On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court conducted oral arguments for a pivotal case concerning transgender health care for minors, focusing specifically on Tennessee’s prohibition of such treatments within the state.

The conservative justices expressed concerns about the role of courts in determining whether states should restrict transgender youth from accessing puberty blockers and hormone therapy, questioning if judicial decisions should supersede state legislative authority.

Justice Samuel Alito posed a critical question to the attorneys representing the families challenging Tennessee’s law: “Wouldn’t this lead to endless legal disputes over complex medical issues decided by non-medical judges?”

This prompted anxiety among the liberal justices, who worried that the court might overlook the Constitution’s guarantee for equal treatment under the law.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised alarms about the court’s responsibilities during the lengthy proceedings, stating, “I’m quite worried about the court’s role and the constitutional distribution of power.”

Here are the recent updates from the discussion:

Skrmetti: Tennessee Law is Gender-Neutral

After the court session, Tennessee Attorney General John Skrmetti spoke to reporters, labeling gender transition medications as “untested procedures that can drastically alter lives based on uncertain scientific evidence.”

He emphasized that the law does not discriminate based on sex but applies uniformly, stating, “It regulates irrespective of gender.”

Skrmetti also argued that the Constitution “does not mandate irrational responses to biological differences,” referring to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as “the most significant feminist in the court’s history.”

— Cybele Mayes-Osterman

Strangio: Constitutional Protections for Transgender Individuals

ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio expressed his honor in representing the plaintiffs, who made healthcare decisions for their struggling children based on medical recommendations, only to see those choices overridden by the state of Tennessee.

Strangio asserted that the plaintiffs’ case aligns with Tennessee law which states, “The government of Tennessee desires for you to accept your assigned gender.”

“The Constitution safeguards transgender individuals in the same way it protects all citizens,” Strangio declared.

— Cybele Mayes-Osterman

High-Profile Oral Arguments Conclude

The oral arguments for this critical case lasted about two and a half hours and are regarded as one of the court’s most significant issues this term.

A ruling is anticipated by the summer, but the decision could be complicated if the incoming Trump administration informs the court next year that the Justice Department will no longer contest Tennessee’s ban.

If this occurs, it is uncertain whether the court will dismiss the case, request additional arguments, or render a decision based solely on today’s proceedings.

–Maureen Groppe

DOJ Highlights the Impact of Tennessee’s Law

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar sought to conclude with remarks on behalf of the minors contesting Tennessee’s prohibition.

In her final statements, she emphasized the “real-world ramifications” of upholding the ban.

She mentioned that before starting treatment, one youth experienced such severe distress that he would vomit every morning before school.

“His parents report he is now thriving, yet Tennessee has unjustly blocked Ryan’s access to essential care,” she stated. “While they claim this law is about safeguarding adolescent health, it actually jeopardizes Ryan’s health and that of other transgender youths who depend on these treatments.”

–Maureen Groppe

Tennessee’s Law: Not Based on Sex, Claims Lawyer

Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice countered Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s analogy of Tennessee’s prohibition of transgender healthcare to Virginia’s former ban on interracial marriage.

Brown Jackson argued that the court previously ruled such laws fundamentally restricted rights based on race. She contended that Tennessee’s restriction on transgender care constituted gender discrimination, despite its application to all minors.

However, Rice maintained that the ban is centered on the medical purposes of treatment rather than the patient’s gender. He noted that boys could receive puberty blockers to address precocious puberty, but not for transition purposes.

“This is not a gender-based distinction; it’s a distinction based on treatment objectives,” Rice clarified. “To equate this to a gender-specific line would disregard medical realities and contradict the law’s intent.”

–Bart Jansen

Kagan Questions Tennessee’s Intent with the Law

Justice Elena Kagan challenged Tennessee’s representatives on the law’s purported aim of guiding minors to accept their gender assigned at birth.

She implied that the law suggests there is something inherently wrong with young people wishing to transition, remarking, “It sounds to me like we expect boys to act like boys and girls to act like girls.”

In response, Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice claimed that referencing a child’s acknowledgment of their assigned gender reflects a concern that some individuals may regret transitioning treatments.

