U.S. Supreme Court Temporarily Allows Idaho's Ban On Gender-Affirming Care On Transgender Minors

Brief Facts:

The matter pertained to the legality of Idaho's Vulnerable Child Protection Act, a law passed by the State's Republican-controlled legislature. This legislation prohibits medical professionals from providing gender-affirming care, such as hormone treatment and surgeries, to individuals under the age of 18. Signed into law by Governor Brad Little in April 2023, the measure aims to prevent minors from undergoing irreversible medical procedures related to gender transition.

The law was challenged by two anonymous plaintiffs, identified only by pseudonyms, who are transgender girls receiving gender-affirming care. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), they argued that the law violates their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process under the law. The plaintiffs contend that access to gender-affirming care is essential for their mental health and well-being and that the law unlawfully discriminates against them based on their transgender status.

On the other side of the case is the State of Idaho, represented by its attorney general, Raúl Labrador, a Republican. Idaho officials defend the law as a necessary measure to protect minors from undergoing medical procedures that could have long-term consequences. They argued that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating healthcare practices for minors and preventing potential harm. Labrador contended that the law reflects Idaho's commitment to safeguarding the well-being of children and ensuring that medical treatments align with their biological sex.

The injunction issued by the district court in this case blocked the legislation from taking effect, pending further litigation. This injunction prevented the State from enforcing the law. Idaho officials appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and narrow the scope of the injunction, arguing that it exceeded the proper bounds of judicial authority.

Observations by the Court:

The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily allowed Idaho to enforce its ban on gender-affirming treatment for minors.

The court's majority, comprising conservative justices, justified its decision by emphasizing concerns over the use of universal injunctions. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, expressed scepticism about the broad reach of injunctions issued by lower courts, which effectively halt the enforcement of laws beyond the parties involved in a particular case. Justice Gorsuch held that such injunctions exceed the proper bounds of judicial authority and encroach upon the legislative process. By allowing Idaho to enforce the ban while the case is litigated, the court signalled its reluctance to endorse sweeping judicial interventions that impact Statewide policies.

In his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch held that there is a need for federal courts to adhere to the historic limits of their authority and refrain from governing entire states or the nation from their courtrooms.

However, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor expressed reservations about the majority's approach. They held that the court's decision failed to adequately address the constitutional concerns raised by the plaintiffs, particularly regarding equal protection and due process under the law. Jackson and Sotomayor held that there is a potential harm to transgender minors resulting from the enforcement of the ban.

Click Here To Read/Download order