The American Bar Association filed an amicus brief on Sept. 3 with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming medical care for minors violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
September 09, 2024 Top Legal News of the Week
ABA seeks reversal of ruling in gender-affirming care case
The ABA brief in U.S. v Skrmetti, filed in support of the federal government’s challenge to the law, contends that the Tennessee law, known as Senate Bill 1 (SB1), impermissibly denies the fundamental right to medical autonomy for certain groups while allowing it for others. A federal appeals court upheld SB1, and the Supreme Court in June agreed to consider the constitutionality of the law during its new term that begins Oct. 7.
“Equal protection forbids differential treatment in the exercise of important constitutional rights absent the strongest justification, and Tennessee’s SB1 cannot withstand scrutiny under that standard,” the ABA brief says. It adds: “The ABA has recognized in its past policy statements, state policy denying any individual access to needed medical care for reasons wholly unrelated to any medical justification — as SB1 does — is inimical to equality and equal dignity before the law.”
Gender-affirming care typically encompasses a range of social, psychological, behavioral and medical interventions that support and affirm an individual’s gender identity when it conflicts with the gender they were assigned at birth. Media reports indicate that 26 Republican-controlled states in the past three years have enacted laws restricting such care for minors.
In its brief, the ABA outlines its lengthy record of supporting LGBTQ rights, first urging the repeal of laws criminalizing private sexual relations between consenting adults more than a half century ago. Most recently in August, the ABA House of Delegates adopted policy urging legal protection of access to gender-affirming care.
“The right of patients to access treatment without arbitrary governmental interference is grounded in the common-law right of bodily integrity and self-determination, as well as liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment,” the brief says, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s prior decisions.