On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case involving the rights of doctors to give puberty blockers and gender hormone drugs to transgender minors. The case, U.S v. Jonathan Skrmetti, has ignited enormous controversy and is likely to be one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of 2025.
The case centers around a Tennessee law that bans healthcare providers from performing any medical procedure “enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or any medical procedure “treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.” The law is challenged by parents and transgender-rights groups, who argue that it violates the equal protection clause by discriminating based on sex and transgender status, and violates parents’ due process rights by limiting their ability to guide their children’s medical care.
The Biden administration has joined the challenge, arguing that the law is unconstitutional and that it is based on misinformation and stereotypes about transgender people. The administration notes that the law was passed with comments from Tennessee politicians that perpetuate harmful stereotypes about transgender people, including the idea that gender dysphoria is a “social contagion” driven by social media.
The case has far-reaching implications for gender-affirming care, which is a critical aspect of treatment for many transgender minors. If the Tennessee law is upheld, it could ban “certain forms of medically necessary care for transgender minors with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria,” according to the Justice Department.
The Supreme Court’s decision is likely to be influenced by its recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the federal right to abortion. Some legal experts believe that the Court may use the case to narrow its definition of equal protection, which could have far-reaching implications for other cases involving discrimination.
The case is also likely to be influenced by the outcome of the recent presidential election, in which Republicans spent heavily on anti-trans messages. The re-election of Donald Trump is likely to direct the Justice Department to switch sides in the case, according to Chase Strangio, an ACLU attorney.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have significant implications for the rights of transgender minors and their families. The case is a major test of how far the Court is willing to stretch its decision in Dobbs to allow states to ban other forms of healthcare.