The US Supreme Court has upheld a law from Tennessee banning gender-affirming care for minors. Ohio has a similar law, and the decision has given confidence to supporters of that law. But opponents say they will continue to fight the law in court.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the ban on gender-affirming care for minors in United States v. Skrmetti. The decision, the first one on transgender health care from the nation's highest court, is a win for supporters who said the law doesn't discriminate against trans people, and is a blow to trans activists who'd argued the three trans teens in the case were being unfairly targeted and that the law also violates parents' rights.
The ruling is expected to have an effect on the 25 states that have similar laws. Ohio's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, titled the Saving Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act, passed in House Bill 68 last year after Republican lawmakers overrode Gov. Mike DeWine's veto. It's in effect while the lawsuit over it goes through the appeals process.
House Speaker Matt Huffman (R-Lima) he and other supporters of the ban have been watching court rulings on laws similar to Ohio’s.
"We are always looking at what U.S. Supreme Courts or the Ohio Supreme Court, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, other courts as some sort of guidepost. We certainly don't want to do something that's clearly going to be unconstitutional. And at the same point, we have to act as a separate, constitutional body," said House Speaker Matt Huffman (R-Lima), who supports the ban. "Acts of the legislature are presumed to be constitutional until ruled otherwise. So I think it was the right thing to do when we did it. And to that extent, I think we're in better shape for any future court challenges too."
The American Civil Liberties Union had filed suit over Ohio's law on behalf of two transgender teens. The group described the ruling as a "profoundly disappointing" decision upholding "Tennessee’s discriminatory, politically motivated law," but said the lawsuit against Ohio's ban isn't over.
"While the Skrmetti decision is not helpful to our case, it is also not fatal," said ACLU of Ohio legal director Freda Levenson. "The Skrmetti case involves the Equal Protection Clause in the federal Constitution, and we're suing under the state constitution, and Ohio's Equal Protection Clause is arguably more protective than the federal clause. The right to gender affirming care could be upheld under Ohio's even if it isn't under the federal clause. How federal courts interpret the Federal Constitution doesn't necessarily need to match how Ohio courts interpret analogous clauses in our state constitution."
Republican Attorney General Dave Yost said in a statement after the ruling: “The Supreme Court today ruled that states can protect vulnerable children against forever decisions when it comes to surgery and medication. This is great news, not only for the kids, but for the fate of the SAFE Act in the Ohio Supreme Court. Today’s ruling affirms that the Constitution leaves difficult questions to the democratic process in state legislatures. Judges shouldn’t sit as kings over democracy.”
