Latest news with #LambdaLegal
The Hill
5 hours ago
- Health
- The Hill
Supreme Court ruling scrambles battle for transgender care
The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a substantial blow to transgender-rights advocates in upholding a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of transgender health in the U.S. but whose impact won't be felt right away. 'The immediate outcome is that it doesn't change anything,' said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Institute for Health Research and Policy at Whitman-Walker, a Washington-based nonprofit. 'It doesn't affect the availability or legality of care in states that do not have bans, and it simply says that states that have decided to ban this care can do so if they survive other challenges.' Twenty-seven Republican-led states since 2021 have adopted laws that ban transition-related care, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and rare surgeries for minors. Laws passed in Arizona and New Hampshire — the first Northeastern state to have restricted gender dysphoria treatments for youth — only prohibit minors from accessing surgeries, a provision that was not at issue before the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld a lower court ruling that found Tennessee's restrictions do not violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The state's law, which allows cisgender children and teens to access medications that it bans for trans minors, makes distinctions based on age and diagnosis, the courts ruled, rather than sex and transgender status. Three Tennessee families, a doctor and the Biden administration, along with attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal, argued the measure amounts to illegal sex discrimination, warranting heightened review. 'Having concluded it does not,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority on Wednesday, 'we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' At least 10 legal challenges to state laws prohibiting health professionals from administering gender-affirming care to minors argue the restrictions discriminate based on sex in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday could potentially weaken, in some cases, that line of attack, but it is not the only approach opponents of the laws have pursued. More than a dozen other lawsuits, including ones arguing equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, claim bans on transition-related health care for minors violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, federal disability law or provisions of a state's constitution. In May, a federal judge struck Montana's ban on gender-affirming care for youth on grounds it violated privacy, equal protection and free speech rights guaranteed by its constitution. 'This ruling allows challenges to other state bans to continue,' said Baker, of Whitman-Walker, 'and they will.' Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of Lambda Legal's constitutional law practice, told reporters on a Zoom call following Wednesday's ruling that the civil rights organization and others challenging state bans on gender-affirming care have other options at their disposal. 'The Supreme Court did not endorse the entirety of the lower court's ruling; it did not mandate or even greenlight other bans on gender-affirming medical care, even for young people, or other forms of discrimination,' she said. 'It really is about how it viewed Tennessee's in this specific way, and left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on health care and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people, including other equal protection arguments about transgender status discrimination, about the animus-based targeting of trans people.' Loewy added that the court's ruling also left the door open to arguments based on state and federal sex discrimination statutes and parental rights, which the justices did not address Wednesday. Nearly all of the cases brought against youth gender-affirming care bans argue those laws infringe on the rights of parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. 'As a parent, I know my child better than any government official ever will,' Samantha Williams, the mother of L.W., a transgender teenager who was at the center of the case before the Supreme Court, wrote in a New York Times op-ed after Wednesday's ruling. The Supreme Court's determination that Tennessee's law does not discriminate based on sex also raises questions about how opponents of transition-related health care for minors will use the ruling to inform their own legal strategies. In Arkansas, the ACLU successfully argued in 2023 that the first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming care for minors violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as well as its Due Process Clause and the First Amendment's protections of free speech. 'We'll have to see, but it's possible that that ban could stand because the court made that decision on equal protection, as well as on other grounds,' said Lindsey Dawson, director for LGBTQ health policy at KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization. 'This is likely to be an area that's going to face continued litigation and is not settled at this point in time.' In a statement Wednesday, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) said he is 'preparing an official notification' for an appeals court detailing the implications of Wednesday's Supreme Court decision on the state's ban, which the Legislature passed — and former Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson initially vetoed — in 2021. 'Because our law is similar to Tennessee's law, today's decision has positive implications for our case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,' he said. Montana and Arkansas are the only states whose bans on gender-affirming care for youth remain blocked by court orders, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit group that tracks LGBTQ laws. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday also declined, as some court watchers had anticipated, to apply the reasoning of its earlier decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from discrimination based on their sex or gender identity. Some lawsuits challenging state bans on care for minors have said the ruling should apply to contexts other than workplace discrimination. Former President Biden's administration similarly sought to use the court's reasoning in Bostock to back new nondiscrimination policies protecting transgender people in health care and sports, arguments largely rejected by conservative political leaders and courts. 'We still don't have a sole understanding of where Bostock might apply outside of Title VII, and it's going to be something that's important to watch,' Dawson said. 'It's certainly something that the Bostock court warned us about,' she said. 'In that decision, the court said, this court is making its ruling and it's quite narrow, but it's going to be for future courts to decide how this applies outside of Title VII. That remains a question mark.'
