| Litigants: | United States v. Skrmetti |
| Arguedate: | December 4 |
| Argueyear: | 2024 |
| Fullname: | United States of America v. Jonathan Thomas Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter for Tennessee, et al. |
| Docket: | 23-477 |
| Prior: |
|
| Questionspresented: | Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow "a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex" or to treat "purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity," Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1)[1], violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. |
United States v. Skrmetti (Docket No. 23-477) is a pending United States Supreme Court case on whether bans on gender affirming care (including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and gender reassignment surgery) for transgender minors under the age of 18 violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[2]
On March 22, 2023, the Tennessee House of Representatives passed HB1 amending the Tennessee Code prohibiting certain forms of gender-affirming care for transgender minors with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.[3] This includes puberty blockers and hormone therapy.[4]
Upon passage of the law, the Biden Department of Justice sought an injunction in the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to prevent the law from going into effect on July 1, 2023.
The District Court granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the ban on hormones and puberty blockers from going into effect. The court deemed the state ban as infringing on the "fundamental rights" of parents, while allowing for the ban on gender affirming surgery to remain.[5]
The plaintiffs are a 16-year old girl, identified only as "L.W.", and her parents, Brian and Samantha Williams, of Nashville, Tennessee. L.W. is a recipient of gender-affirming hormone therapy, which she says has greatly improved her quality of life, describing the gender dysphoria she experienced before treatment as "real-life body horror",[6] and saying that her treatment allows her to "feel normal." The Tennessee state ban forces the Williams family to travel out-of-state for L.W.'s hormone treatments.[7] Biden administration Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar has advocated for the plaintiff's right to be a girl in Tennessee.[8] Samantha Williams criticized the "hypocrisy" of Tennessee lawmakers, who championed "parental rights" with regards to COVID-19, only to infringe on those rights via HB1, saying, "They made this medical decision for our child."[9]
The District Court's ruling was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In a 2–1 decision, the Sixth Circuit stayed the lower court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction. Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote that the Tennessee state government was likely to succeed upon their appeal and that the right of parents to control the medical care of their children is not a fundamental right because it is not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," a standard set by the Supreme Court in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997).[10]
Judge Helene White concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that the Tennessee law is "likely unconstitutional based on the Plaintiffs’ theory of sex discrimination" and that she would not stay the injunction but rather narrow its scope. However, she agreed that the "District Court abused its discretion in granting a statewide preliminary injunction."
On November 6, 2023, the United States petitioned the Supreme Court to hear this case on appeal.[11] The Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 24, 2024.[12]
In November 2024, the Yale Law School hosted a panel to discuss the medical and legal connotations of the case.[13] Legal experts predict that, should the Supreme Court uphold Tennessee's law, access to many other forms of healthcare for both children and adults could also be impacted including gender-affirming care for adults and abortion access.[14] [13] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]
Oral arguments were heard on December 4, 2024.[22] [23] ACLU attorney Chase Strangio argued for the plaintiffs, becoming the first known transgender person to make oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States.[24] [25] [26] James Matthew Rice, Tennessee's Solicitor General, argued for the Respondents.[27] [28]
On November 21, 2024, it was discovered that four of the doctors that were testifying in favor of Tennessee's ban had previously been reprimanded by various courts across the country as "conspiratorial, deeply biased, far off and deserving very little weight" and three of which had never provided healthcare to transgender youth.[29] [30] Additionally, an analysis of the amicus briefs by SPLC found that 19% of them had been filed by designated anti-LGBTQ+ hate groups.[31]
Court observers believed that justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to favor the arguments made by the plaintiffs whereas justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts appeared to favor the arguments made by Tennessee. However, they were slightly more skeptical of the positions of Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, the latter of whom did not ask a single question during the arguments.[32]
Legal experts expect that after Donald Trump is sworn in as president, his second administration will direct his Department of Justice to reverse their stance on the case and withdraw the government's request for the Supreme Court to hear the case.[33] [29] Experts predict that with oral arguments having already taken place by then, this should have little impact on the case. The Supreme Court could decide to hold another hearing for the case, however.[34]