ADVERTISEMENT

Supreme Court to weigh bans on puberty blockers, hormones for trans teens

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
78,786
61,224
113
The Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider for the first time whether states can ban certain gender transition medical treatments for young people — a closely watched case brought by three transgender teens, their parents and a doctor, all seeking to ensure health care access they say is critical.


Get the latest election news and results

At issue is a Tennessee law barring transgender minors from using puberty blockers and hormones, treatments the state characterizes as risky and unproven. Lawmakers said the state should instead encourage adolescents to “appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty.”
The court’s ruling might have implications for the more than 100,000 transgender adolescents living in Tennessee or one of the 23 other states that has banned using the drugs to treat minors with gender dysphoria. The question of whether and how to medically treat young people whose gender identity is different than their sex assigned at birth has become a polarizing issue, one President-elect Donald Trump seized on in advertisements targeting transgender people during his campaign.



Anti-trans bills have doubled since 2022. Our map shows where states stand.

End of carousel
The Supreme Court in 2020 extended employment protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers, but it has yet to rule on the constitutionality of lower court decisions involving bathroom access, athletes and medical treatment for transgender minors like 16-year-old L.W., one of the Tennessee teens behind the case at the high court. Her parents, Brian and Samantha Williams, now drive her five hours to receive care in North Carolina.
🧘
Follow Health & wellness
The teen started gender care treatments when she was 12 and said they have allowed her to “get to be myself a little bit more.”
“It took a huge stressor off my back,” L.W. said in an interview. “I have more friends now because I’m more confident, and I’m more able to socialize.”

The Biden administration and the American Civil Liberties Union are representing the parents and teens, who are referred to in court filings by their initials or a pseudonym to protect their identity. The families say the Tennessee law amounts to unconstitutional sex discrimination and a broad restriction on treatments that nearly every major medical association says are appropriate and effective for minors. ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, who is arguing on behalf of the families, will be the first openly transgender lawyer to present a case before the Supreme Court.


Tennessee’s attorney general Jonathan Skrmetti (R) says in court filings that states have long had the power to regulate medicine and that there is nothing unconstitutional about restricting the use of a drug for certain purposes, even when it can be used for treating other conditions, or imposing age limits for health treatments when the risks and rewards are too uncertain.
One potential wild card in the resolution of the case is the incoming Trump administration and the possibility that the next solicitor general will flip the federal government’s position to align with Tennessee’s view. If that were to happen, the court could allow the ACLU to continue challenging the law on its own, which would keep the justices on track to issue a ruling by the end of June.
Trump transition officials did not immediately respond to questions about the case before the court, but his team has said Trump intends to fulfill his campaign promises, which included a crackdown on gender transition care for minors.


Patients and lawmakers clash​

L.W. said she began to suspect she was trans in 2019, when she was 11. She’d long felt as if she were “drowning,” but she didn’t understand why. She wore baggy clothes to obscure her body, and she panicked the first time she saw a few facial hairs above her lip. She was so uncomfortable in boys bathrooms, she avoided ever using one at school. Eventually, she developed urinary tract infections.



After a cousin came out as trans, L.W. began researching on YouTube and Google. But she was scared, so she didn’t tell her parents she thought she was trans until just after Thanksgiving in 2020, more than a year after she’d first put a name to her feelings.
Brian and Samantha Williams both had gay friends, and they told L.W. they supported her, but neither felt comfortable immediately taking her to a doctor. L.W. was 12, and Brian worried the distress she felt might be normal puberty angst.
“It’s not like we took this thing lightly and just did it,” Brian said.
The family went to a progressive church, and the church had a therapist on staff who specialized in trans youth, so Samantha and Brian signed L.W. up for counseling. After roughly six months, the therapist diagnosed L.W. with gender dysphoria and recommended a team of doctors at Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital.





https://www.washingtonpost.com/reli...itid=mc_magnet-transkids_inline_collection_19

At Vanderbilt, L.W. underwent tests, then, in the summer of 2021, her doctors prescribed the drug Lupron to stop her body from going through male puberty. The medication, which has been used for at least 30 years on patients who start puberty too early, is largely reversible, but it can affect a young person’s bone density if taken long term without hormone therapy.
The teen said she felt instantly relieved. To her, the benefits “strongly outweighed” any side effects.
At the time, no state had banned trans adolescents from receiving the kind of care Vanderbilt’s team offered. Doctors nationwide had been treating a few thousand young people a year with hormones and puberty blockers, according to data compiled for Reuters — a tiny fraction of America’s adolescent population. They faced little pushback. Multiple peer-reviewed studies have found that a majority of trans adolescents experience “satisfaction,” “confidence” and “improvements in psychosocial functioning” after such treatment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/03/supreme-court-trans-minors-health-care/
 
Lots swirling around here.

