SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to Tennessee State Law Banning Child Sex Transitions
The Court will decide whether banning ‘medical treatments intended’ to transition a child ‘violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.’
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed today to hear a challenge to a Tennessee law barring “gender-affirming care” for minors.
Next term, the court will decide whether the ban denies children equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Last year, a federal appeals court allowed the law to remain in effect during the litigation, dissolving a lower court’s injunction to the contrary, as Legal Insurrection reported. The appeals court previously rejected emergency appeals seeking an injunction against anti-transition laws in Kentucky and Tennessee.
“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,” said Tennessee AG Jonathan Skrmetti in response to the decision. “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.”
In the lower courts, the challengers argued that Tennessee’s law denied due process and violated parental rights. The Supreme Court, however, limited the issue to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The challengers have argued banning “gender-affirming care” deprives trans-identifying children of the equal protection of the law through sex-based discrimination. The appeals court rejected that argument, reasoning that sex discrimination does not occur merely because a law regulates a procedure “unique to one sex or the other.”
The appeals court also rejected the sex-discrimination argument because the Tennessee law restricts “gender-affirming care” for both male and female children equally.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Sutton’s opinion is well worth reading.
very good job describing the history of the mental illness without the typical rhetoric associated with the subject.
Here’s that opinion, if anyone’s interested…
https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/CA6-Opinion.pdf
The conservatives laying the foundation for a reconsideration of the decision regarding same sex marriage?
That horse has bolted and is deader than a Democrats empathy towards women.
The SC limited the question in the case to the equal protection clause, Not on whether the ban was good medical policy or bad medical policy.
Equal protection clause is how the SC ruled in favor of gay marriage.
fwiw – I am not comfortable with the limitation of issue to EP. That points to acceptance of a destruction medical treatment.
OTOH, there is AMPLE existing judicial precedent that essentially set asides 14A considerations when states pass law that limit activity involving children. I see your point (and echo it myself just below) because the ‘medical necessity/standard of care’ argument could be the cop-out that someone like ACB or Gorsuch could use to join the libs, if given the opportunity.
If it’s a straight (no pun intended) examination of the state’s police power to regulate activity impacting adolescents & teens, maybe it has a decent chance. The courts have generally given states a wide berth in this regard; cigarettes, tanning booths, driving…all things that children are prohibited from using or consuming even with parental consent.
I have no idea what the outcome of this is. But, considering Gorsuch wrote Bostock, I’m expecting the worst possible outcome.
SCOTUS to decide law can stay in place and when children are old enough to make decisions for themselves THEN they can decide to cut their cock off in search of happiness.
I’ve had mine for more than 6 decades. I have become somewhat attached to it (forgive the pun). It would make me very unhappy to have lost it.
It is unbelievable that this monstrous depravity has gotten to the point that it is litigated. Sex change rights for children somehow in the constitution? There is an angry God and there will be a reckoning.
the key takeaway SHOULD BE
THE PARENTS ARE IN CHARGE
BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
What about a mental competency test if the parents agree to a childs sexchange!!!?!!!
They want laws THAT TAKE AWAY GUN OWNERS RIGHTS ON THE SAY SO OF ANOTHER WHO CHALLENGES THE MENTAL HEALTH OF THE GUN OWNER
Come on GOP
WHERE ART THOU!!!??????
This is an easy case that can be readily disposed of with a brief rehash of Dobbs.
1. Transgenderism, especillay chaild transgenderism, is not deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the United States (Eliminating the substantive due process claims)
2. The SCOTUS has never deemed transgender a quasi suspect class and the trans acivists do not have the votes for it to happen now.
3. Consistent with the Dobbs decision, states have the power to regulate medical procedures and sex based discrimination does not vioate the equal protection clause.
“The regulation of a medical procedure that only one sex can undergo does not trigger heightened constitutional ** scrutiny unless the regulation is a “mere pretext designed to effect an invidious discrimination against members of one sex or the other.” Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) 597 U.S. 215, 236
Matt Walsh’s video: What is a woman?” is worth watching.
He has a persuasive M.D. who explains why the procedures are evil.
Victims who have been mutilated have a higher suicide rate than those who have not been abused by Dr. Frankenstein.
Not Dr. Frankenstein; they are not dead flesh. Maybe Dr. Moreau? Or even Dracula!
If a child tells his parents he has no problem being in a locked car with the windows rolled up for an hour or so while they are shopping…. would the police or the courts assign any weight to the child’s request?
This is why we don’t let children make life changing medical decisions:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Z01mM9g6BAs
How do the plaintiffs show actual harm.
The state won’t let me be mutilated and that caused me harm?
Hopefully, there will be concerned citizens holding huge pictures of mutilated children outside the Supreme Court. Do you want to see real harm?
“Gender affirming care” (a triple oxymoron) is butchery, human vivisection, and on children no less.
Europe has come to its senses and determined that it is more harmful to children than just letting them work out their issues on their own, without permanently disfiguring and unhealthy drugs and surgery.
As a biologist, and an honest one, I can tell you that puberty and sexual maturation have a certain window of “opportunity;” mess with that, such as with Lupron, and there is not “restarting the clock” after the fact.
The people that push this should be liable for severe litigation at minimum.
The lawsuits are just beginning:
https://themisresourcefund.org/detransitioner-cases/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2Nsw4rSVFw
I sincerely believe that the issue of
child mutilation“Gender affirming care” should be handled by the SCOTUS the same way they recently handled Roe and the issue of abortion. That is that the issue of “Gender affirming care” should be left up to the individual states to decide and the courts should stay the heck out of it altogether.it is a local issue as is abortion
agree
Why would the lefty “CARE” about butchering appendages
when they encourage women to mu r der their own!!?!??!?