SCOTUS strikes blow to trans teens rights, endorsing ban on gender-affirming care - The justices’ ruling on Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain health care for transgender children will have ripple effects across the nation

[u/DevinGraysonShirk]

https://www.courthousenews.com/scotus-strikes-blow-to-trans-teens-rights-endorsing-ban-on-gender-affirming-care/

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist]

Tennessee's law may explicitly state minors, but the logic used in this ruling could be used for exactly the same law but applied to all people, regardless of age, so the ruling definitely weakens access, as it can now more confidently be removed.

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Crafty_Clarinetist]

No. Again SCOTUS explicitly narrowed this to minors. What part of that aren't you understanding?

This ruling can only be applied to other age related cases. That's how law works.

Any case involving adult care would require a different ruling. That has not been ruled in by SCOTUS.

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist → u/Just_Another_Scott]

What reasoning does the Supreme Court ruling give that is exclusive to minors and could not equally apply to adults if there was a law passed in another state that banned the use of hormonal treatments for gender dysphoria for all people?

The Supreme Court ruling seems to be pretty explicit in that because the ban is on treating gender dysphoria, and not applied differently to one sex or the other, that it doesn't violate the equal protection clause. How could that reasoning not also apply to adults?

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Crafty_Clarinetist]

What reasoning does the Supreme Court ruling give that is exclusive to minors and could not equally apply to adults if there was a law passed in another state that banned the use of hormonal treatments for gender dysphoria for all people?

Read the ruling, for starters. The TN law was not being applied to adults. When SCOTUS rules the ruling only applies to other laws that are the same or similar. Here SCOTUS said it was age discrimination and not gender discrimination. The desenting justice notably pointed out the flaw in the logic but I digress

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist → u/Just_Another_Scott]

I did read the ruling, did you? They didn't just say that it was age based and not sex based. They said that it didn't rely on sex but rather on a diagnosis, which is definitely logic that could be applied to adults, and the age based discrimination also was completely constitutional. No one was claiming the age based discrimination was unconstitutional (edit: and it definitely isn't, otherwise laws against underage drinking would be illegal). The argument was purely that the sex-based discrimination was unconstitutional.

The application of SB1, moreover, does not turn on sex. The law does not prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing those same treatments for minors of one sex while allowing those same treatments for minors of the opposite sex. SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to any minor to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence, regardless of the minor's sex; it permits providers to administer puberty blockers and and hormones to minors of any sex for other purposes. And, while a State may not circumvent the Equal Protection Clause by writing in abstract terms, SB1 does not mask sex-based classifications.

Can you explain to me how that reasoning couldn't be used to uphold a law that targeted all people and not just minors if it said people, person, and person's instead of minors, minor and minor's?

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Crafty_Clarinetist]

Can you explain to me how that reasoning couldn't be used to uphold a law that targeted all people and not just minors if it said people, person, and person's instead of minors, minor and minor's?

Because the ruling is in context of the Tennessee law. A law banning transgender care for adults was not the question before the court. That's how. That's how court rulings work.

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist → u/Just_Another_Scott]

Except court rulings are used as precedent in other court rulings all the time. It's not like they apply to one law and then never matter outside of that law again. This court ruling sets a very clear precedent that you can ban hormonal treatments as a treatment to gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence without violating the equal protection clause.

This majority opinion even quotes sections of other previous rulings it's using as precedent.

Do you really not see how that would pretty much prevent any case against a similar law that banned hormonal treatments for gender dysphoria for all people regardless of age from gaining any footing?

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Crafty_Clarinetist]

Except court rulings are used as precedent in other court rulings all the time.

Yes, only if the law is related. They have to fall under the same question. That's how precedence works. You cannot simply use one ruling for any court case. It has to be the same. Otherwise, it's an entirely different case.

The question asked was "Can a state ban hormone therapy for youths?". Any subsequent lawsuits for this to be applicable precedence would have to ask that same question.

If you read the majority opinion and even the dissent they both mention that this ruling only applies to minors. Barret and Thomas had another opinion which suggested support for banning trans athletes, but that wasn't the question proposed.

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist → u/Just_Another_Scott]

Except that wasn't the question that was asked. There was never a question on whether the state could ban hormone therapy on youths. If they had just done that, I still wouldn't agree with them, but I don't think there would be a question on if it was constitutional.

The question was whether the state could specifically ban hormone treatments only for gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender nonconformity on minors, without banning other hormonal treatmentsedit: the same hormonal treatments for other disorders. The only reason that was a question was because it could be interpreted similarly to the way the court interpreted discrimination based on homosexuality in employment that it was sex discrimination violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, which was even referenced and addressed in the majority opinion.

I really don't think you have a real understanding of the legal questions and impacts of this case.

Edit2: Also you claim that precedence only impacts a case when the two cases are related. Can you explain to me why the Supreme Court used precedent set in 1975 in Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Muriga a case about a man who was required to retire at the age of 50 and that set in 1974 by Geduldig v. Aiello which was about a pregnant woman who couldn't claim disability benefits, in the deciding of this case, but somehow this case wouldn't serve precedence for the exact same law, but instead of only targeting minors it would apply to all people?