On December 4th, the United States Supreme Court convened to hear oral arguments in the case of United States v. Skrmetti, which addresses the constitutional authority of state legislators to protect vulnerable minors from potentially harmful and unverified medical treatments. The Tennessee Attorney General’s Office presented a robust legal defense supporting the state’s legislative response to the increasing prevalence of gender-transition interventions for minors.
The law in question stipulates that only those minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria—a psychological condition marked by significant distress stemming from a discrepancy between an individual’s biological sex and their identified gender—are permitted to undergo irreversible medical procedures. Opponents of the Tennessee statute argue that its prohibition on administering cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers for the purpose of gender transition infringes upon the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, claiming it discriminates against individuals based on their sex and transgender identity.
In defense, Tennessee asserts that the law provides a consistent regulatory framework that falls within the state’s established authority to oversee medical practices within its jurisdiction. Central to the debate are concerns regarding the safety and welfare of children, the regulation of medical practices, and the critical assessment of the risks and benefits associated with such interventions. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of medical treatment for minors facing gender identity issues.