First, note that it's a 14A case - not TVII - so while there's a threshold question about whether different treatment on the basis of sex exists that gets a little arcane (given that the 14A doesn't itself mention sex unlike TVII), I could see a situation where NG and ACB join the liberal justices. But make no mistake - that question is a big deal, as a ruling for the state throws the matter into a "rational basis review" standard rather than intermediate scrutiny. If that happens, states almost always win, but in the bigger picture, legal advocacy for TG issues arising under state laws would be well and truly ****ed. (Editorial comment: that would be so like the SG Office of the Biden administration to do, as I doubt that the TG advocacy crowd has nearly the same ability as the abortion crew to make a difference in state legislatures or ballot initiatives).

Second, even if intermediate scrutiny is the path chosen by the court, I could see the plaintiffs and the us losing (eg, by losing Gorsuch and more likely Barrett) on the theory that child sexuality IS an important government interest.

Third, the lower court opinion was a shit show.
 
Second, even if intermediate scrutiny is the path chosen by the court, I could see the plaintiffs and the us losing (eg, by losing Gorsuch and more likely Barrett) on the theory that child sexuality IS an important government interest.
While most of your post was way above my head, I'm curious how you believe it could be argued that child sexuality is a government interest? Also as I understand it, transgenderism is a gender issue not sexual issue.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: GenderIsAstrologyYo
While most of your post was way above my head, I'm curious how you believe it could be argued that child sexuality is a government interest? Also as I understand it, transgenderism is a gender issue not sexual issue.
for starters they regulate it - and the practice of medicine - all the time. as to gender/sexuality, for 14A purposes, potato/potato (and if you are saying there's a difference be careful because it could take you straight out of the 14A which only has "sex" by inference).
 
for starters they regulate it - and the practice of medicine - all the time. as to gender/sexuality, for 14A purposes, potato/potato (and if you are saying there's a difference be careful because it could take you straight out of the 14A which only has "sex" by inference).
Again a little too legalese for me. Keep in mind you are talking to a former elementary teacher/counselor. Let's say the SC upholds the bans, could a liberal state make a law requiring any minor that expresses gender idenity issues to a teacher, doctor, counselor, etc. be given gender affirmation treatment including puberty blockers regardless of parental approval/disproval?

I'm not advocating for the above scenario, it just seems like if the bans remain thus taking rights away from parents it could backfire in other ways for those supporting the bans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Again a little too legalese for me. Keep in mind you are talking to a former elementary teacher/counselor. Let's say the SC upholds the bans, could a liberal state make a law requiring any minor that expresses gender idenity issues to a teacher, doctor, counselor, etc. be given gender affirmation treatment including puberty blockers regardless of parental approval/disproval?

I'm not advocating for the above scenario, it just seems like if the bans remain thus taking rights away from parents it could backfire in other ways for those supporting the bans.
You are understanding more than you let on, as i think your 'sauce for the goose' question is absolutely spot on! :)

Apologies for the legalese. In discrimination cases, when a state law is being challenged under the 14A equal protection clause because it treats groups of people differently, the court applies one of three standards of review (though the phrasing changes a bit over time): (i) for race distinctions, "strict scrutiny' which requires a compelling state interest and the law be narrowly tailored to address it; (ii) for sex distinctions, "intermediate" scrutiny, which means an important government interest and a law substantially tailored to it; and (iii) for everything else, 'rational basis' review, under which the law will be upheld unless the legislature acted irrationally (and by that, i mean, not even plausibly rationally) and within the scope of common law police powers. Here, the 6Cir and the state argue that the law doesn't even make sex-based classifications - it regulates puberty blockers and other transgender therapies regardless of the sex of the patient -- and thus 'rational basis' review applies. (IMO, this part is a little flimsy and a bit of linguistic sophistry and might well be struck down). My point earlier was to be careful about getting hung up on modern distinctions around transgender and sex -- because if the former isn't part of the latter, you're asking the Court - this court - to apply the 14A EP clause to a new type of protected class rather than just treating it as a form of "sex" discrimination (a bridge they've already crossed). And if they're not willing to do that and TG cases get addressed via rational basis review, it will be extraordinarily difficult for TG advocates - or per your hypothetical, either side really -- to challenge state laws in this area.

So, if this ends up as an intermediate scrutiny case (ie, the court rejects the state's rational basis argument adopted by the 6th circuit), it may still be the case that the state "wins" (I'd see ACB potentially "flipping back" to the conservatives more than NG), but more simply on the basis that states do have substantial police power interest with respect to medical care and minors (consistent with the way things sort of work out in a post Dobbs era).
 
