eQuaLproteCtIonInfoCuS : thehIgh-StakeSCaSeof u . S . v . SkrmettI
Diversity , Equity & Inclusion Committee
Continuedfrompage24
terms because the law allows the same treatments to adolescents who are not transgender . 7 An adolescent assigned male at birth who needs testosterone to conform to his male identity may receive the gender affirming treatments , but a transgender adolescent who seeks to affirm their identity inconsistent with their natal identity cannot receive the treatment . 8
Tennessee argues SB1 includes no sex classification , rather “ it draws a line between minors seeking drugs for gender transition and minors seeking drugs for other medical purposes . And boys and girls fall on both sides of that line .” 9 Tennessee goes on to argue SB1 meets compelling state interests because there is medical and scientific uncertainty for gender-affirming care . 10
The Petitioner ’ s heightened scrutiny argument has been upheld in various courts around the country , and there is abundant evidence in the medical community supporting the gender affirming care . 11
Several conservative Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism about whether legislatures are better suited to make determinations about the complicated medical issues underlying the dispute . 12 The Petitioner argues the adolescents , with assistance of families and medical and mental health professionals , should be making these individualized decisions . 13
If the Supreme Court upholds Tennessee ’ s ban , families in Florida seeking treatment for their children who suffer from gender dysphoria will be faced with the decision whether or not to leave Florida and move to states which permit treatment . This decision has tremendous implications in family law cases for parenting plans and decision making over medical , social , and extracurricular activities . n
1
No . 23-477 ( 6th Cir . Sep . 28 , 2023 ).
2
Fla . Stat . § 456.52 .
3
( Fla . Stat . § 456.001 ( 9 )( a )( 2 )).
4
Fla . Admin . Code r . 64B8- 9.019 ( 1 )( b ) ( 2023 ); Fla . Admin . Code r . 64B15-14.014 ( 1 )( b ) ( 2023 ).
5
See Doe v Surgeon General , State of Florida , No . 23-12159 ( 11th Cir . 2023 ).
6
Brief of Petitioner at I , United States v . Skrmetti , No . 23-477 ( 6th Cir . Sep . 28 , 2023 ).
7
Id .
8
Id .
9
Brief of Respondent at 2 , United States v . Skrmetti , No . 23-477 ( 6th Cir . Sep . 28 , 2023 ).
10
Id .
11 https :// wpath . org / publications / soc8 /. 12
Transcript of oral Argument ,
United States v . Skrmetti , No . 23-477 ( 6th Cir . Sep . 28 , 2023 ). 13
Id .
Author : Jeanne L . Coleman – Law Office of Jeanne L . Coleman
M A r - A P r 2 0 2 5 | H C B A L A W Y E r
2 5