New York Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
My Daughter Was at the Center of the Supreme Court Case on Trans Care. Our Hearts Are Broken.
There is something incredibly surreal about finding your family at the center of a landmark Supreme Court decision, from the robes and the formality to the long, red velvet curtains behind the justices. No mother imagines that her everyday fight to do right by her child would land her there. My daughter, L.W., came out as transgender late in 2020. She was just shy of 13. Four and a half years later, she is thriving, healthy and happy after pursuing evidence-based gender-affirming care. But the very care that is improving her life became a primary political target of the Republican supermajority in our home state, Tennessee. When the legislature banned my daughter's care in 2023, we fought back by suing the state. Today, we found out that we lost that case when the Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, to uphold Tennessee's ban on such care. I am beside myself. Our heartfelt plea was not enough. The compelling, expert legal arguments by our lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal were not enough. I had to face my daughter and tell her that our last hope is gone. She's angry, scared and hurt that the American system of democracy that we so put on a pedestal didn't work to protect her. My family did not start this journey to land in Washington in front of that white marble hall of justice. We ended up there through parental and civic duty. My and my husband's demands in our lawsuit against the ban felt quite basic: Let us do our job as parents. Let us love and care for our daughter in the best way we and our doctors know how. Don't let our child's very existence be a political wedge issue. Being a teenager is hard enough. Being a parent of a teenager is hard enough. Raising a transgender kid in Tennessee, we know that not everyone understands people like her or her health care — and that's OK. We don't need to agree on everything. But we do need our fundamental rights respected. I have devoted myself to finding our daughter consistent care in one state after another. The nightmare of our disrupted life pales in comparison to the nightmare of losing access to the health care that has allowed our daughter to thrive. After Tennessee passed its ban, we traveled to another provider in a different state. After that state passed a ban, we moved on to another one. We are now on our fourth state. The five-hour drive each way, taking time off work and school, is hard, but thankfully, we found a clinic and pharmacy that take our insurance. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court upholds Tennessee prohibition on gender-affirming care for minors
Transgender rights opponents and a supporter rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices hear arguments in a case on transgender health rights on Dec. 4, 2024, in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court ruled today in U.S. v. Skrmetti. (Photo by) The U.S. Supreme Court, in a potential landmark decision, upheld Tennessee's law prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors, saying children who seek the treatment don't qualify as a protected class. In United States v. Skrmetti, the high court issued a 6-3 ruling Wednesday overturning a lower court's finding that the restrictions violate the constitutional rights of children seeking puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria. The U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the district court's decision and sent it to the high court. The court's three liberal justices dissented, writing that the court had abandoned transgender children and their families to 'political whims.' Tennessee lawmakers passed the legislation in 2023, leading to a lawsuit argued before the Supreme Court last December. The federal government, under the Biden administration, took up the case for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and three transgender teens, their families and a Memphis doctor who challenged the law, but the U.S. Department of Justice under President Donald Trump dropped its opposition. In its ruling, the court said that the plaintiffs argued that Senate Bill 1 'warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications.' But the court found that neither of the classifications considered, those based on age and medical use, are determined on sex. 'Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor's sex,' the ruling states. The ruling says the application of the law 'does not turn on sex,' either, because it doesn't prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing it for minors of the opposite sex. The Tennessee House Republican Caucus issued a statement saying, 'This is a proud day for the Volunteer State and for all who believe in protecting the innocence and well-being of America's children.' Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, who sponsored the bill, said he is grateful the court ruled that states hold the authority to protect children from 'irreversible medical procedures.' 'The simple message the Supreme Court has sent the world is 'enough is enough,'' Johnson said in a statement. The Tennessee Equality Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group, expressed dismay at the decision: 'We are profoundly disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to side with the Tennessee legislature's anti-transgender ideology and further erode the rights of transgender children and their families and doctors. We are grateful to the plaintiffs, families, and the ACLU for fighting on behalf of more than 1.3 million transgender adults and 300,000 youth across the nation.' The group said gender-affirming care saves lives and is supported by medical groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association. The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that the law enforces 'a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex.' The court found that laws that classify people on the basis of sex require closer scrutiny if they involve 'impermissible stereotypes.' But if the law's classifications aren't covertly or overtly based on sex, heightened review by the court isn't required unless the law is motivated by 'invidious discriminatory purpose.' 