Idaho lawmakers passed the Idaho Vulnerable Children Protection Act last May. The law bans puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and certain surgical procedures for transgender adolescents. Idaho doctors who prescribe these treatments to transgender youth face up to 10 years in prison.
Shortly after Idaho Governor Brad Little (R) signed the bill, two unnamed teenagers The plaintiffs and their parents sued the state and asked a judge to block enforcement of the law while the case went to court. In December, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, a Bill Clinton appointee, granted their request and temporarily blocked the ban from taking effect.
The state appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit refused to stay the lower court’s opinion. Idaho then asked the Supreme Court to limit the injunction to the two plaintiffs, allowing the ban to take effect against all other trans youth in Idaho.
“Plaintiffs suffer no harm – much less irreparable harm – if the injunction applies to them but not others,” the state’s lawyers wrote in legal papers.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that limiting the injunction would eliminate the teenage girls at the center of the lawsuit. Because the law promises criminal repercussions for doctors, the only way for girls to receive care without a full injunction is to reveal themselves as plaintiffs in the lawsuit to staff at doctors’ offices and pharmacies each time they seek medical attention. doctor or seeking to have their prescriptions filled. .
This argument did not convince the court.
“Plaintiffs suffer no prejudice as a result of the partial stay requested by the State,” wrote Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.. “Even with this , the district court’s preliminary injunction will have the effect of preventing state authorities from taking any action that might interfere with their ability to access the particular drug treatments they seek.
In a statement, attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Idaho, which represents the plaintiffs, called the ruling “a horrible outcome for transgender youth and their families.”
“Today’s decision allows the state to end the care that thousands of families rely on while sowing further confusion and disruption,” they wrote. “Nevertheless, today’s outcome only makes us all the more determined to completely defeat this law in court, making Idaho a safer state in which to raise every family.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote separately to say they agreed with the decision to temporarily block the lower court’s decision while the litigation continues.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented from Monday’s ruling, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing that the high court should have resisted “micromanagement” by lower courts.
Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, added that the issue of gender-affirming medical care for transgender children is “a serious and consequential issue, which, indeed, raises the profile of this case and the stakes of our intervention, for the law.” at issue here will have a significant practical impact on all those affected.
Idaho Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador welcomed Monday’s ruling.
“Denying the fundamental truth that boys and girls are biologically different harms our children,” Labrador said in a statement. “No one has the right to harm children and I am grateful that we as a state have the power – and duty – to protect them.”
Nearly half the country has banned gender transition care for minors, and most of those bans have ended up in court. Although several federal courts have blocked the bans from going into effect, three higher courts: the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta and the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. in Chicago – allowed the bans to continue.
Although those cases focused on the constitutionality of the bans, Idaho’s claim is largely technical. In court filings, the state argued that the Supreme Court has never authorized universal injunctions and that some circuit courts even prohibit them.
In their legal filings, Idaho lawyers argued that the plaintiffs do not have the right to seek a universal injunction because they are only affected by certain parts of the ban. Both teens testified in court documents that they were once taking puberty blockers and are currently taking estrogen. Neither is currently seeking surgery and neither is interested in accessing testosterone. The trans teens and their families did not seek class-action status, the attorneys argued, and should not be protected by the injunction.
“Plaintiffs both want access to a single procedure,” state officials wrote, “but the injunction applies to more than 20 procedures regulated by the (Vulnerable Child Protection Act).”
Lawyers have attempted to file similar complaints in Texas and Florida over laws limiting LGBTQ rights.
In 2022, after families with trans children sued the state of Texas over an order directing the Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate them, a district court judge ruled initially ruled that an emergency injunction only covered two specific families who had filed suit. Ultimately, the judge issued another injunction covering all Texas families who are members of PFLAG National, an organization uniting LGBTQ families.
And last year, after Hamburger Mary’s won a temporary injunction against a ban on cruising in Florida, lawyers in that state argued that the injunction should only apply to Hamburger Mary’s and not to other bars or restaurants.
In this case, Kavanaugh and Barrett emphasized that whether lower courts can block enforcement of a law against people not involved in litigation is an important question that could warrant judicial review. future. But, Kavanaugh said, the Florida case was “an imperfect vehicle” for examining the issue.
Although Idaho’s request focuses on the technical issue of universal injunctions, the state’s attorneys have also emphasized that the bans themselves merit legal review.
Last November, the ACLU, Lambda Legal and other nonprofit advocacy groups asked the Supreme Court to review a September 2023 ruling by the 6th Circuit that upheld laws banning transgender children in Tennessee and Kentucky to access puberty blockers and hormones.
The court has not yet said whether it will review the case. Although legal experts believe the court will ultimately rule on whether these bans violate the Constitution, the court has significant flexibility in deciding when and how to take up the case. The court receives thousands of requests each year, but accepts fewer than about 70.
Typically, the High Court hears cases when lower courts have made conflicting decisions. So far, both circuit courts that have issued full and final opinions on the bans have agreed that they do not violate the Constitution. An 8th Circuit ruling overturning Arkansas’ ban is on appeal.
The 9th Circuit tends to be more liberal, and if that court ultimately rules in favor of trans teens, it will cause a split in the circuit.
According to Idaho attorneys, this split “would provide an optimal means for the Court to resolve the important constitutional issues at issue.”
washingtonpost