According to him, it’s important to give minors the chance to understand their biological sex.

–Maureen Groppe

Pro-ban protester claims puberty blockers are a form of ‘conversion therapy’

At the court rally on Wednesday morning, Buzz Webb showcased a sign that read, “I am a child desister… puberty and my mom cured my gender confusion.”

Webb, who is gay, experienced feelings of gender dysphoria as a child. However, her parents supported her self-expression, and these feelings faded when she went through puberty.

“I can’t imagine how I would have turned out at 57 if I had taken puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and undergone unnecessary surgeries,” Webb reflected.

Hailing from North Carolina, she expressed her worry that many of the children receiving puberty blockers are same-sex attracted.

“This is the new conversion therapy,” she asserted.

“I would have been that child, I would have been desperate for those medications,” she admitted. Looking back, she is thankful she never went down that path.

“I stand here for my seven-year-old self, and for my loving mom and dad,” she said.

— Cybele Mayes-Osterman

Frustration with transphobia

Nyx Tucci, 16, who participated in a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, has a history of advocating for trans rights.

Following an incident where a local police officer searched for the book “Gender Queer” at Tucci’s middle school in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, Tucci led a walkout. A custodian had reported a teacher for having the book, leading to a lawsuit from the teacher.

“I am tired of the notion that transphobia, homophobia, racism, and other forms of discrimination only occur in the South,” Tucci said. “It’s not right that it takes place anywhere.”

Despite having only transitioned socially, Tucci has seen the effects of restricted access to puberty blockers in their personal life.

<p“Someone very dear to me online took their own life due to not being able to access the necessary medications,” Tucci revealed. “I want to ensure that no one else’s life is impacted by this decision.”

— Cybele Mayes-Osterman

Tennessee attorney general: Transgender care for minors is hazardous

During his opening statement, Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice argued that the state’s legislation aims to shield minors from “dangerous and unverified medical procedures.”

He contended that the state can ban such treatments for transgender youth while still permitting them for nontransgender individuals due to the differing medical needs.

“Using morphine to alleviate pain is distinct from using it to facilitate suicide,” he stated. “Employing hormones and puberty blockers for a physical issue is considerably different from utilizing them to manage psychological distress relating to one’s body.”

He added that the Constitution’s equal protection clause “does not obligate states to ignore medical realities or to treat dissimilar cases equally.”

–Maureen Groppe

Justice Gorsuch’s opinion drives attention

Justice Neil Gorsuch did not ask any questions during the arguments against Tennessee’s law.

Observers found his stance particularly crucial since Gorsuch was the author of the 2020 ruling that outlawed workplace discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation under federal civil rights legislation.

The opposing sides have differing viewpoints regarding the relevance of the 2020 ruling to the current situation.

–Maureen Groppe

Brown Jackson fears anti-trans ruling could threaten interracial marriage rights

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern that some justices appeared to believe that the regulation of transgender healthcare should fall to lawmakers instead of the judiciary, worried that such a decision might undermine significant precedents like those relating to interracial marriage.

Brown Jackson affirmed that a fundamental principle of equal protection is the existence of a constitutional issue whenever a legislature imposes limitations based on suspect classifications.

“I feel quite anxious about the implications of court involvement vs. legislative authority,” stated Brown Jackson.

She noted that she was “becoming increasingly nervous” due to past arguments against interracial marriage being presented before the court in a landmark 1967 case called Loving v. Virginia.

“I worry that we are eroding the foundation of our most important equal protection cases,” she remarked.

ACLU attorney Chase Strangio resonated with Jackson’s apprehensions.

“I share your concerns,” agreed Strangio.

–Bart Jansen

Crowd jeers while Marjorie Taylor Greene addresses protestors

As Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, addressed demonstrators outside the Supreme Court, disapproving boos and jeers erupted from the crowd.

“Republicans stand united against the genital mutilation of children and the indoctrination in our schools,” she declared amidst the cacophony, as some protestors gestured negatively at her while others attempted to drown her out with loud music.

She described the provision of gender transition care as “immoral” and an “embarrassment” to the United States.

