United States v. Skrmetti

Last updated

United States v. Skrmetti
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Full case nameUnited States of America v. Jonathan Thomas Skrmetti, et al
Docket no. 23-477
Case history
PriorPreliminary injunction granted in part and denied in part, L.W. v. Skrmetti, 23-cv-376 (M.D. Tenn., 2023), preliminary injunction stayed, L.W. v. Skrmetti, 23-5600 (6th Cir., Sept. 28, 2023); cert. granted (June 24, 2024)
Questions presented
Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow "a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex" or to treat "purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity," Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

United States v. Skrmetti (Docket No. 23-477) is a pending United States Supreme Court case on whether bans on gender affirming care violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [1]

Contents

Background

On March 22, 2023, the Tennessee House of Representatives passed HB1 [2] amending the Tennessee Code prohibiting certain forms of gender affirming care for transgender minors with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. This includes puberty blockers and hormones if the treatment is for the purpose of allowing the minor to live in the identity that is different as to the one assigned at birth. [3]

Upon passage of the law, the Department of Justice filed suit for an immediate order in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Nashville Division, to prevent the law from going into effect on July 1, 2023. [3]

The District Court granted a preliminary injunction in this case. This injunction only prevented the ban on hormones and puberty blockers from going into effect as it deemed it as infringing the "fundamental rights" of parents, while allowing for the ban on gender affirming surgery to remain. [4]

The District Court's ruling was further appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In a 2–1 decision, the Sixth Circuit stayed the lower court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction. Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote that the State of Tennessee is likely to succeed upon their appeal and that the right of parents to control the medical care of their children is not a fundamental right because it is not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" – the standard of Washington v. Glucksberg (1997). [5] Judge Helene White concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that the Tennessee law is "likely unconstitutional based on Plaintiffs’ theory of sex discrimination" and that she would not stay the injunction but rather narrow the scope of the injunction. However, she agreed that the "District Court abused its discretion in granting a statewide preliminary injunction".

With the ruling in the Sixth Circuit, this case was further appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court

On November 6, 2023, the United States filed a petition for the Supreme Court to hear this case on appeal. [6] The Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 24, 2024. [7]

Oral arguments will likely take place during the first two weeks of December 2024. [8]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jeffrey Sutton</span> American judge (born 1960)

Jeffrey Stuart Sutton is an American lawyer and jurist serving as the Chief United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bump stock</span> Gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing

Bump stocks or bump fire stocks are gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing, the act of using the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to fire cartridges in rapid succession.

Robert Lewis Hinkle is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Louisiana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Louisiana may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Louisiana as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Same-sex marriage has been recognized in the state since June 2015 as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

In the United States, the rights of transgender people vary considerably by jurisdiction. In recent decades, there has been an expansion of federal, state, and local laws and rulings to protect transgender Americans; however, many rights remain unprotected, and some rights are being eroded. Since 2020, there has been a national movement by conservative/right-wing politicians and organizations to target transgender rights. There has been a steady increase in the number of anti-transgender bills introduced each year, especially in Republican-led states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Alabama</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals in the U.S. state of Alabama have federal protections, but still face legal challenges and discrimination on the state level that is not experienced by non-LGBT residents. LGBTQ rights in Alabama—a Republican Party stronghold located in both the Deep South and greater Bible Belt—are severely limited in comparison to other states. As one of the most socially conservative states in the U.S., Alabama is one of the only two states along with neighboring Mississippi where opposition to same-sex marriage outnumbers support.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Florida</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Florida have federal protections, but many face legal difficulties on the state level that are not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity became legal in the state after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas on June 26, 2003, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy law. Same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since January 6, 2015. Discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations is outlawed following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County. In addition, several cities and counties, comprising about 55 percent of Florida's population, have enacted anti-discrimination ordinances. These include Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa, Orlando, St. Petersburg, Tallahassee and West Palm Beach, among others. Conversion therapy is also banned in a number of cities in the state, mainly in the Miami metropolitan area, but has been struck down by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. In September 2023, Lake Worth Beach, Florida became an official "LGBT sanctuary city" to protect and defend LGBT rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Tennessee</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Tennessee may experience some legal challenges that non-LGBTQ residents do not. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in the state since 1996. Marriage licenses have been issued to same-sex couples in Tennessee since the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Idaho</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Idaho face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Idaho, and same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since October 2014. State statutes do not address discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law. A number of cities and counties provide further protections, namely in housing and public accommodations. A 2019 Public Religion Research Institute opinion poll showed that 71% of Idahoans supported anti-discrimination legislation protecting LGBTQ people, and a 2016 survey by the same pollster found majority support for same-sex marriage.

