Yesterday’s Supreme Court argument about laws banning medical care for transgender minors was an unexpected bright spot. Over the past few months, millions of people in this country have been subjected to nonstop ads that demonize transgender people. In the wake of that hellish experience, it was a relief to hear our nations’ highest court taking very seriously the question of whether Tennessee’s transgender medical ban discriminates based on sex. Both Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and Co-Director for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, Chase Strangio, did an excellent job of making the case for the families challenging the law.   

As Solicitor General Prelogar explained: “The law restricts medical care only when provided to induce physical effects inconsistent with birth sex. Someone assigned female at birth can’t receive medication to live as a male, but someone assigned male can. If you change the individual’s sex, it changes the result. That’s a facial sex classification full stop.”  

In contrast, the attorney representing Tennessee had no effective argument to the contrary, contending that the ban—which permits non-transgender youth to receive the very same medications banned only for transgender youth—is somehow about “medical purpose,” not discrimination.    

But as Justice Kagan responded: “The whole thing is imbued with sex. I mean, it’s based on sex. You might have reasons for thinking that it’s an appropriate regulation, and those reasons should be tested and respect given to them, but it’s a dodge to say that this is not based on sex, it’s based on medical purpose, when the medical purpose is utterly and entirely about sex.” 

This exchange was extremely important, because the sole legal issue in this case is whether these bans discriminate based on sex. The entire case rests on this legal question—not on whether the justices approve of transgender healthcare.  

Chase Strangio did a terrific job of educating the Court about the history of discrimination against transgender people. As he noted, transgender people have been subject to criminal laws against cross-dressing and banned from military service. They have also been excluded from government jobs, barred from marriage, and denied healthcare under Medicaid and Medicare programs. 

Notably, Chase was responding to a question from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who seemed genuinely interested in examining whether discrimination based on transgender status should receive a high level of constitutional protection. 

Overall, the questions were well-informed and showed respect for the seriousness of the constitutional issue presented.  

As an attorney who has litigated transgender rights cases for many years, I was encouraged by the argument and am genuinely hopeful that we will win the case.  

And as a transgender man, I was proud of the progress our community has made, and proud to see the Solicitor General of the United States and a transgender attorney representing our community.   

As we await the decision, which will likely be issued in the summer of 2025, thousands of families with transgender children and thousands of transgender youth are painfully waiting to learn whether they are still equal members of this society or whether the Supreme Court will put its stamp of approval on even the most blatant anti-transgender discrimination.  

In her argument, General Prelogar asked the Court to “think about the real-world consequences of laws like SB1 [Tennessee’s ban]. Consider its effects on [youth plaintiff] Ryan Roe. Ryan’s gender dysphoria was so severe that he was throwing up before school every day. He thought about going mute because his voice caused him so much distress. And Ryan has told the courts that getting these medications after a careful consultation process with his doctors and his parents has saved his life. His parents say he’s now thriving. But Tennessee has come in and categorically cut off access to Ryan’s care, and they say this is about protecting adolescent health, but this law harms Ryan’s health and the health of all other transgender adolescents for whom these medications are a necessity.”  

I am hopeful the Court will recognize the human impact of these laws and the terrible harm they cause to families who need support.   

In the meantime, all of us at NCLR will continue to support these families and to challenge anti-LGBTQ laws wherever and whenever they are passed. 

And as our decades of hard work and progress have shown, we have every reason to persevere and every reason to hope.  

– Shannon Minter, Vice President of Legal at the National Center for Lesbian Rights