— Cybele Mayes-Osterman

Kavanaugh acknowledges risks in both prohibition and allowance of treatment

Justice Brett Kavanaugh recognized that there are dangers associated with both the prohibition and allowance of treatment, placing the justices in a complex position of deciding which route would be more beneficial.

“There is no ‘ideal solution’ that guarantees benefit and eliminates harm for everyone involved,” he commented, reiterating his earlier point that such a decision might be more appropriately left to policymakers rather than judges.

ACLU attorney Chase Strangio emphasized the need for the court to evaluate whether Tennessee has valid reasons for removing the decision-making power from adolescents and their families.

–Maureen Groppe

Roberts: Legislation should govern medical practices, not judicial decisions

Chief Justice John Roberts echoed Justice Kavanaugh’s sentiments, noting that it is the lawmakers who should govern health policy rather than the nine justices of the Supreme Court,

“none of whom is a doctor.”

“It appears to me that we are significantly lacking in expertise on this matter,” Roberts mentioned.

–Bart Jansen

Sotomayor questions the court’s role in scientific disputes

Justice Sonia Sotomayor inquired of ACLU attorney Chase Strangio why the Supreme Court should get involved in the contentious issue of transgender healthcare, citing numerous scientific studies on the topic.

“I sense that some of my colleagues are concerned,” Sotomayor stated. “What gives the court the authority to resolve these kinds of questions?”

Strangio responded that judges are capable of evaluating scientific and medical testimony presented in court cases.

“The court’s function is to assess whether the government’s distinctions based on sensitive classifications genuinely advance significant governmental interests,” Strangio explained. “It is the court’s responsibility to confirm that Tennessee’s government has adequately pursued a legitimate public concern.”

Justice Samuel Alito expressed concerns shared by conservative justices, suggesting that such matters are better suited for legislative bodies rather than those of the judiciary. He argued that if the Supreme Court acknowledges that bans necessitate heightened scrutiny, it could spark endless debates about permissible limitations.

“Would this lead to perpetual legal battles based on decisions made by non-expert judges regarding intricate medical questions?” he queried.

Strangio contended that judges are “prepared to make those assessments as they do in many other scenarios.”

–Bart Jansen and Maureen Groppe

Jackson compares Tennessee’s stance to racial issues of the past

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson remarked that the fears expressed by Tennessee lawmakers regarding gender-affirming treatment bear resemblance to arguments made during the 1950s and 1960s regarding racial classifications.

She questioned whether there were similarities with the landmark Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, which invalidated the state law that banned interracial marriage.

Jackson proposed that Virginia may have successfully defended its actions had it presented a classification argument similar to Tennessee’s.

“I wonder if Virginia could have justified its actions by simply making a classification argument, as Tennessee is doing now,” she mentioned.

–Maureen Groppe

ACLU’s Chase Strangio makes history as the first transgender lawyer in the Supreme Court

The encounter was brief but significant.

After U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar initiated the arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts invited Chase Strangio, representing the American Civil Liberties Union, to address the court. Strangio is recognized as the first transgender lawyer to present before the Supreme Court.

“Mr. Strangio,” Roberts greeted him, adhering to customary protocol.

“Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court,” Strangio replied in traditional fashion.

–Bart Jansen

Barrett inquiries about parental rights in relation to the case

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar concurred that the case would not affect parental rights, a matter that was referenced by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in its ruling.

“That’s accurate,” Prelogar affirmed. “We are not asserting a substantive due process claim concerning parental rights, and this court did not take up that issue.”

–Bart Jansen

Kavanaugh questions DOJ about potential impacts on other transgender issues

Justice Brett Kavanaugh challenged the Justice Department to consider whether the outcome of this case could influence additional legal conflicts surrounding transgender matters, such as the sports teams transgender individuals may participate in or the bathrooms they can use.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar responded that there are distinct governmental interests involved in those cases that require judicial analysis.

She indicated that the Justice Department would not object if the court explicitly stated those are separate issues if the justices agree that Tennessee’s law needs extra scrutiny.