You are understanding more than you let on, as i think your 'sauce for the goose' question is absolutely spot on! :)

Apologies for the legalese. In discrimination cases, when a state law is being challenged under the 14A equal protection clause because it treats groups of people differently, the court applies one of three standards of review (though the phrasing changes a bit over time): (i) for race distinctions, "strict scrutiny' which requires a compelling state interest and the law be narrowly tailored to address it; (ii) for sex distinctions, "intermediate" scrutiny, which means an important government interest and a law substantially tailored to it; and (iii) for everything else, 'rational basis' review, under which the law will be upheld unless the legislature acted irrationally (and by that, i mean, not even plausibly rationally) and within the scope of common law police powers. Here, the 6Cir and the state argue that the law doesn't even make sex-based classifications - it regulates puberty blockers and other transgender therapies regardless of the sex of the patient -- and thus 'rational basis' review applies. (IMO, this part is a little flimsy and a bit of linguistic sophistry and might well be struck down). My point earlier was to be careful about getting hung up on modern distinctions around transgender and sex -- because if the former isn't part of the latter, you're asking the Court - this court - to apply the 14A EP clause to a new type of protected class rather than just treating it as a form of "sex" discrimination (a bridge they've already crossed). And if they're not willing to do that and TG cases get addressed via rational basis review, it will be extraordinarily difficult for TG advocates - or per your hypothetical, either side really -- to challenge state laws in this area.

So, if this ends up as an intermediate scrutiny case (ie, the court rejects the state's rational basis argument adopted by the 6th circuit), it may still be the case that the state "wins" (I'd see ACB potentially "flipping back" to the conservatives more than NG), but more simply on the basis that states do have substantial police power interest with respect to medical care and minors (consistent with the way things sort of work out in a post Dobbs era).
I think we’re going to have to put you on a word count man 🤪
 
Lots swirling around here.

First, note that it's a 14A case - not TVII - so while there's a threshold question about whether different treatment on the basis of sex exists that gets a little arcane (given that the 14A doesn't itself mention sex unlike TVII), I could see a situation where NG and ACB join the liberal justices. But make no mistake - that question is a big deal, as a ruling for the state throws the matter into a "rational basis review" standard rather than intermediate scrutiny. If that happens, states almost always win, but in the bigger picture, legal advocacy for TG issues arising under state laws would be well and truly ****ed. (Editorial comment: that would be so like the SG Office of the Biden administration to do, as I doubt that the TG advocacy crowd has nearly the same ability as the abortion crew to make a difference in state legislatures or ballot initiatives).

Second, even if intermediate scrutiny is the path chosen by the court, I could see the plaintiffs and the us losing (eg, by losing Gorsuch and more likely Barrett) on the theory that child sexuality IS an important government interest.

Third, the lower court opinion was a shit show.
I'm curious why the court only granted cert on the equal protection question and not the substantive due process issue. The latter seems stronger for the petitioners, especially with the history of precedents regarding parental rights. I guess that may be why. I don't see this court finding a sex-based classification here for equal protection purposes. Nothing like the Title VII "because of sex" language to hang their hat on as in Bostock.

Also, just skimmed the 6th Circuit opinion, and you are right. Holy smokes that bitch is messy.
 
I think we’re going to have to put you on a word count man 🤪
funny you should mention that..

Back in the early 90s, in one of my first cases, we were challenging nursing home Medicaid rates in Oklahoma. At that time, the states got together to hire Covington to defend them, relying on delay, discovery, and the eleventh amendment (no retro money damages against a state), and they were damn good at it. So everything we put out, they responded to, and vice versa.

In any event, we go into federal district court for a hearing on the first dispositive motion in the case. The judge comes in, sits down, says "Good afternoon gentlemen." He then looks at us and says, "ARE YOU GUYS GETTING PAID BY THE WORD IN THIS CASE? WHATEVER THE LAST MOTION WAS SEEKING TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS - CONSIDER IT DENIED." And then we jumped right into things.
 
I'm curious why the court only granted cert on the equal protection question and not the substantive due process issue. The latter seems stronger for the petitioners, especially with the history of precedents regarding parental rights. I guess that may be why. I don't see this court finding a sex-based classification here for equal protection purposes. Nothing like the Title VII "because of sex" language to hang their hat on as in Bostock.

Also, just skimmed the 6th Circuit opinion, and you are right. Holy smokes that bitch is messy.
I suspect it's a reflection of the fact that no one really takes substantive due process seriously any more. (And, hypothetically, if the fourth vote to grant cert on the EP claim was justice thomas, who hates substantive due process at a base level, I could easily see him not voting to grant on that question. Also, It might be something to do with the procedural history - recall that the water was carried by a private plaintiff initially, and the feds intervened on the ep claim later.
 
