This article was first published in the State of Faith newsletter. Sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox each Monday night.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear one of the highest profile cases of its current term: a dispute over a Tennessee law preventing transgender children and teens younger than 18 from accessing certain types of gender-related health care, such as hormone therapy.
A group of transgender children and their parents, as well as a doctor, filed the lawsuit, claiming that Tennessee’s SB1 violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause by treating transgender boys and girls differently than other boys and girls. They secured a partial victory at the district court level, which said that transgender young people should be able to access the procedures that remained available to non-transgender young people.
But then the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision, accepting Tennessee officials’ argument that the law does not constitute sex discrimination.
The Supreme Court will consider that 6th Circuit ruling to determine whether the judges applied the right level of scrutiny to Tennessee’s law and how to apply other past rulings on sex discrimination.
As I noted earlier this fall, U.S. v. Skrmetti is the closest thing this term’s got to a faith-related case (at least so far.) Religion influences how many Americans view transgender issues.
Here are some other key details about the case.
What is SB1?
SB1 is the Tennessee law at the center of U.S. v. Skrmetti.
It prevents health care providers from offering certain gender-related treatments to minors, but there’s an exception for minors who are not transgender and need a treatment for some other reason, like a genetic disorder.
The law also creates a legal cause of action against medical providers who violate it.
What will the Supreme Court decide?
The Supreme Court is focused on one specific legal question: whether SB1 violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
The group challenging the law say it does because it treats minors classified as girls at birth differently than minors classified as boys at birth. Your sex at birth determines whether you have access to certain types of gender-related health care, they say.
People defending Tennessee’s SB1 say it doesn’t because access to the treatments hinges on the medical purpose for those treatments, not the patient’s sex at birth.
The Supreme Court could rule on the case in a number of different ways:
- It could uphold the 6th Circuit’s decision in favor of Tennessee officials.
- It could say that the 6th Circuit needs to reexamine the case under a different legal standard.
- It could say the 6th Circuit applied the wrong level of scrutiny but then go on and apply the heightened level of scrutiny without sending the case back to the lower courts.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected by the end of June.
How could a second Trump administration affect the case?
One factor that could delay the court’s ruling is the transition from the Biden administration to a second Trump administration.
As it stands, the federal government is on the side of the children, parents and doctor who challenged Tennessee’s law, and joined with that group to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case.
But once Trump takes office, the federal government could and likely will switch sides, which won’t end the lawsuit but could delay the court’s ruling.
What are the broader implications of U.S. v. Skrmetti?
The Supreme Court’s ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti could hold implications for others states with restrictions on certain gender-related medical treatments and for transgender adults.
If the court decides that SB1 violates the equal protection clause, it could invalidate other state laws — or at least increase the likelihood that they’ll also be overturned through lawsuits.
But if the court upholds the 6th Circuit’s decision, it would create an opening for states to limit access to gender-related health care for adults without fear of an equal protection lawsuit.
Fresh off the press
Olympian and former BYU runner talks dreaming big dreams — and knowing when to give up
2 pastors, at least 8 Catholics and a Latter-day Saint: Reviewing the religious makeup of Trump’s proposed administration (Updated with the latest picks)
Boise State withdraws from Mountain West volleyball tournament rather than play San Jose State
Who keeps the engagement ring after a breakup? A court just weighed in
Term of the week: Shiloh
Shiloh is a city referenced multiple times in the Bible’s Old Testament, according to Bible Gateway. In addition to being the name of an actual city that at one point housed the Ark of the Covenant, it’s used to refer more broadly to a place of peace.
I spent some time researching Shiloh because it was referenced in Religion News Service’s annual faith-related gift guide. The list included the Shiloh Roast from a Christian coffee ministry called Hope Coffee.
“In the Old Testament, Shiloh refers to a place of peace, and we thank God for the peace he has provided to us,” the product description says.
What I’m reading...
Ahead of Wednesday’s oral arguments in the Skrmetti case, CNN profiled Chase Strangio, the ACLU attorney who will argue against Tennessee’s law — and make history in the process. Strangio is the first known transgender lawyer to argue before the Supreme Court.
Thomas Adamson from The Associated Press was among the reporters invited to see Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris after its extensive renovation and ahead of its reopening to the public. The cathedral was nearly lost to a fire five years ago.
In October, Deseret’s Krysyan Edler spent a day at Golden Hour Farm learning about Highland cows and pursuing unique dreams. Her story on the experience explains how a former Utah State basketball player ended up running a ranch.
Odds and ends
With one month to go, I’m 11 books away from reaching my 2024 reading goal. What are your favorite short books? Bonus points if they’re somehow connected to Christmas.