'And regardless, the statutory findings on which SB1 is premised do not themselves evince sex-based stereotyping,' the ruling says. In response to the outcome, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said Tennessee voters' common sense won over 'judicial activism' on a law spurred by an increase in treatment for transgender children. 'I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood,' Skrmetti said. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion: 'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, 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.' Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond successfully defended a similar Oklahoma law. 'This case is a tremendous victory for Oklahoma's children, ensuring they will not be subjected to the consequences of these life-altering surgeries,' Drummond said. 'The practice is unconscionable, and I appreciate the court's ruling that we as a state have the right to protect Oklahoma children from this irreparable harm.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
L.A. Press Conference Re: SCOTUS Transgender/Skrmetti Ruling - TODAY 12:30 pm
FLUX & The Connie Norman Transgender Empowerment Center (CONOTEC) join Lambda Legal, GJLA, & LA LGBT Center in Statement re: the Supreme Court Decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti June 18, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--FLUX: WHEN: TODAY – Wednesday, June 18th, 2025, 12:30pm PDT – The Connie Norman Transgender Empowerment Center 1001 N Martel, LA CA 90046 WHAT: FLUX & The Connie Norman Transgender Empowerment Center's Leadership, together with Lambda Legal and Gender Justice LA collectively denounce the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a landmark case challenging Tennessee's categorical ban on lifesaving, gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth to stand. WHY: This will allow other states to follow suit, denying lifesaving care and the rights of parents to choose medically necessary care for their children, and scares Medical Providers in states that do allow gender-affirming care to preemptively end services, for fear of Federal mandates as Children's Hospital LA has recently done. CONTEXT: Tennessee's SB1 law bans gender-affirming hormone treatments for transgender youth, discriminating based on sex and transgender status. For decades, courts have recognized that laws discriminating on these grounds require heightened scrutiny—a rigorous legal standard ensuring fairness and equality. This case tested whether such bans respect the constitutional rights guaranteed under the Equal Protection Clause. WHO: Queen Victoria Ortega, Chief Visionary Officer CONOTEC/Int. Pres. FLUXQueen Chela Demuir, COO, CONOTEC/Pres. CEO Unique Woman's CoalitionJennifer C. Pizer, Chief Legal Officer, Lambda LegalShedrick Davis, Western Regional Director, Lambda LegalPeter Renn, Senior Counsel, Lambda LegalAce Anaya, Campaign Coordinator, Gender Justice LAJoe Hollendoner, CEO Los Angeles LGBT CenterLucas Rojas, Researcher CHLA/FLUX Operations Director Please direct all media inquires to Scottie Jeanette Madden - (818) 489-4341 View source version on Contacts MEDIA CONTACT Scottie Jeanette Madden, FLUX International Director of Advocacy(818) Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Business Wire
3 days ago
- Health
- Business Wire
L.A. Press Conference Re: SCOTUS Transgender/Skrmetti Ruling - TODAY 12:30 pm
--(BUSINESS WIRE)--FLUX: WHEN: TODAY – Wednesday, June 18 th, 2025, 12:30pm PDT – The Connie Norman Transgender Empowerment Center 1001 N Martel, LA CA 90046 WHAT: FLUX & The Connie Norman Transgender Empowerment Center's Leadership, together with Lambda Legal and Gender Justice LA collectively denounce the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a landmark case challenging Tennessee's categorical ban on lifesaving, gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth to stand. WHY: This will allow other states to follow suit, denying lifesaving care and the rights of parents to choose medically necessary care for their children, and scares Medical Providers in states that do allow gender-affirming care to preemptively end services, for fear of Federal mandates as Children's Hospital LA has recently done. CONTEXT: Tennessee's SB1 law bans gender-affirming hormone treatments for transgender youth, discriminating based on sex and transgender status. For decades, courts have recognized that laws discriminating on these grounds require heightened scrutiny—a rigorous legal standard ensuring fairness and equality. This case tested whether such bans respect the constitutional rights guaranteed under the Equal Protection Clause. WHO: Queen Victoria Ortega, Chief Visionary Officer CONOTEC/Int. Pres. FLUX Queen Chela Demuir, COO, CONOTEC/Pres. CEO Unique Woman's Coalition Jennifer C. Pizer, Chief Legal Officer, Lambda Legal Shedrick Davis, Western Regional Director, Lambda Legal Peter Renn, Senior Counsel, Lambda Legal Ace Anaya, Campaign Coordinator, Gender Justice LA Joe Hollendoner, CEO Los Angeles LGBT Center Lucas Rojas, Researcher CHLA/FLUX Operations Director Please direct all media inquires to Scottie Jeanette Madden - (818) 489-4341
