The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti on Dec. 4.
2024 marks the first time in several years that the U.S. Supreme Court will not hear a significant case relating to abortion rights—but the question of the constitutional right to bodily autonomy remains on the docket. On Wednesday, Dec. 4, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a case challenging Tennessee’s ban on healthcare for trans youth. The case is the first of its kind to be heard by the nation’s highest court—and as such will likely set an important precedent for future trans rights cases.
The plaintiffs in the case are Samantha and Brian Williams, of Nashville, and their 15-year-old daughter L.W., who is trans, as well as two other anonymous families and the Memphis-based Dr. Susan Lacy. In April of last year, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and a private law firm, they filed suit against the state of Tennessee and the state’s attorney general Jonathan Skrmetti, seeking to block the ban. The case marks the first time an openly trans attorney will argue before the court, with Chase Strangio, co-director for transgender justice with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project, representing the clients.
“I don’t even want to think about having to go back to the dark place I was in before I was able to come out and access the care that my doctors have prescribed for me,” said L.W., per the ACLU. “I want this law to be struck down so that I can continue to receive the care I need, in conversation with my parents and my doctors, and have the freedom to live my life and do the things I enjoy.”
The Tennessee law in question took effect last summer, after an appeals court denied plaintiffs’ request for an injunction. The plaintiffs are arguing that the state’s ban violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause—an argument similar to one made in 2020’s Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court found that discrimination against LGBTQ+ workers counts as discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII.
While the ruling will only apply to the bans that the case concerns, advocates have pointed out that the decision will set an important legal precedent around whether it is constitutional for states to legally ban gender-affirming care. And what’s more, “a bad decision would make it much easier for a Trump administration to ban the care federally, which they will try to do,” Strangio told Them ahead of the oral arguments.
I don’t even want to think about having to go back to the dark place I was in before I was able to come out and access the care that my doctors have prescribed for me.
L.W., the 15-year-old plaintiff in U.S. v. Skrmetti
Legal experts have also pointed out the dangerous parallels between Skrmetti and Dobbs v. Jackson—which overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. “Both cases are about prohibitions on a medical treatment that is vital to the self-determination of a subset of the population. Both cases feature conservative attorneys arguing that the Constitution’s protections don’t apply. And in both cases, conservatives are using the regulation of a medical procedure to target a particular group of people in a way that circumscribes their autonomy, worsens their quality of life, and renders them unequal under law,” Ms. contributor Madiba K. Dennie pointed out in Balls and Strikes.
Since 2021, 24 states have passed laws banning gender affirming care for trans youth, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Gender-affirming health care for trans youth is supported and considered best practice by every major medical organization in the U.S., as well as leading world health authorities.
“The stakes could not be higher for our communities as the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral argument in U.S. v. Skrmetti and L.W. v. Skrmetti,” said Lambda Legal chief legal officer Jennifer C. Pizer in a statement. “As hostile state leaders prepare to double-down on their cruel, unprecedented and discriminatory attacks on transgender youth, the Court has the opportunity and duty to apply the law fairly, which means returning medical decisions to where they rightfully belong: to parents, their children and their doctors.
Read more:
