On Monday, a split Supreme Court made a decision that permits Idaho to move forward with the extensive implementation of a new law designed to prevent minors from accessing gender-affirming care.
The law’s constitutionality is still being debated, but the decision to uphold it overrides two lower federal courts that had previously issued an injunction against it.
All six conservative members of the high court supported the decision, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who are part of the liberal wing, expressed their disagreement and would have preferred to maintain the law’s suspension.
“In his concurring statement, Justice Neil Gorsuch highlighted that injunctions typically only provide temporary relief to the parties involved. However, he pointed out that in this specific case, the district court went beyond that scope by completely prohibiting the state from implementing any part of its law on anyone.”
The court, however, granted permission for the parents and two children who filed the lawsuit against the law to receive ongoing treatments while the case is being litigated. According to their families and physicians, the children are seeking puberty blockers and estrogen, which they consider crucial for their mental well-being.
Jackson, in her dissenting opinion, contended that the Supreme Court should have exercised caution before intervening in a prominent case at an early stage. She believed that such interference would disrupt the established legal framework.
According to Jackson, we should avoid being forced into service in situations where we end up excessively controlling the lower courts’ exercise of their discretionary authority during ongoing legal proceedings.
The ruling was denounced by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Idaho in a joint statement, describing it as an “awful result.”
In a joint statement, the advocates expressed their disappointment with the court’s ruling, acknowledging that it does not directly address the constitutionality of the law. They emphasize that this outcome is detrimental to transgender youth and their families in Idaho, as it enables the state to halt essential care and perpetuate confusion and disruption. However, they remain resolute in their determination to continue the fight against this law through the judicial system, with the ultimate goal of creating a safer environment for all families in Idaho.
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador expressed his response to the court’s decision, as he had previously requested permission to carry out enforcement.
“I am proud to support Idaho’s law that safeguards children from the use of life-altering drugs and procedures,” he stated. “Children experiencing gender dysphoria should receive love, support, and medical care that aligns with biological reality. Denying the fundamental fact that boys and girls have biological differences can harm our children. It is our responsibility as a state to protect our children from any form of harm, and I am grateful that we have the authority to fulfill this duty.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, transgender youth face a higher risk of experiencing anxiety, depressed mood, and thoughts of suicide. This is often attributed to gender-related discrimination and gender dysphoria. However, a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has found that gender-affirming hormone therapy can significantly improve the mental health of transgender adolescents and teenagers.
Major national medical associations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, along with over 20 others, concur that gender-affirming care is both safe and effective. They also emphasize that it is beneficial and medically necessary.