— Maureen Groppe

Kavanaugh calls for caution in changing transgender treatment protocols

Justice Brett Kavanaugh referenced “significant shifts in Europe” concerning the treatment of transgender individuals, suggesting the court should proceed with caution.

“It’s clearly an evolving discussion,” Kavanaugh noted. “As things change, and with countries like England and Sweden reconsidering their approaches, it signals a strong warning for the court to avoid constitutionalizing this area while other nations are reevaluating this treatment due to potential risks.”

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar asserted that the government is not seeking strict constitutional rules that would remove further discussion and consideration of regulatory options from the states.

She requested clarification from the justices on whether Tennessee’s law prohibits treatment based on sex.

— Bart Jansen

US solicitor general responds to risk concerns

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar aimed to address worries surrounding the risks of care, which include infertility and feelings of regret post-treatment.

Prelogar stated that while infertility is not a concern associated with puberty blockers, it is relevant for hormone therapy. She mentioned that although there are infertility risks, these could be mitigated through better-informed consent processes.

She also recognized that some individuals may feel remorse after treatment, as can occur with any medical procedure, but emphasized that such instances are “very rare.”

–Maureen Groppe

Lawmakers speak to rally attendees outside the court amid hearings

Democratic Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts addressed a rally for trans rights outside the court on Wednesday morning, asserting that transgender youth “deserve the right to access medically necessary gender-affirming care.”

“Americans should be able to make medical decisions privately in their doctor’s office without interference”

“People are frustrated with politicians trying to control their lives,” he stated.

Shortly before that, Tennessee Republican state Senator Ed Jackson addressed protestors across the street, asserting that children should naturally experience their hormonal changes without medication. “I really hope today our Supreme Court prioritizes the health and safety of children,” he remarked.

Amidst the fervent chants and fluttering signs, police maintained a presence behind the gatherings.

— Cybele Mayes-Osterman

Kagan Considers West Virginia Law as a Case in Point

Justice Elena Kagan inquired whether, should the court side with opponents of laws like the one in Tennessee that mandates heightened scrutiny, the law would have to be overturned.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar explained that while a blanket ban like Tennessee’s would face invalidation, regulation remains feasible.

She cited West Virginia as a relevant example.

Prelogar noted that while the state initially considered a total ban, it instead opted for a more nuanced approach that includes protocols such as requiring assessments from two doctors.

“Laws structured like that typically have a much better chance of standing,” she added.

–Maureen Groppe

Sotomayor: ‘Some Children Require This Treatment’

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the first to highlight the difficulties faced by teenagers when their gender identity does not align with their sex assigned at birth.

She mentioned that some individuals “suffer immensely,” even leading to suicide attempts. Quoting a statement from one of the youth challenging the ban, she noted that he became nearly mute, struggling to express himself authentically.

“There is substantial evidence indicating that some children genuinely need this treatment,” she asserted.

–Maureen Groppe

Alito Critiques Government’s Argument as ‘Wordplay’

Justice Samuel Alito questioned if a state could prohibit all puberty blockers for minors to avoid any implications of sex discrimination.

In response, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar stated that disallowing medications accessible to either boys or girls that might promote characteristics like facial hair growth or deeper voices constitutes discrimination based on sex.

“It’s akin to saying someone can’t dress at odds with their assigned sex,” Prelogar maintained.

Alito expressed skepticism over how restricting specific drugs for all minors could result in a breach of equal protection rights.

“I wonder if that’s merely a case of wordplay,” Alito remarked.

–Bart Jansen

Alito Probes DOJ Regarding UK Study on Gender-Affirming Care

Justice Samuel Alito challenged U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar on whether the federal government is overlooking an English review of gender-affirming care, which found inadequate evidence concerning the long-term outcomes of such treatments for gender-related distress.

Prelogar conceded that discussions about this care vary widely and the timing of its administration to adolescents is debated.

However, she affirmed a consensus exists that these treatments are essential for some young people’s health.

“This remains true regardless of the source,” she emphasized.

–Maureen Groppe

Chief Justice Questions Why States Shouldn’t Decide

Chief Justice John Roberts raised the question of why this matter shouldn’t be left to state legislatures, considering the medical ambiguities involved.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar countered that the medical uncertainties surrounding these treatments can still warrant closer examination of laws like Tennessee’s since they discriminate based on gender. Consequently, she argued, Tennessee is required to demonstrate that the bans serve a significant state interest.

