Supreme Court parting shots at trans concerns

As if the closing days of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2024-25 session were not bad enough for transgender people, the Court announced on July 3 that it would decide next session whether states can ban transgender females from participating in sports events for women.

The Court ruled last month (June 18), in a 6 to 3 decision, that states may ban gender dysphoria treatment for minors, even when their parents want the treatment for their child. That decision, U.S. v. Skrmetti, involved a ban in Tennessee and treatment for young people under 18.

On June 30, it granted petitions from four other states (Idaho, North Carolina, Oklahoma, West Virginia) essentially extending its Skrmetti decision beyond the confines of hormones and minors. All four were sent back to the lower courts for reconsideration under the dictates of Skrmetti.

In Idaho v. M.H. and T.D., the state sought to defend its exclusion of Medicaid coverage for sex-reassignment surgery. The patients in this case were 20 years old.

In North Carolina v. Kadel, the state sought to protect its decision to exclude from state health insurance coverage for teachers and other state employees "treatments leading to or in connection with sex changes or modifications and related care."

The West Virginia v. Anderson petition asked the court to protect the state's decision to exclude coverage under Medicaid expenses "for certain surgeries that treat gender dysphoria."

The Oklahoma v. Fowler case asked whether a state could refuse to "alter its official certificate documenting a person's sex at birth to represent that person's current gender identity."

Also on June 30, the Supreme Court denied the petitions of transgender youth and their parents in two states (Tennessee and Kentucky) seeking the right to receive the treatment. The Tennessee case, Williams v. Tennessee, was the appeal brought by the patient-parent plaintiffs in the Skrmetti case. But instead of taking the plaintiffs appeal, the Court took the state's appeal. The Doe v. Kentucky case was appealed by the ACLU and the National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of seven minors and their parents.

The transgender cases accepted July 3 for review in the 2025-26 session, which begins in October, involve states seeking to overturn rulings that banning transgender females from female sports violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the law.

The cases are from Idaho and West Virginia.

Idaho v. Hecox asks, "Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." It involves athletes at the college level.

West Virginia v. Jackson asks, "Whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth." It also asks, "Whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth." The West Virginia case involves a 14-year-old trans female athlete at the middle school level, and one who has taken puberty blockers to avoid developing the larger muscles associated with male athletes.

Idaho passed the first "Fairness in Women's Sports Act," in 2020, even though there were no trans females seeking to play sports at the time. It bars trans females from participating at any age, primary school through college, both intramural and elite competitions. It allows any individual to challenge the sex of any opposing student athlete and requires the challenged athlete to submit intrusive medical procedures, including gynecological exams, to verify her sex.

Lindsay Hecox began hormone treatment before her first year at Boise State University and filed a lawsuit against the state when it enacted its ban on trans female athletes. She tried out for the college women's running team but did not make it but has since been playing for club teams for running and soccer.

In West Virginia v. Jackson, the ACLU and Lambda are representing a 14-year-old trans female who has been taking hormone treatment, "meaning that she has never experienced the effects of testosterone on her body that cisgender boys typically experience," according to the groups' brief.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court in March accepted Chiles v. Colorado for review, an appeal from a Christian therapist challenging Colorado's ban on "conversion therapy" for young people. The therapist, Kaley Chiles, said she works only "with voluntary clients who determine the goals that they have for themselves."

"If clients are content with their sexual orientation or gender identity, Chiles does not 'try to help [them] change their attractions, behavior, or identity' but instead helps them develop other therapeutic goals," says her petition, written by the Alliance Defending Freedom. Colorado's brief opposing the appeal notes that the state ban is based on "overwhelming evidence that efforts to change a child's sexual orientation or gender identity are unsafe and ineffective."

© 2025 Keen News Service. All rights reserved.