The Supreme Court reconvenes Monday, preparing to hear several high-profile cases, including disputes on ghost guns, a controversial death penalty sentence, and a landmark case on transgender rights. Although the docket for this term lacks the monumental cases of the previous session—such as last year’s rulings, which included an opinion granting broad immunity to former President Donald Trump—the court is expected to navigate pivotal legal terrain with significant consequences. Notably, the conservative-majority court could be asked to weigh in on election disputes following the November elections. October 9, 2024.
The court’s term begins amid growing public scrutiny and calls for reform. Low public trust in the judiciary persists, and debates over whether the newly adopted code of ethics should include an enforcement mechanism continue. This term, while potentially quieter in comparison to previous sessions, may still yield rulings that could alter the legal landscape for many Americans, particularly in cases involving civil rights and health care.
A Battle Over Transgender Rights and Medical Care for Minors
The most closely watched case of this term centers on transgender rights, with the justices poised to examine a Tennessee law that restricts gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The case will address the constitutionality of state bans on treatments such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, which have been the subject of growing legislative efforts in many Republican-led states. The court’s decision in this case has the potential to reshape transgender rights nationwide.
Tennessee, along with two dozen other Republican-led states, has enacted laws restricting gender-affirming care for minors. The state argues that the law is designed to protect children from making irreversible medical decisions they might later regret. On the other hand, the Biden administration, along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is challenging the law, claiming it discriminates based on sex. They argue that while cisgender boys with conditions like Klinefelter syndrome, which reduces testosterone production, can receive hormone treatments, transgender boys are prohibited from receiving the same care under these laws. The law, the administration argues, unfairly targets transgender youth.
The case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, will be heard later this year and could have profound implications for the legality of gender-affirming care bans across the nation. The court’s ruling could also challenge or reinforce the principles established in the 2020 Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that discrimination based on gender identity is a form of sex discrimination.
“This case is incredibly significant, not just for the trans community, but for medical freedoms and civil liberties more broadly,” said Deepak Gupta, a prominent appellate lawyer. Gupta, who has followed the Supreme Court’s docket closely, believes the case will test the extent to which states can regulate medical care for minors and has described the case as a “blockbuster” for this term.
Gender-Affirming Care: At the Heart of the Debate
The Tennessee case is seen as a test of whether states can legally prohibit gender-affirming care for minors. The law is part of a broader trend in GOP-led states to introduce restrictions on transgender youth, including limits on participation in school sports, bathroom usage, and other gender-affirming practices. Opponents of the ban, including the Biden administration and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, assert that these measures violate fundamental rights to medical privacy, parental autonomy, and nondiscrimination.
The ACLU has emphasized the far-reaching consequences of this case. “This is one of the most significant LGBTQ+ cases ever to reach the Supreme Court,” said Chase Strangio, an ACLU attorney who has worked extensively on transgender rights litigation. The court’s decision, Strangio argued, could set a dangerous precedent for states looking to impose further restrictions on LGBTQ+ individuals, especially transgender youth.
In defending its law, Tennessee has argued that it has a vested interest in promoting minors’ well-being by encouraging them to “appreciate their sex” and by prohibiting treatments that “might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex.” The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the state’s claim that its laws do not discriminate. According to the court, “states may permit varying treatments of distinct diagnoses,” with Judge Jeffrey Sutton noting that gender dysphoria and other conditions, such as Klinefelter syndrome, are not comparable.
However, opponents of the law argue that these bans contradict established medical guidance. According to the Williams Institute at UCLA, more than 100,000 transgender children and youth between the ages of 13 and 17 reside in states where such legislation threatens their access to essential medical treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy. For many families, these medical interventions represent vital care that alleviates the symptoms of gender dysphoria.
As advocates and legal experts await the court’s decision, many emphasize the broader implications this ruling may have for other transgender rights cases. While the current focus is on health care access, the outcome could also influence future legal battles over transgender athletes’ participation in school sports, bathroom usage policies, and broader protections for transgender individuals.
Summer Orders and Continuing Controversies
While the court’s new term officially began this week, the justices have remained active throughout the summer. Notably, they issued orders on several emergency appeals, including a refusal to reinstate President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan and a partial approval of an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote. These decisions, while not part of the formal term docket, have signaled the justices’ leanings on some of the most contentious issues before the court.
In June, the court also agreed to hear a challenge from the Biden administration against Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care, a move that has brought the fight over transgender rights to the forefront of this term’s cases. Critics of the court have raised concerns that its conservative majority may be predisposed to upholding state laws that restrict transgender rights, given its recent track record on other hot-button issues.
“This term, like last term, raises questions about the future of civil rights protections in America,” said Kylar Broadus, a legal expert and transgender rights advocate. “We are talking about fundamental issues of bodily autonomy and personal freedom. The stakes are high not just for the transgender community but for all who believe in equal rights.”
The term opens at a time when public trust in the Supreme Court is at a historic low, with many Americans questioning the court’s impartiality following decisions that critics view as increasingly ideological. The newly adopted code of ethics, which the court introduced following reports of justices’ potential conflicts of interest, has done little to assuage concerns. Advocacy groups have continued to press for stronger enforcement mechanisms to ensure judicial accountability.
The Bottom Line
The Tennessee gender-affirming care case is expected to be argued in December, with a ruling likely in the spring or early summer of 2025. Many legal experts believe this case will shape the future of transgender rights and could be a litmus test for the court’s approach to civil liberties in an increasingly polarized political environment.
As the transgender community awaits the outcome, activists stress the importance of resilience. “No matter what happens in the court, trans people are not going away,” said Gabriel Arkles, an attorney with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project. “We will find ways to support each other, to survive, and to thrive, even in the face of adversity.”
For transgender individuals and their allies, the upcoming term represents a critical juncture in the ongoing fight for equal rights and recognition. Whether the court chooses to uphold or strike down Tennessee’s law, the decision will have far-reaching consequences for transgender youth, their families, and the broader LGBTQ+ community. Many remain hopeful that the court will recognize the fundamental rights of transgender individuals to access the medical care they need, free from discriminatory state interference.