Last edited:
You are understanding more than you let on, as i think your 'sauce for the goose' question is absolutely spot on! :)

Apologies for the legalese. In discrimination cases, when a state law is being challenged under the 14A equal protection clause because it treats groups of people differently, the court applies one of three standards of review (though the phrasing changes a bit over time): (i) for race distinctions, "strict scrutiny' which requires a compelling state interest and the law be narrowly tailored to address it; (ii) for sex distinctions, "intermediate" scrutiny, which means an important government interest and a law substantially tailored to it; and (iii) for everything else, 'rational basis' review, under which the law will be upheld unless the legislature acted irrationally (and by that, i mean, not even plausibly rationally) and within the scope of common law police powers. Here, the 6Cir and the state argue that the law doesn't even make sex-based classifications - it regulates puberty blockers and other transgender therapies regardless of the sex of the patient -- and thus 'rational basis' review applies. (IMO, this part is a little flimsy and a bit of linguistic sophistry and might well be struck down). My point earlier was to be careful about getting hung up on modern distinctions around transgender and sex -- because if the former isn't part of the latter, you're asking the Court - this court - to apply the 14A EP clause to a new type of protected class rather than just treating it as a form of "sex" discrimination (a bridge they've already crossed). And if they're not willing to do that and TG cases get addressed via rational basis review, it will be extraordinarily difficult for TG advocates - or per your hypothetical, either side really -- to challenge state laws in this area.

So, if this ends up as an intermediate scrutiny case (ie, the court rejects the state's rational basis argument adopted by the 6th circuit), it may still be the case that the state "wins" (I'd see ACB potentially "flipping back" to the conservatives more than NG), but more simply on the basis that states do have substantial police power interest with respect to medical care and minors (consistent with the way things sort of work out in a post Dobbs era).
So I am correct in my concerns that upholding these bans could end up with consequences many on the right would oppose. Would there be anything stopping a state of requiring all minor residents of a state to receive whatever vaccinations the state deems necessary regardless of public school enrollment or not?
 
So I am correct in my concerns that upholding these bans could end up with consequences many on the right would oppose. Would there be anything stopping a state of requiring all minor residents of a state to receive whatever vaccinations the state deems necessary regardless of public school enrollment or not?
Mostly (lawyer's answer). As to TG issues, if it goes rational basis review, "right" advocates would have a hard time challenging "left" state laws. So in that context, I think you're correct.

But...I think the vaccine case would be even easier for states to 'win' since it clearly wouldn't involve a protected class and thus would be subject to rational basis review. State public health powers, ranging from quarantines to vaccines, are well established, dating back to the industrial revolution. I think the only thing that comes to mind there though is whether some individuals could assert conscience objections to vaccinations, which of course would be dealt with under 1A standards.
 
The court’s ruling might have implications for the more than 100,000 transgender adolescents living in Tennessee
Adolescent - Young person between the age of 10 & 19.

Estimated adolescent population in Tennessee - 800,000

So, there are more than 100,000 transgender adolescents in Tennessee?

WOW! Seems like a lot!!
 
I would hope they don’t support this ban - not as a pro-TG stance but because it involves stuff that is used for other treatment options as well.
They don't care about anything other than eliminating trans citizens from existence.
Take note that the "DON'T MAKE MY KID WEAR A MASK", crowd are now fully invested in the state deciding what is right for children versus the child, the parents, and the doctor's decisions.
 
Ya because their heads are not screwed on backwards.
That's the thing though. We shouldn't know how any of the judges will rule. But now it's just a partisan shit show and rulings are meaningless because they will just be overruled at the first opportunity to replace a judge for someone with "the correct viewpoint". Precedence is pointless.
 
d55l3306dyhb1.gif
 
The SCOTUS isn't weighing the merits of drugs for Trans teens. They are weighing 9A, 10A, and 14A. It's just that simple.
 
I didn’t know the Supreme Court justices were doctors of medicine…you know this decision is gonna be phuqued-up. It’ll have to be overturned once America gets a Supreme Court that is representative of itself.
They don't need to be doctors. That's not what this case is about. It's about states rights vs individual rights, and if the state has a compelling reason to take away individual choice.
 
They don't need to be doctors. That's not what this case is about. It's about states rights vs individual rights, and if the state has a compelling reason to take away individual choice.
If you believe that, no wonder you love this Court. There are 4 votes that are purely (MAGA) agenda driven here that gave very little with the argument you gave. This Court is anti-trans amongst other things. It’s a no-brainer how this case is going to be decided….6-3.
Doctors of Jurisprudence playing Doctors of Medicine. Out of their lane… way outta their league. Intellectual pigmies…but probably a good vacation in store for Justice Thomas.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT