The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Idaho to enforce a controversial ban on gender-affirming care to minors as the law is appealed, temporarily reintroducing one of more than a dozen state bans on gender-affirming care, an increasingly hot-button issue for the GOP. The Supreme Court approved a stay on a federal District Court decision, allowing Idaho to enforce the ban, with the high court’s conservative justices forming the majority opinion and its three liberal justices dissenting. This ruling comes three months after a U.S. District Court upheld a lower court’s preliminary injunction blocking state officials from enforcing the law, finding the Republican-backed law violated the 14th Amendment protections of due process and equal protection under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday carved out an exception, prohibiting enforcement of the law against the plaintiffs who challenged the state law, including two teenage transgender girls and the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho. Idaho’s law was signed into law last April, among a string of similar state laws around the country targeting transgender medical care. The ban specifically prohibits the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy, as well as gender affirmation surgery, making it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison for providers who administer gender-affirming care to residents under the age of 18. Despite the support for these treatments from major medical groups like the American Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics, GOP lawmakers in Idaho have largely called for the ban.
While Gov. Brad Little, R-Idaho, signed the bill into law and advocated for “protecting minors from surgeries or treatments that can irreversibly damage their healthy bodies,” he has also cautioned against “allowing the government to interfere with loving parents and their decisions about what is best for their children.” The ACLU of Idaho in a joint statement with the ACLU criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling, calling it an “awful result for transgender youth and their families across the state.” The groups added, “Today’s ruling allows the state to shut down the care that thousands of families rely on while sowing further confusion and disruption.” This decision is part of a broader legal battle around the country over transgender rights and access to gender-affirming care for minors.
As the legal challenges continue, it is clear that the issue of gender-affirming care for minors is a complex and contentious one, with strong opinions on both sides. Advocates for transgender rights argue that these treatments are necessary for the well-being and mental health of transgender youth, while opponents often frame it as a matter of protecting children from irreversible medical procedures. The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of allowing Idaho to enforce its ban on gender-affirming care to minors is likely to further fuel the debate over transgender rights and medical care for minors in the United States.
