In a significant move aimed at defending transgender rights, 164 members of Congress submitted an amicus brief Tuesday to the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the justices to strike down laws restricting transgender Americans’ access to medically necessary healthcare. The brief is tied to U.S. v. Skrmetti, a case that will decide the legality of Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The Court is set to hear oral arguments this fall, and the outcome is expected to set a critical precedent for the rights of transgender individuals across the United States.
Leading Democratic lawmakers, including House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (D. Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D. Ore.), as well as Congressional Equality Caucus Chair U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D. Wis.), ask the Court to uphold the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The lawmakers argue that Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which prohibits gender-affirming healthcare for transgender minors, unjustly singles out transgender youth for unequal treatment.
Case Overview and Legal Background
U.S. v. Skrmetti arises from a series of legal challenges to Tennessee’s SB1, which bans minors from receiving any form of gender-affirming healthcare, including hormone treatments and puberty blockers. Passed in 2021, SB1 has faced widespread criticism from civil rights groups, healthcare providers, and LGBTQ+ advocates, who argue that it denies transgender youth access to safe, medically approved, and often life-saving care.
The case has already seen a tumultuous legal path. Initially, a federal district court in Tennessee granted a preliminary injunction, temporarily halting the enforcement of the law while legal proceedings were underway. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit lifted this injunction, allowing Tennessee to resume enforcement of SB1. The plaintiffs, represented by families of transgender children and healthcare providers, are now seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention, contending that the law violates constitutional protections against discrimination.
Support from Lawmakers and Advocacy Groups
The legislators argue that laws such as Tennessee’s SB1 are motivated by animosity toward transgender individuals rather than sound medical science, and they urge the Supreme Court to view such laws with skepticism in their brief, which is 27 pages long. They highlight the support of over 1.3 million healthcare professionals and major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, all of which endorse gender-affirming care as medically necessary for transgender individuals.
“The decision of whether or not to seek gender-affirming care should rest with patients, their doctors, and their families—not with politicians,” Pocan said in a statement. “Laws like SB1 are part of a broader, coordinated effort to strip away the rights of transgender individuals. We are calling on the Supreme Court to uphold the promise of equal protection under the law and ensure that these discriminatory laws are struck down.”
U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), a co-signer of the brief and a ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, echoed Pocan’s sentiments: “There is no constitutionally sound justification for allowing politicians to override medical decisions made by families and healthcare providers. It is dangerous and unprecedented for the government to interfere in these deeply personal decisions.”
The lawmakers further assert that SB1 and similar bans on gender-affirming care are based on misinformation and prejudice. They emphasize that laws like these aim to impose outmoded and harmful societal norms rather than reflecting the best interests of minors who are experiencing gender dysphoria, a condition that the medical community has recognized.
Potential Impact on Transgender Youth
According to data from The Williams Institute at UCLA, over 100,000 transgender and nonbinary youth in the U.S. currently live in states with gender-affirming care bans. For these individuals, access to hormone therapy and other medical interventions has been shown to significantly improve mental health outcomes, including reducing rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.
Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, a vocal advocate for transgender rights, highlighted the critical stakes for these youth if the Court rules in favor of Tennessee’s law. “For years, far-right extremists have targeted transgender Americans, especially children, with discriminatory laws rooted in hate and ignorance,” Markey said. “If the Supreme Court upholds laws like SB1, it will not only deny vital care to transgender youth but also embolden further efforts to roll back civil rights protections for other marginalized groups.”
U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and another signatory of the brief, warned of the dangerous precedent that would be set if the Court sides with Tennessee. “Allowing this ban to stand could open the door to more laws that discriminate against transgender individuals,” Pallone said. “We cannot allow a small group of politicians to dictate healthcare decisions that should be left to patients and their healthcare providers.”
Broader Implications for Transgender Rights
The decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti will likely have profound implications not only for transgender minors but for the broader transgender community in the U.S. The case is the first time the Supreme Court has been asked to rule on the constitutionality of laws banning gender-affirming care, and its outcome could influence pending legal challenges to similar laws across the country. Currently, 25 states have enacted restrictions on gender-affirming healthcare for minors, with several others considering such legislation.
If the Court rules against Tennessee’s ban, it could strike down these laws and reaffirm the constitutional protections for transgender individuals. However, a ruling in favor of the law could further embolden states to pass similar restrictions and limit the rights of transgender people in other areas, such as employment and public accommodations.
Advocates for transgender rights are hopeful that the Supreme Court will side with science and the constitution. The Gender Research Advisory Council + Education (GRACE), a nonprofit organization that also submitted an amicus brief in the case, underscored the significance of the ruling. “This case is critically important because it impacts nearly 40% of transgender youth living in states that have enacted these harmful bans,” GRACE Board Member Sean Madden said. “These families deserve the right to make informed medical decisions based on the advice of doctors, not political rhetoric.”
GRACE President Alaina Kupec warned that if laws like SB1 are upheld, they could pave the way for restrictions on other forms of healthcare, such as treatments for HIV and cancer. “If left unchecked, this attack on transgender rights will not stop here,” Kupec said.
The Bottom Line
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the outcome could define the future of transgender rights in the United States for years to come. Lawmakers, advocates, and families of transgender youth are watching closely, hoping that the Court will uphold the principles of equality and justice that form the cornerstone of the Constitution.
For transgender youth and their families, the stakes are especially high, as access to medically necessary care could mean the difference between life and death. As U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) poignantly put it, “Let’s get politicians out of the exam room and let doctors and families make decisions that are best for their children.”
