People have archiris color umbrellas and flags in a demonstration, since the United States Supreme Court listens to arguments about an appeal of the administration of the president of the United States, Joe Biden, of the decision of a lower court to defend a prohibition backed by Republicans in Tennessee about the medical care affirmed by the genre for transgender minors, outside the court in Washington, on December 4 2024.
Benoit Tessier | Reuters
The Supreme Court confirmed on Wednesday a Tennessee law that restricted gender transition care for minors, delivering a great blow to transgender rights.
It is likely that failure 6-3 has a broad impact as another 24 The states have already promulgated laws similar to that of Tennessee, which prohibits gender transition surgery, puberty blockers and hormonal therapy.
These laws now seem to survive similar legal challenges. The ruling does not affect states that do not have such prohibitions, which means that attention in these states will still be available.
The Court in an opinion written by the president of President Justice, John Roberts, concluded that Tennessee's law does not constitute a form of sexual discrimination that would violate the 14th amendment of the Constitution.
Trans rights activists have also warned that a decision that allows for prohibiting attention for trans minors could pave the way for similar restrictions aimed at adults.
The legal challenge was presented by the administration of former President Joe Biden, as well as transgender adolescents and their families.
The ruling definitely does not solve all legal problems related to state prohibitions, since it did not address a separate argument under amendment 14 that laws violate parents' right to make medical care decisions for their children.
Upon assuming the position in January, President Donald Trump set out to unwind Biden policies that sought to strengthen transgender rights. Among other things, he signed an executive order that sought to restrict gender attention for adolescents throughout the country, a judge blocked it quickly.
Trump has also imposed new restrictions on the transgender people who serve in the army.
Upon assuming the position in January, President Donald Trump set out to unwind Biden policies that sought to strengthen transgender rights. Among other things, he signed an executive order that sought to restrict gender attention for adolescents throughout the country. A judge blocked it quickly.
Trump has also imposed new restrictions on the transgender people who serve in the army.
Promoted in 2023, Tennessee's law is among a wave of similar measures taken by states that impose restrictions on gender transition treatments. In defending their prohibition, state lawyers indicated similar measures taken in other countries, even in Europe.
The Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti emphasized the evolutionary debate on the best way to treat minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, the clinical term granted to the anguish that people can experience when their gender identities are in conflict with the genres assigned to birth.
The main medical organizations say that the treatments that claim gender are an effective way to treat gender dysphoria.
The challengers argued that the law is a form of sexual discrimination that violates the clause of equal protection of the 14th amendment because the treatments in question in the case (puberty blockers and hormonal therapy) can be used in other situations.
The case marks the most significant decision of transgender rights from the Court in 2020, to the surprise of many, ruled that federal employment protections extend to gender identity and sexual orientation.
The dispute reached the Supreme Court after the 6th Court of Appeals of the United States circuit based in Cincinnati in 2023 rejected the challenges to the Tennessee law and a similar measure in Kentucky.
A judge of the District Court had blocked parts of the law, while concluding that the plaintiffs did not have a legal position to challenge the prohibition of surgery. That provision of the law was not in question before the Supreme Court.
