最高法院不願推翻田納西州跨性別法

The Supreme Court of the United States is currently examining a law from Tennessee that has significant implications for transgender youth. This case marks the first occasion where the Supreme Court has the chance to address the issue of transgender medical care. During a session held on Wednesday, a majority of the justices appeared hesitant to overturn Tennessee's law, which prohibits hormone therapy and puberty blockers for individuals under the age of 18. The court's decision, which is anticipated next year, could have a ripple effect on similar laws in 25 other states across the nation. Families, along with their medical professionals, argue that this law violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law, claiming it discriminates based on sex. This hearing is particularly noteworthy as it represents the first time the current Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, has openly engaged in a significant discussion surrounding the contentious 'culture wars' in the United States. The Biden administration, along with various medical organizations, contends that the law effectively denies transgender individuals access to medical treatments that are available to other adolescents facing medical challenges. They further assert that the law infringes upon the rights of parents to seek necessary medical care for their children. Throughout the lengthy oral arguments presented on Wednesday, five of the nine justices expressed skepticism regarding the legal challenge to the ban, as well as the arguments put forth by the families and the administration. Chief Justice John Roberts raised a critical question about whether judges should be the ones to determine what he referred to as a medical issue, suggesting that such matters are traditionally left to state lawmakers. He stated, 'The constitution leaves that question to the people's representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor. ' In contrast, the court's three liberal justices appeared to align themselves firmly with the Tennessee families. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson drew a parallel between the current law and historical legislation that prohibited interracial marriages, which was ultimately deemed unconstitutional in the 1960s. She remarked, 'The laws here operate in the same way,' emphasizing that the question of whether one can marry another person was contingent upon their race. She further asserted, 'I take your law to be doing basically the same thing. ' On the other hand, Tennessee's solicitor general, J Matthew Rice, countered these claims, repeatedly asserting that the law does not discriminate based on gender. He argued that the law is intended 'to protect minors from risky, unproven medical interventions. ' In a previous ruling in 2020, the Supreme Court determined that federal law prohibits discrimination against transgender employees. Earlier this year, the court also upheld an Idaho law that bans transgender medical treatments for children, although it did not express an opinion on the constitutionality of that statute.