Tennessee Law Banning Gender-Affirming Care for Minors Allowed to Proceed by U.S. Appeals Court
In a landmark ruling on Saturday, a U.S. appeals court has allowed a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for minors to go into effect. This decision marks the first instance of a federal court allowing a ban of this kind to proceed after similar laws were blocked in other states.
The ruling from the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, reversed a lower district court’s injunction that had paused the implementation of the Tennessee law. However, it is important to note that this ruling is only temporary. The appeals court has announced that it will conduct a full review of the case, which is expected to be completed by September 30.
Under Tennessee’s law, medical providers are prohibited from offering gender-affirming care, and transgender youths who are currently receiving such treatment are required to end their care by March 31, 2024. This law has garnered significant attention and debate, with advocates and opponents both passionately advocating for their positions.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, a Republican, hailed the ruling as a “big win” and expressed confidence that Tennessee is likely to win the constitutional argument and the overall case. However, opponents of the law have voiced their disappointment and concern, believing that this ruling is a setback for transgender youths and their families.
The victory for opponents of gender-affirming care for minors in Tennessee comes after similar bans were unanimously blocked in Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Indiana, and Kentucky, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU, along with other legal advocates, issued a joint statement expressing their disappointment and vowing to continue challenging the law until it is permanently defeated.
It is worth noting that just last month, a federal judge struck down an Arkansas law that also banned gender-affirming care for transgender youths. The judge deemed the law as violating doctors’ rights and discriminating against transgender individuals. In response, federal courts temporarily halted similar statewide restrictions in Kentucky and Tennessee.
While the lower district court in Tennessee deemed the state’s law as unconstitutional due to its discrimination on the basis of sex, the federal appeals court majority ruled that the matter should be left to the state legislature. In his opinion, Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton expressed concern about federal judges taking away a topic of medical debate from the democratic process. Judge Helene N. White agreed with Sutton that the statewide injunction was an overstep but stated that the Tennessee law was likely unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of sex.
This ruling has significant implications for the ongoing legal battles surrounding gender-affirming care for minors in the United States. As the case continues to unfold, the rights and well-being of transgender youths remain at the center of the debate.