Supreme Court OKs Idaho’s Ban on Youth Gender-Affirming Care

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow Idaho to enforce its ban on gender-affirming care for minors, pending appeal, marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over transgender rights. The law, which was signed last April, is part of a broader trend of state-level legislation targeting transgender individuals, particularly young people seeking medical care. Idaho’s ban prohibits the use of puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and gender affirmation surgery for individuals under 18, with providers facing criminal penalties for non-compliance.

The legal battle over the ban has been contentious. In January, a U.S. District Court upheld a preliminary injunction blocking the law’s enforcement, ruling that it violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. However, the Supreme Court’s decision to grant a stay on the lower court’s ruling means that the ban can now be enforced while the case is appealed, temporarily reinstating the law and allowing Idaho to continue its enforcement efforts.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was not without nuance. While the majority of justices supported the stay, an exception was made to prevent the law’s enforcement against the plaintiffs challenging it, which include two teenage transgender girls and the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho. This exception means that, while the ban can be enforced more broadly, these specific individuals and organizations are protected from its effects pending the outcome of the appeal.

The ruling has drawn sharp criticism from advocacy groups, including the ACLU, who argue that it will harm transgender youth and their families. They contend that the law’s enforcement will disrupt and restrict access to vital medical care for transgender minors, while also creating confusion and uncertainty for healthcare providers and families navigating these complex issues.

Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision to allow Idaho’s ban on gender-affirming care to be enforced represents a significant setback for transgender rights advocates. The case highlights the ongoing legal and political battles over transgender rights in the United States, particularly regarding access to healthcare for transgender youth.