Prelogar noted that the appellate court failed to use this stricter scrutiny standard when it sided with Tennessee, and she argues the Supreme Court should impose it.

— Maureen Groppe

Thomas Questions if the Case Is More About Age Than Gender

Justice Clarence Thomas remarked that the government’s arguments imply that the state has a complete ban on treatment, but that “it’s really about minors.”

“Isn’t this more an issue of age classification concerning these treatments rather than a ban, as you implied in your introduction?” Thomas asked U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.

Prelogar acknowledged that the law prohibits based on age but also merges restrictions based on classification with sex-based restrictions. She argued that this case deserves a more intense review that could overturn the state ban due to its sexual classification.

“I label it a categorical ban because the state provides no exception for patients to receive these medications when there’s proof of individualized medical necessity,” Prelogar clarified. “This represents a significant departure from how the state customarily addresses considerations of risk and benefit, even in pediatric care.”

— Bart Jansen

U.S. Solicitor General: Tennessee Law is Discriminatory

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar initiated her arguments by conveying to the court that Tennessee’s law is discriminatory towards transgender adolescents by prohibiting them from accessing treatments available for other purposes.

She claimed the state justifies this by promoting the idea that minors should embrace their sex assigned at birth.

“A person assigned female at birth is barred from receiving medication to transition to living as a male, while someone assigned male can,” she articulated. “Altering the individual’s sex alters the outcomes.”

Prelogar argued that rather than introducing carefully considered safeguards, Tennessee opts for a total ban on the care.

“The decisions regarding what’s best for children should not matter,” she concluded.

–Maureen Groppe

For a 12-year-old, starting puberty blockers was ‘the best day’

For Emily Kontos, watching the rise of bans on puberty blockers nationwide is “extremely nerve-wracking” as her 12-year-old transgender son began medication last summer.

“That’s why we’re here,” Kontos, 46, stated. “We’re very anxious.”

Her son began socially transitioning at the age of five, and the day he started puberty blockers was “the best day of his life,” she revealed.

“Every day my son feels validated, he grows happier and more authentic,” she added. In two years, he will begin testosterone therapy. Although they reside in Massachusetts, where gender transition care is legal for minors, Kontos worries this case could have significant repercussions for her child, who previously suffered from severe depression before starting treatment.

“This is crucial, life-saving medical care,” she expressed. “Without it I can’t even imagine what would happen.”

— Cybele Mayes-Osterman

Who is opposing Tennessee’s ban? Elizabeth Prelogar and Chase Strangio

In a show of the case’s importance, the Justice Department appointed its top litigator, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, to lead the challenge.

Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, is also set to argue against the Tennessee restriction.

Notably, Strangio will be the first openly transgender attorney to present a case before the court.

“I won’t just be presenting legal points; I will personify them,” Strangio remarked in a New York Times opinion piece.

– Maureen Groppe

Who is supporting Tennessee’s ban? Matthew Rice

Matthew Rice, Tennessee’s solicitor general, represents the state in the case.

This marks Rice’s first court appearance after previously serving as a clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas.

Before beginning his legal career, Rice played minor league baseball for the Tampa Bay Rays.

– Maureen Groppe

‘I feel powerless’: Parents protest against puberty blockers

Victoria Hall, 51, was a lifelong Democratic voter until she became an independent due to concerns over children’s access to gender transition treatments.

“I may never vote again, as the disappointment is profoundly deep,” Hall lamented regarding the Democratic Party’s stance on transgender rights.

“This ideology has fractured my family and harmed one of my child’s health,” she stated, adding it is “destroying the fabric of society.”

Hall mentioned that her child, who has autism, ADHD, and other mental health issues, secretly began ordering medications at 17 and having them sent to a friend’s house.

“This is affecting his health,” she said of her now adult child, who identifies as female.

During a doctor’s appointment for her 13-year-old daughter, a doctor wanted to speak with her daughter alone about her gender identity, a request Hall refused.

