state Tennessee: Last News

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 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

Chase Strangio