opinion was joined by the court’s three liberals. In her dissent, she made an important point. For those diagnosed with gender dysphoria, the U.S. medical community considers puberty blockers to be “appropriate and medically necessary.”
“Today’s ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution,” – Chase Strangio, co-director for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project.
Sotomayor made the point that being able to get gender-affirming care, which includes puberty blockers, is incredibly important. For transgender adolescents, it is literally life or death. She expressed profound sadness over the court’s decision, stating, “By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.”
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), laws such as SB1 deny necessary medical care to nearly 100,000 transgender minors. This puts these young people at risk and unsupported. According to the ACLU, about 25 states have passed similar bans on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth. This development should sound major warning bells about the possible effect on their well-being.
Chief Justice Roberts pointed out that SB1 does not criminalize behavior for one sex and not the other. He pointed out that the legislation doesn’t ban puberty blockers. These blockers can be used to address congenital defects, precocious puberty, certain diseases, or injuries in children. Even some medical providers are calling for additional studies on the long-term effects of puberty blockers. About their use in the medical field, they note that although these technologies hold promise, many questions remain unanswered.
Advocates argue that gender-affirming care is an important treatment. It prevents mental harm from being inflicted upon transgender minors who experience gender dysphoria. They argue that this proactive care can decrease the chances of needing riskier procedures down the road.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes in the wake of a larger trend of anti-trans state legislation across the US. Advocates are rightfully concerned about the impact that these laws will have on transgender youth and their families.
“We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person,” – Chase Strangio.
The ideological split on the Supreme Court mirrors an increasingly national discussion on LGBTQ rights and access to healthcare. As other states pass similar laws, advocates worry that things will only get worse for transgender people.
While the controlling majority upheld these decisions, the dissenting justices raised strong arguments that such rulings undermine the public health and safety. In their opinions, they noted that withholding access to puberty blockers would have harmful effects on minors exploring their gender identity.
“Transgender adolescents’ access to hormones and puberty blockers (known as gender-affirming care) is not a matter of mere cosmetic preference,” – Sonia Sotomayor.
Chief Justice Roberts pointed out the increasing alarm from public health officials in several European nations. At the same time, they are really concerned about the potential harms of using puberty blockers and hormones to treat transgender minors. This recognition is a necessary step to illustrate the complexity of this issue and the need for continued research, conversation and action.
