The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily granted a ban on gender-affirming treatment for minors in Idaho, a move that at least some justices are reluctant to enter into a new front in the culture wars. It suggests that he doesn't seem to feel it.
The justices were divided, siding with state officials who asked the court to lift the block on the law, with a majority of conservative justices voting in favor of enforcing the ban, over the objections of three liberal justices. . The judges also specified that the decision would remain in place until the appeal process is concluded.
The court specified that the ban would apply to everyone except the plaintiffs who filed the objections.
Although emergency documents orders often do not include a rationale, the decision was by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, and Justice Amy. It included a concurrence from Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. Connie Barrett.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred. Justice Elena Kagan wrote her dissent.
The law, passed by the state's Republican-controlled Legislature, would make it a felony for doctors to provide transgender medical care, including hormone treatment, to minors.
States across the country are pushing to restrict transgender rights. At least 20 states with Republican-controlled legislatures, including Idaho, have enacted laws restricting minors' access to gender reassignment care.
Idaho officials had appealed to the Supreme Court after the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a temporary injunction on the law while litigation continued in lower courts.
The Vulnerable Persons Protection Act makes it a crime for health care providers to provide medical care to transgender teens.
In an emergency motion, Idaho Attorney General Raul R. Labrador said the case raises recurring issues that a majority of the justices were concerned about. The question is whether courts can enact so-called universal injunctions that freeze states. It prevents the law from taking effect for everyone, not just the parties directly involved in the case.
Labrador argued that the federal court erred in applying the freeze so broadly. “The plaintiffs are two minor children and their parents, and the subject of the injunction is 2 million,” he wrote.
Temporarily banning the law would “leave vulnerable children exposed to a process that even plaintiffs' experts agree is inappropriate for some children.” He added that it meant.
Labrador continued: “These procedures have lifelong irreversible consequences, and more and more minors are regretting choosing this path.”
The two minor plaintiffs and their parents, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the lawsuit was not an appropriate vehicle to address concerns about a universal injunction.
That's because the four plaintiffs are anonymous and are referred to only by pseudonyms. If the court narrows the suspension of the Idaho law to apply only to those directly involved in the lawsuit, plaintiffs, including minors, would be required to “disclose their identity as transgender plaintiffs in this lawsuit to clinic staff and staff.” will be forced to do something. Every time I went to see a doctor or tried to fill a prescription, I went to the pharmacy. ”