The Court agreed to hear the Biden administration’s appeal against a lower court’s decision that upheld a ban on medical procedures such as hormone therapies and surgeries for minors with gender dysphoria in Tennessee. This case will be argued during the Supreme Court’s next term, which begins in October.
The dispute centers on the argument that the ban on treatments for transgender youth violates the equality protected by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as it discriminates against these minors based on their sex and gender identity. Critics also argue that such a measure infringes on parents’ fundamental right to make medical decisions on behalf of their children.
The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for the civil and health rights of transgender minors in the United States, amid intense debates over inclusion and equality policies.

In recent years, states led by Republican lawmakers have taken various measures to restrict access to medications and surgical procedures for youth with gender dysphoria, a clinical diagnosis describing significant distress arising from the incongruence between a person’s gender identity and their sex assigned at birth.
Proponents of these restrictions question the efficacy and safety of these treatments, labeling them as experimental and potentially harmful. On the other hand, medical professional organizations emphasize that gender-affirming treatments can be life-saving, especially since gender dysphoria is associated with high rates of suicide. Long-term studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of these treatments in improving the well-being of transgender youth.
In Tennessee, the relevant law prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers and hormones that do not align with the minor’s sex assigned at birth but allows exceptions for the treatment of congenital conditions or precocious puberty. Healthcare providers who violate this law face potential lawsuits, fines, and professional sanctions.
Several plaintiffs, including two transgender boys and a transgender girl, along with their parents, have challenged the law in Tennessee, arguing that these treatments are crucial for their happiness and well-being. The Biden administration has joined the lawsuit to also question the constitutionality of the law.
A federal judge blocked the implementation of the law in Tennessee in 2023, finding it likely violates the protective rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In September 2023, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, overturned the previously issued injunctions by a federal judge with a 2-to-1 vote.
The Sixth Circuit Court’s decision stated that “it is not the role of lifetime-appointed federal judges to prevent citizens and legislators from expressing their perspectives on risky medical policies, where compassion for the child points in both directions.”
In response, the Biden administration urgently urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, arguing that state bans “inflict significant harm on transgender youth and their families by denying medical treatments deemed appropriate and necessary by the affected youth, their parents, and their doctors to address a serious medical condition.”
In recent years, Republican lawmakers at the state level have taken various measures to restrict LGBT rights in the United States. In addition to banning medical treatments for transgender minors, these measures also include prohibiting discussions of gender identity in schools, restricting drag shows, and banning transgender individuals from participating in sports competitions.
The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed several cases related to LGBT rights over the past decade. In 2015, it ruled to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. In 2020, it found that federal law prohibiting workplace discrimination also protects employees who are gay or transgender.
However, there have also been controversial rulings. In 2018, the justices sided with a baker in Denver who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple based on religious beliefs. In 2023, they ruled in a case from Washington state that the constitutional right to free speech allows certain businesses to refuse services for same-sex weddings.
These cases reflect an ongoing legal and societal debate over the boundaries of religious freedom, equality, and the inclusion of LGBT individuals in American society. The Supreme Court’s decisions have significant implications for civil rights protections and the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in the United States.
These recent cases illustrate a persistent tension between individual rights, religious freedom, and gender equality in the United States. While the legalization of same-sex marriage represented a significant victory for the LGBT community, subsequent rulings show how differently the Constitution can be interpreted in specific issues such as free speech versus anti-discrimination rights.
As the Supreme Court continues to decide cases that directly impact the lives of LGBT Americans, including medical treatments for transgender minors, the country finds itself at a critical juncture in defining rights and social justice. The trajectory of these decisions reflects not only the evolution of laws and societal norms but also the complexity of the challenges a society faces in seeking inclusion and equality for all its citizens.
The legal debates surrounding these issues have profound implications that not only affect the lives of those directly involved but also shape the legal and cultural landscape of the nation. While some Supreme Court rulings have strengthened protections for LGBT individuals in the workplace, others have been criticized for limiting that protection in relation to religious freedom.
As the United States continues to navigate these complex legal and social waters, the role of the Supreme Court as the highest arbiter in these fundamental issues remains crucial. The resolution of these conflicts will not only shape the future of LGBT rights in the country but also reflect the nation’s ability to align fundamental constitutional principles with the ongoing pursuit of equality and justice for all.