By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a move following their decision to uphold a Tennessee ban on certain medical treatments for transgender youths, the Supreme Court has overturned appellate rulings in favor of transgender individuals across four states. The justices ordered lower courts to re-evaluate cases concerning access to medical care and birth certificates in Idaho, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. These actions were expected, as the court often waits to decide similar cases until after resolving a related one. The court also opted to take no action on cases from Arizona, Idaho, and West Virginia regarding transgender student participation in school sports, potentially deciding whether to address the issue next term.
Read the original article here
Supreme Court throws out appellate rulings in favor of transgender people in 4 states. Okay, so here’s the deal: the Supreme Court has made a move that’s got a lot of people worried, and rightfully so. Basically, they’ve tossed out lower court rulings in four different states that were actually *helping* transgender people. This is a serious blow, and it’s sending ripples of concern through the trans community and their allies.
This ruling is a big deal because it’s allowing states, like Idaho and Oklahoma, to essentially ignore the needs of transgender youth. We’re talking about essential medical care here, things like hormone treatments and other interventions that are, in many cases, crucial for their well-being. The Supreme Court is saying these cases need to be re-examined. The whole situation is concerning because the court seems to be opening the door for states to restrict access to treatments that are often proven to be necessary.
The core legal issue revolves around how these laws are being assessed. The key question is the level of scrutiny applied to these anti-trans laws. The Supreme Court has decided that these laws should be examined using “rational basis” scrutiny, which is a standard that is almost always a win for the states enacting these laws. They’re basically saying that the laws don’t discriminate based on sex directly, but rather on medical diagnoses, which is a technicality that allows them to apply this lower level of scrutiny. It’s like saying a law that prevents people with a specific medical condition from teaching isn’t discriminatory against a religious group because the basis is the medical condition, not religion. This is like the Supreme Court upholding a law that bars Christians from teaching in public schools on the basis that the determining factor is not religion but instead is based on where they work.
Many disagree with this finding, as the medical diagnosis is secondary to the underlying basis for discrimination. The fact that the bill blocks treatment not on the basis of the medical condition itself, but rather on who is being treated and the desired outcome, is tied to gender. There are almost a half century of rulings that aim to protect people who have mental illness, mental incapacity, and other diseases which would lend themselves to discrimination. For the same reason state eugenics bills were largely thrown out in the 1950’s, we need heightened scrutiny when considering medical diagnoses for groups like transgendered individuals.
It’s also worth noting that these kinds of policies can have serious real-world consequences. We’re talking about a vulnerable population facing increased challenges to their well-being. As the saying goes, the suicide rates in red states are high. This is due to a combination of the political, social, and cultural climate, which can affect the mental and emotional well-being of transgender individuals. This is a part of the bigger picture. The denial of basic rights and healthcare access, in particular, contributes to increased stress and feelings of marginalization, as well as a greater likelihood of suicide.
It’s not just about minors, either. The rulings being thrown out included cases that impacted adults, specifically in the areas of identification and insurance coverage. This means that transgender adults could face challenges in accessing essential services and rights that many take for granted. So much for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” right?
Sadly, the Supreme Court’s decision is not happening in a vacuum. It’s a part of a broader trend of laws and policies that restrict the rights of transgender people. This extends to all facets of life, from healthcare to education. It’s like the country is perpetually one election away from sliding into a full conservative authoritarian hellscape. The fact that this is happening is no surprise to anyone that’s been paying attention. This is the result of a long-term game, planned for decades, with this ruling, by the current Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has played the chessboard ever since and has us totally checkmated.
We also need to be aware that there are complex forces at play. It’s disheartening that the same people that are supposedly “pro-life” are pushing for these policies. They’re choosing who gets to live. The reality is that they are happy that trans people are dying and don’t see it as a problem to solve.
There is hope. People are aware of what’s going on, and lots of people are engaging in community organization and social change. The power of community organization, awareness, and resistance shouldn’t be underestimated. If we are going to win, we will need to continue organizing to protect trans people.