Trans activists, supporters, and opponents gathered outside the U.S. Supreme Court as crucial arguments were heard in a case on transgender health rights. This case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, centers around Tennessee's law banning puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and body-mutilating sex-change surgeries for minors and its potential violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantee. | Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Justice Department's Stance

The United States Department of Justice informed the Supreme Court that it believes states have the authority to restrict puberty blockers and cosmetic sex-change surgeries for minors. This stance was presented during the Wednesday oral arguments in the U.S. v. Skrmetti case. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued against the ban, emphasizing that she believed the state law discriminated based on sex. However, she also admitted that there is a valid space for states to regulate in this area, pointing to West Virginia's example where a ban on trans procedures has an exemption for at-risk teenagers. "The West Virginia Legislature changed course and imposed a set of guardrails that are far more precisely tailored to concerns surrounding the delivery of this care," she stated.

Justice Samuel Alito questioned Prelogar about the actions in countries like the United Kingdom and Sweden, where such body-deforming procedures have been curbed due to concerns about their long-term impacts on patients' health. Prelogar responded by arguing that neither country has outright banned the procedures for minors and that experts believe they can be medically necessary.

When asked by Justice Sonia Sotomayor about state interests in the procedures, Prelogar agreed that states can regulate when they have an important interest. "We don't think that that means the states are entirely barred from regulating in this space. Obviously, they are grappling with these issues in a variety of contexts," she continued.

Tennessee Solicitor General's Argument

Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice argued that the Tennessee law was based on "medical purpose" rather than sex identification and was therefore not discriminatory. He pointed out that the plaintiffs were "conflating" procedures that are fundamentally different, as puberty blockers can be used for reasons other than gender reassignment. "Just as using morphine to manage pain differs from using it to assist suicide, using hormones and puberty blockers to address a physical condition is far different from using it to address psychological distress associated with one's body," Rice said.

When Justice Clarence Thomas asked about West Virginia's law, Rice stated that it was "pure policy-making" and that laws like Tennessee's should be left to legislatures, not judges.

Comparison to Loving v. Virginia

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson compared the Tennessee law to Virginia's ban on interracial marriage, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967. "In Loving, those same kinds of scientific arguments were made," Brown said, noting that Virginia had argued that when "the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt" the Supreme Court "should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature." Rice countered that Tennessee's law was not based on an identity marker like sex or race but on the purpose of seeking a certain treatment.

ACLU's Perspective

Chase Strangio of the American Civil Liberties Union, the first openly trans-identified lawyer to argue before the Supreme Court, said that state lawmakers "impose a blunderbuss ban" on the procedures. Chief Justice John Roberts asked Strangio if the courts should be deciding the fate of laws based on "evolving" debates on medical care and procedures, expressing concern. Strangio drew a comparison to when the Supreme Court struck down certain COVID-19 restrictions on religious gatherings, stating that "the court has not hesitated to suggest that heightened scrutiny applies in contexts that deal with medicine and science."

Alito asked Strangio if trans-identity was "immutable" like other classifications such as race. Strangio said she believed it had a "biological" aspect and was a "distinguishing characteristic."

Tennessee's Senate Bill 1

Tennessee passed Senate Bill 1 in March last year, which prohibits healthcare providers from performing genital mutilation surgeries or giving puberty blockers to children with gender dysphoria. The findings of SB 1 note that the integrity and public respect of the medical profession are significantly harmed by such procedures on minors. "This state has a legitimate, substantial, and compelling interest in protecting minors from physical and emotional harm," it states. "This state has a legitimate, substantial, and compelling interest in protecting the integrity of the medical profession, including by prohibiting medical procedures that are harmful, unethical, immoral, experimental, or unsupported by high-quality or long-term studies, or that might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex."

Multiple progressive groups sued to strike down the new law on behalf of trans-identified minors and their families, with the U.S. Department of Justice intervening on behalf of the plaintiffs. Although a lower court placed a preliminary injunction against the law, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit allowed the legislation to take effect. Last September, a Sixth Circuit panel ruled 2-1 to uphold the law, with Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton authoring the majority opinion. "There is a long tradition of permitting state governments to regulate medical treatments for adults and children. So long as a federal statute does not stand in the way and so long as an enumerated constitutional guarantee does not apply, the States may regulate or ban medical technologies they deem unsafe," Sutton wrote. Circuit Judge Helene White wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the provisions of the legislation "discriminate based on sex and gender conformity and intrude on the well-established province of parents to make medical decisions for their minor children."

The holiday season is a time of giving and joy, and this year the Arizona Cardinals players took it to the next level. They joined forces with Desert Financial Credit Union to make the dreams of local children come true by treating them to a shopping spree. The players in attendance, such as Marquise Brown, Zaven Collins, Dennis Gardeck, and Jonathan Ledbetter, showed their generosity and kindness. This event not only brought smiles to the faces of the children but also strengthened the bond between the team and the community.

The Arizona Cardinals' Holiday Act of Kindness

Marquise Brown's Impact

Marquise Brown, a star player for the Arizona Cardinals, was one of the key figures in this heartwarming event. His presence alone brought a sense of excitement and anticipation to the shopping spree. Brown interacted with the children, listening to their wishes and helping them choose the perfect gifts. His genuine enthusiasm and kindness left a lasting impression on everyone involved. This act of generosity by Brown shows his commitment not only to the game but also to making a positive difference in the lives of others.

During the shopping spree, Brown shared his own experiences and stories with the children. He inspired them to pursue their dreams and work hard to achieve them. His words of wisdom and encouragement will stay with these children for a long time, serving as a reminder of the power of kindness and giving.

Zaven Collins' Contribution

Zaven Collins, another notable player from the Arizona Cardinals, also played a significant role in this holiday event. His athleticism and leadership on the field were evident, and his kindness off the field was equally impressive. Collins spent time with the children, helping them navigate the store and make selections. His patience and understanding made the shopping experience even more special for the kids.

Collins' contribution goes beyond just the act of shopping. He inspired the children to believe in themselves and their abilities. His positive attitude and determination served as a role model for the young ones, showing them that they can achieve anything they set their minds to. This event with the Arizona Cardinals and Desert Financial Credit Union will be a memorable one for both Collins and the children he interacted with.

Dennis Gardeck's Role

Dennis Gardeck, a member of the Arizona Cardinals, brought his unique charm to the shopping spree. His friendly demeanor and sense of humor put the children at ease, making the entire experience even more enjoyable. Gardeck actively participated in the shopping process, helping the children find the items they needed and wanted.

His involvement demonstrated the importance of teamwork and community spirit. Gardeck showed that by coming together, they could make a significant impact on the lives of others. This holiday event was a testament to the values that the Arizona Cardinals hold dear and their commitment to giving back to the community.

Jonathan Ledbetter's Part

Jonathan Ledbetter, yet another player from the Arizona Cardinals, made a valuable contribution to the shopping spree. His quiet strength and dedication were on full display as he worked alongside the children. Ledbetter took the time to understand each child's preferences and helped them make thoughtful choices.

His presence added a sense of stability and reliability to the event. Ledbetter's example showed that even small acts of kindness can have a big impact. This holiday season, he helped create memories that will last a lifetime for the local children.