“What can I do? I feel powerless,” she said. “The state is interfering with my ability to be a parent, through schools and doctors.”

— Cybele Mayes-Osterman

Plaintiffs’ lawyer: ‘Bodily autonomy’ is crucial

Ethan Rice, an attorney from Lambda Legal, representing the plaintiffs, indicated that the core issue in this case is “bodily autonomy.” “It’s about the right to live as you choose,” he noted. Rice emphasized that “30 years of research” indicates that gender-affirming treatments are safe for children.

“What’s at stake is literally potentially life-saving health care,” he asserted, hoping the court justices “uphold the precedent” that recognizes the ban as a form of sex discrimination.

“They need to clarify what standards apply to sex discrimination cases,” he stated. “This isn’t just relevant to transgender individuals.”

— Cybele Mayes-Osterman

‘Queer trans joy is unstoppable’

A large crowd of demonstrators assembled outside the court hours prior to the argument session scheduled for Wednesday morning.

Numerous trans rights supporters gathered on the northern side carrying rainbow flags and holding signs proclaiming “queer trans joy is unstoppable.”

Conversely, other protesters displayed signs such as “no child can consent to be sterilized” and “puberty blockers = anti-gay.”

“Young individuals have been fed a false narrative,” a supporter of the ban expressed during the rally. Meanwhile, speakers from the opposing view played loud music.

— Cybele Mayes-Osterman

Could the ruling reflect the court’s abortion decision?

In 2022, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the constitutional right to abortion led the majority to suggest that such matters are better decided by legislative bodies. They stated that the court had “neither the authority nor the expertise” to weigh the significance of the fetus against the mother.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton echoed this sentiment in the ruling from the 6^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld Tennessee’s legislation.

Sutton remarked that since the treatments are “still experimental,” judicial bodies should remain wary of constraining legislative decisions with a “constitutional straightjacket.”

He also referenced the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case in 2022 to clarify why the ban in Tennessee does not constitute sex discrimination.

In the Dobbs decision, the court stated that laws restricting abortion do not violate the equal protection clause, and Sutton indicated that Tennessee’s law does not either, simply because it mentions a person’s sex – akin to abortion laws.

– Maureen Groppe

What are the Supreme Court’s previous decisions on transgender discrimination?

The Supreme Court, in 2020, ruled against workplace discrimination towards gay, lesbian, and transgender employees, marking an unexpected win for the LGBTQ community.

This decision, penned by Justice Neil Gorsuch, was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and the liberal justices.

However, that case was grounded in the terms of a federal civil rights statute rather than the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

In the current situation, both sides have presented arguments regarding the relevance of that 2020 ruling.

– Maureen Groppe

Transgender rights protections in 2024

The Justice Department claims transgender Americans have faced long-standing discrimination.

“Such animosity is increasing, rather than diminishing,” the department stated in their written argument, highlighting the numerous laws targeting transgender individuals that have been enacted by various states.

President-elect Donald Trump, who campaigned on opposition to transgender rights, has expressed his desire to “prevent the chemical, physical, and emotional mutilation of our youth.”

Conversely, Tennessee argues that it is unrealistic to suggest transgender individuals lack political influence. The state’s attorneys highlighted initiatives by the Biden administration aimed at supporting transgender rights.

“The fact that they have not succeeded in every battle across states doesn’t indicate a lack of power,” Tennessee’s legal team informed the Supreme Court.

– Maureen Groppe

What is the core legal question in this case?

The pivotal question for the court is whether the bans constitute discrimination based on a person’s sex or transgender status.

If they are found to constitute discrimination, the bans could still be upheld, but Tennessee would face a heavier burden to demonstrate that its law serves a compelling governmental interest.

Opponents argue the laws are discriminatory. They point out the inconsistency where a teenage boy assigned male at birth can receive testosterone treatment for delayed puberty, whereas a teenage girl assigned female at birth may be denied testosterone for treating gender dysphoria.

Tennessee claims it is limiting treatments based on their intended use and the age of patients, rather than on the basis of sex or transgender identity, thereby asserting there’s no discrimination.

– Maureen Groppe