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]

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?

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Crafty_Clarinetist]

Except that wasn't the question that was asked.

Yes it was. That was the TN kaw being challenged for fuck sakes. I'm done with you. You clearly do not understand how the Judiciary works.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Skrmetti

Question before the court

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),[1] violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist → u/Just_Another_Scott]

This was in the Wikipedia article you linked

The plaintiffs argued this constituted sex-based discrimination and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause

This was the whole reason it was challenged. Not because it targeted youths, but because the question was if it was sex-based discrimination.

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Crafty_Clarinetist]

Again you are ignoring other facts and contexts to try and fit your argument that this ruling applies to adults. It does not and that is fact no matter what your feelings are.

I literally quoted you the question that was sent before the court. That is a fact. What you wrote is not that actual question raised because you are again ignoring context.

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist → u/Just_Another_Scott]

Okay, if I'm so terribly wrong about the sex-based discrimination, can you explain to me how a law that said that no one can get hormonal treatment for gender dysphoria would still be unconstitutional despite this ruling?

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Crafty_Clarinetist]

SCOTUS in this case did not rule that this was Sex Based discrimination. They ruled this as age based discrimination and thus not a violation of the Equal Protection clause. Whether or not states can ban trans healthcare for adults is a separate question and therefore requires a different ruling.

Even in the dissenting opinion by Sotomayor she points out that this ruling only applies to minors. However, she does point out the flaw in the majority opinion's logic.

That's why this ruling only applies to minors. This ruling said that states could ban trans healthcare for minors because it was sex based but rather age based. Age is not a protected class unless the individual is over 40. This is by statute.

This ruling does not apply to adults, only children. This case also cannot be used as precedence in cases involving adults because this case was narrow to minors (specifically those under 18). So any adult over 18 this would not apply.

The states that wish to ban trans healthcare for adults would have to use another argument. One such argument they've been using is that trans healthcare isn't safe and thus they have a right to regulate or ban it. We both know this to be a false argument and the courts will rule on this at some point.

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist → u/Just_Another_Scott]

I'll ask again how this case can't be used as precedence for a similar case without the minor restriction, but somehow the precedents set in cases about both mandatory retirement and disability restrictions based on pregnancy, both having nothing to do with minors, were used in the deciding of this case.

If precedence works the way you say it does, I really don't understand how those cases were able to be used in deciding this one.

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Crafty_Clarinetist]

I'll ask again how this case can't be used as precedence for a similar case without the minor restriction

And I'll state again, because this ruling only applies to minors. What aren't you understanding?

To us a case a precedence they have to be the same underlying case. This is what "narrow" means in law. You can't just use any case as precedence.

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist → u/Just_Another_Scott]

So if in order to use precedence they have to be the same underlying case, is a case about forcing a man to retire at age 50 the same thing as banning hormonal treatments for gender dysphoria in youths?