The conservative majority of the US Supreme Court endorsed this Monday a harsh law that prohibits the treatment of trans youth in the state of Idaho. The rule contemplates a punishment of up to 10 years in prison for doctors who provide hormones, perform surgeries or provide sex change therapies to minors under 18 years of age. The progressive judges, on the other hand, ruled in favor of keeping the rule blocked, as determined by a lower federal judge. The law will be in force while other lawsuits presented by human rights organizations and the LGTBIQ+ group are heard.
The law is known locally as the Law for the Protection of Vulnerable Children. It was approved in March of last year by the Republican majority that controls the Idaho Congress. Brad Little, the governor, signed it in April 2023, ensuring that it was a gesture that society “should play a role in defending minors from procedures that could irreversibly damage their bodies.” In this way, the Western State of the country joined 23 other Republican strongholds that have banned conversion therapies.
In a letter addressed to the local Congress, Governor Little assured that politicians should “exercise caution when allowing the Government to interfere” with loving parents and the decisions they make about what is best for their children. The lines seemed to be premonitory about the future of the norm, which would come into force on January 1, 2024. Two trans girls aged 15 and 16, supported by their parents, filed a lawsuit to stop the law from coming into force. The Supreme Court ruling this Friday affects everyone except them, who will be able to continue their treatments until the case is resolved.
The victims, whose names have not been released, claim that the law is unconstitutional because it discriminates against them. In the lawsuit, they argued that the treatments they have undergone help them with mental health issues and have allowed them to flourish as adolescents.
Lynn Winmill, a federal district judge based in San Francisco, stopped the law, ensuring that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which protects minorities by giving them guarantees of equality before justice and promises them due process. A Court of Appeals endorsed Winmill's decision and the Idaho authorities, headed by Attorney General Raúl Labrador, took the case to the Supreme Court, where today the opinion of the conservative bloc established in the Administration of Donald Trump has prevailed.
“The State has an important task of protecting and supporting all minors,” Labrador said this Monday after the Supreme Court's decision was announced. “”I am proud to defend Idaho law, which ensures that boys and girls are not subjected to life-altering medications and procedures,” she added.
Taking the case to the Supreme Court, Labrador argued that the blockade of the law was too extensive, even though it was only challenged by two families. “The complainants are two minors and their parents, while the blockade affects two million people [Idaho's population],” he wrote in his emergency complaint. This, in his opinion, “exposes vulnerable children to procedures that even the experts cited by the plaintiffs are inappropriate for some.”
Five of the six judges of the conservative supermajority of the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Labrador. Judge John Roberts, the president of the constitutional body, did not publicly say what the meaning of his vote was. Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, ordered lower court judges to avoid making extensive blockings like Winmill's. The ultraconservatives Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas adhered to Gorsuch's text.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, which was supported by Sonia Sotomayor, another progressive justice. “This Court is under no obligation to respond to everyone who arrives with a purported emergency, and it is especially important that we refrain from doing so in such new, unstable and politically charged circumstances,” Brown said.
ACLU, the human rights defense organization, which provides legal support for the complainants, has warned that the Supreme Court's ruling endangers the medical care of thousands of families in the State. “This is a terrible outcome for trans youth and all Idaho families,” the group said in a statement. The ACLU recalls that the last word has not yet been said on the constitutionality of the rule, which leaves open the possibility that it may be repealed in the future.
Idaho thus joins 22 other states that have passed laws in their chambers to prohibit or regulate assistance to trans youth. Among them are Texas, Florida, Georgia and Ohio. Most of these vetoes have been taken to court. In Arkansas, the first to adopt the ban, a federal judge called it unconstitutional. The same happened with Montana, which is currently frozen. The judicial battle continues in the other territories.