Puberty blockers are medicines used to postpone puberty in children. The most commonly used puberty blockers are gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, which suppress the natural production of sex hormones, such as androgens and estrogens. Puberty blockers are used to delay puberty in children with precocious puberty. They are also used to delay the development of unwanted secondary sex characteristics in transgender children, so as to allow transgender youth more time to explore their gender identity. The same drugs are also used in fertility medicine and to treat some hormone-sensitive cancers in adults.

Tanco v. Haslam was the lead case in the dispute of same-sex marriage in Tennessee. A U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to recognize the marriages of the plaintiffs, three same-sex couples. The court found the equal protection analysis used in Bourke v. Beshear, a case dealing with a comparable Kentucky statute "especially persuasive." On April 25, 2014, that injunction was stayed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Tanco was appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the district court and upheld Tennessee's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions on November 6.

In Brenner v. Scott and its companion case, Grimsley v. Scott, a U.S. district court found Florida's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. On August 21, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction that prevented that state from enforcing its bans and then stayed its injunction until stays were lifted in the three same-sex marriage cases then petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court–Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen–and for 91 days thereafter. When the district court's preliminary injunction took effect on January 6, 2015, enforcement of Florida's bans on same-sex marriage ended.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eli J. Richardson</span> American judge (born 1967)

Eli Jeremy Richardson is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arkansas House Bill 1570 (2021)</span> 2021 Arkansas state law

Arkansas House Bill 1570, also known as the Save Adolescents From Experimentation (SAFE) Act or Act 626, is a 2021 law in the state of Arkansas that bans gender-affirming medical procedures for transgender people under 18, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and sex reassignment surgery. The law also bans the use of public funds for and prohibits insurance from covering gender transition procedures, while doctors who provide treatment in violation of the ban can be sued for damages or professionally sanctioned. The measure makes Arkansas the first U.S. state to make gender-affirming medical care illegal.

Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law and immigration.

NetChoice is a trade association of online businesses that advocates for free expression and free enterprise on the internet. It currently has six active First Amendment lawsuits over state-level internet regulations, including NetChoice v. Paxton, Moody v. NetChoice, NetChoice v. Bonta and NetChoice v. Yost.

Jonathan T. Skrmetti is an American attorney and public official. He currently serves as the 28th Attorney General and Reporter for the state of Tennessee.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Florida Senate Bill 254 (2023)</span> Proposed legislation

Florida Senate Bill 254 is a law that prohibits gender-affirming care for anyone under the age of 18, places restrictions on adult patients accessing this care, and allows the state to take temporary custody of children who may be receiving gender-affirming care now or in the future. In June 2024, a judge permanently blocked the law from taking effect. In August 2024, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the permanent injunction while the matter is appealed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States</span> Political backlash against LGBTQ people

The 2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States is an ongoing political backlash from social conservatives against LGBTQ people. It has included legislative proposals of bathroom use restrictions, bans on gender-affirming care, anti-LGBTQ curriculum laws, laws against drag performances, book bans, boycotts, and conspiracy theories around grooming. Between 2018 and 2023, hundreds of anti-LGBTQ laws were considered, with more than one hundred passed into law.

Moyle v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case about whether an Idaho abortion law conflicted with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The court initially agreed to expedite the appeal and temporarily allowed Idaho to enforce its abortion ban. After hearing the case, the court dismissed it as improvidently granted and restored a lower court order allowing emergency abortions under EMTALA. This returned the case to the lower courts without a ruling on the merits.

References

  1. Howe, Amy (June 24, 2024). "Supreme Court takes up challenge to ban on gender-affirming care". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved June 24, 2024.
  2. "Tennessee SB0001 | 2023-2024 | 113th General Assembly". LegiScan. Retrieved June 24, 2024.
  3. 1 2 "Justice Department Challenges Tennessee Law that Bans Critical, Medically Necessary Care for Transgender Youth" (Press release). United States Department of Justice. April 26, 2023. Retrieved June 24, 2024.
  4. L. W. v. Skrmetti, 3:23-cv-00376 ( M.D. Tenn. June 28, 2023).
  5. "L. W. v. Skrmetti, No. 23-5600 (6th Cir. 2023)". Justia Law. Retrieved June 24, 2024.
  6. "Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the case United States v. Skrmetti" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. November 2023.
  7. Sherman, Mark (June 24, 2024). "Supreme Court will take up state bans on gender-affirming care for minors". AP News . Retrieved June 24, 2024.
  8. Factora, James (October 7, 2024). "How the Supreme Court Case U.S. v. Skrmetti Could Decide the Fate of Gender-Affirming Care". Them . Archived from the original on October 9, 2024. Retrieved October 8, 2024.