Federal judge blocks portion of Tennessee's gender-affirming care ban
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
/2023/06/29/1688003521447.gif?w=3840)
Illustration: Brendan Lynch/Axios
A federal judge temporarily blocked part of a Tennessee law that sought to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors.
- The judge wrote that the law likely violated the U.S. Constitution.
Why it matters: The judge's order, issued Wednesday, preserves Tennessee minors' access to gender-affirming care such as hormones or puberty blockers for now.
- But the judge will allow a portion of the law banning gender-affirming surgeries for minors to go into effect.
Driving the news: The American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal sued to block the law, which was set to go into effect Saturday. The groups sued on behalf of three Tennessee families with transgender children who stood to lose access to care.
- U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson, a Trump appointee, agreed with the lawsuit's arguments that the law violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause because it discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status.
- Richardson wrote that the state's arguments defending the law, known as SB1, were "unpersuasive."
The big picture: Richardson mentioned that his decision mirrored many other courts that have blocked similar laws in other states, including a decision tossing a similar Arkansas ban last week.
Yes, but: Because none of the transgender children included in the suit were pursuing gender-affirming surgeries, Richardson said they didn't have standing to challenge that element of SB1. That part of the ban will be allowed to go into effect.
- Surgeries for transgender youth are rare — hormones and puberty blockers are more common options.
Catch up quick: Republicans made SB1 a top priority during the legislative session. Supporters framed the gender-affirming care ban as an effort to protect children.
- Major medical associations including the American Academy of Pediatrics support gender-affirming care as medically necessary.
What he's saying: "If Tennessee wishes to regulate access to certain medical procedures, it must do so in a manner that does not infringe on the rights conferred by the United States Constitution, which is of course supreme to all other laws of the land," Richardson wrote.
- "With regard to SB1, Tennessee has likely failed to do just this."
What we're watching: Richardson's order only applies while arguments in the ongoing lawsuit are underway.
- The state, Richardson wrote, retains "the right to seek to change the Court's mind about the constitutionality of SB1 and to receive a final judgment that is favorable to them."
What's next: The Tennessee attorney general's office says it will appeal the decision.
