BOISE (Statesman of Idaho) A Tennessee statute prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors was maintained by the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday. This decision solidifies similar laws in over a dozen other states, including Idaho.
Like Idaho’s, Tennessee’s law focuses on providing transgender adolescents with medical care that addresses gender dysphoria, which is the pain that arises when a person’s appearance or body doesn’t correspond with their gender identity. While Idaho’s statute prohibits operations despite physicians’ testimony in the Idaho Legislature that they do not provide transition-related surgeries to children, Tennessee’s law prohibits hormone and puberty-blocking drugs.
In the court’s ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that the plaintiffs in the Tennessee case—a number of transgender adolescents, their parents, and a physician—failed to prove that the law discriminates against transgender children on the basis of their age and sex.
Additionally, Roberts rejected the plaintiffs’ claims that Tennessee is imposing gender norms on kids. Rather, Roberts commended the state’s legislators for their seeming compassion for children, pointing to the Legislature’s declared goals of promoting sex appreciation in children and outlawing medical treatments that could incite sex scorn in children.
Tennessee lawmakers voiced concerns about the safety of the therapies and the potential for regretting gender-affirming care later in life, according to Roberts, who stated that the court’s six conservative members won the day in a 6-3 decision. Legislators in Idaho have made similar claims, but transgender individuals and doctors have consistently underlined the significance of the procedure, which can significantly lower rates of suicide and self-harm.
People who have knee replacement surgery have a higher risk of regret, according to one Idaho doctor.
After a complaint from the ACLU of Idaho and Wrest Collective, a federal judge in Idaho questioned the validity of the statute, temporarily blocking the 2023 ban that had been passed by lawmakers. Ral Labrador, the attorney general for Idaho, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the prohibition while the case was still pending. The court granted Labrador’s request, and in April 2024, the ban was reinstated.
When both plaintiff families relocated out of state early this year, the case was dismissed, according to a news release from the American Civil Liberties Union.
In the news release, Jenna Damron, an Advocacy Fellow with the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, stated that the state has achieved its goal of expelling transgender individuals who do not wish to put up with the needless animosity directed at them. I’m not surprised by this decision, though I wish I could say that.
Nevertheless, I want all trans children to know that they are cherished. “You deserve it,” Damron went on. And regardless of what this court decides, we will continue to battle for you.
Labrador’s office did not immediately respond to The Idaho Statesman’s request for comment.
The Idaho Family Policy Center, a Christian advocacy organization that claimed to have created and supported the Idaho law, has already praised the decision.
Hecox v. Little, which deals with prohibitions on transgender sports, and Robinson v. Labrador, which deals with gender-affirming medical care for inmates, are two ongoing court actions against Idaho officials regarding transgender rights problems, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho.
