SCOTUS upholds Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care setting precedent for Idaho

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors that likely sets a precedent for states with similar regulations like Idaho.

Tennessee and Idaho’s laws, both passed in 2023, ban medical providers from giving minors gender-affirming surgeries, puberty blockers or hormones when used to treat gender dysphoria, even though some of the same treatments remain allowed for others.

Tennessee’s law was challenged by transgender minors and their families on the basis that it was unconstitutional and discriminatory. The United States Supreme Court rejected that in a 6-3 ruling.

“Our role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his decision. “But only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”

This decision could set a precedent for the 24 other states with similar laws including Idaho. Idaho’s law, first passed in April 2023, was met with a lawsuit from families of two transgender teens just a month later. In December 2023, just before the law would go into effect, District of Idaho Judge B. Lynn Winmill filed a preliminary injunction, blocking the law.

The case, however, was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and in April 2024 the court allowed Idaho to enforce the law while the lawsuit played out in lower courts.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, which filed the lawsuit for the families, said in a news release that the case was dismissed earlier this year as both plaintiff families moved away from Idaho.

“Idaho has done what it set out to do – drive out transgender people who don’t want to tolerate the unnecessary hostility toward them,” Jenna Damron, advocacy fellow for the union said in the news release.

With the lawsuit dismissed and the Supreme Court’s recent decision, Idaho will be able to enforce its ban.

Blaine Conzatti, president of the Idaho Family Policy Center that drafted the law, said he was pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision.

“We’re excited with the decision of the Supreme Court,” Conzatti said. “Our law has been in effect for a while, but it continues to confirm what we’ve known all along, which is that these laws are medically sound, morally sound and constitutionally defensible.”

Conzatti said he considered gender-affirming care to be medical abuse as some treatments could lead to harmful side-effects and children could later regret their decision.

“We believe in small government,” Conzatti said. “But the state does have the power to regulate medical abuse that’s perpetrated against vulnerable populations like children.”

When the bill was first being heard, however, medical practitioners said they never offered gender-affirming surgeries to minors. Multiple medical associations have also endorsed gender-affirming care like the American Medical Association, the Idaho Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and American Psychiatric Association.

Conzatti said that hospitals in Idaho referred patients out of state for gender-affirming surgeries and cited insurance claims for minors receiving surgeries gathered by Do Not Harm, which uses Freedom of Information Act requests to gather the claims, as evidence of gender-affirming surgeries happening in Idaho.

Sarah Lynch, executive director of the North Idaho Pride Alliance, said in an email that the organization will continue to help people affected by the law.

“We are holding space for the parents, caregivers, loved ones, and those who will witness first hand the devastating effect of this decision,” Lynch said. “And to trans youth – this in no way changes who you are! We see you and take up this battle on your behalf.”

Idaho state Sen. Melissa Wintrow said the law is discriminatory since minors with other diagnoses can receive hormones and puberty blockers and that these decisions should be made between families and physicians.

“There’s a variety of treatments that people get in privacy with their medical doctor that politicians might disagree with,” said Wintrow, a Democrat from Boise. “Once the government starts picking and choosing who gets care, then no one’s freedom is truly safe.”

Wintrow said the most concerning part about the Supreme Court ruling is what it might mean for the future.

“The bigger picture is we’re allowing politicians to get in between parents and their kids about the personal decisions that are going to make their lives better,” Wintrow said. “That’s scary.”