Will Supreme Court Uphold A Trans Youth Healthcare Ban?

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Will Supreme Court Uphold A Trans Youth Healthcare Ban?"

What a Day by Crooked Media, hosted by Jane Coston, delves into one of the most pressing civil rights issues of our time: the Supreme Court's consideration of a landmark case that could significantly impact transgender youth healthcare. Released on December 4, 2024, this episode provides an in-depth analysis of the case U.S. vs. Grammar, exploring its implications for trans rights and broader civil liberties in the United States.

---

1. Background of the Case

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in U.S. vs. Grammar, a pivotal case challenging the constitutionality of a 2023 Tennessee law known as SB1. This legislation prohibits gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, including hormone therapy and puberty blockers. Although surgical interventions are rarely performed on minors, SB1 explicitly bars such treatments, aligning Tennessee with approximately half of the U.S. states that have enacted similar bans targeting individuals under 18 years old.

Jane Coston introduces the issue:

"Today, the Supreme Court is taking up a landmark case for trans rights. The justices will hear arguments in U.S. vs. Grammar." [00:02]

2. Medical and Professional Support for Gender-Affirming Care

SB1 faces significant opposition from major medical organizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, and the American Medical Association (AMA) have all voiced strong support for gender-affirming care, deeming it medically necessary. The AMA emphasizes the severe physical and mental health consequences that can result from denying such care:

"The AMA says it's medically necessary health care and that denying it to patients can have really dire physical and mental health consequences." [00:45]

3. Legal Challenge and Advocacy

A coalition comprising families, medical professionals, the Biden administration, and civil rights groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is actively challenging SB1. The case is particularly notable as Chase Strangio, an ACLU lawyer and the first openly transgender person to argue before the Supreme Court, represents the plaintiffs. Strangio condemned the law as "textbook sex discrimination," highlighting its unconstitutional differential treatment based on assigned sex at birth:

"That is sex discrimination, and Tennessee has to justify it." [02:28]

4. Interview with Shruthi Swaminathan, ACLU Staff Attorney

To provide deeper insights, Jane Coston interviews Shruthi Swaminathan, a staff attorney for the ACLU's LGBTQ and HIV Project, who played a pivotal role in preparing the case.

a. Understanding SB1 and Its Implications

Swaminathan outlines the scope of SB1, clarifying that the case focuses solely on medical treatments such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, explicitly excluding surgical procedures:

"The only treatments that we're talking about are puberty delaying medications... hormone therapy, which is estrogen and testosterone." [03:45]

She emphasizes the significant impact of SB1, noting that approximately 39% of transgender youth in the U.S. are now unable to access necessary care within their home states. The lawsuit's success could mean the removal of existing bans not just in Tennessee but potentially across other states.

b. Potential Supreme Court Outcomes and Broader Civil Rights Implications

Swaminathan discusses the implications of a possible Supreme Court ruling, especially considering the court's conservative majority and its recent overturning of established precedents like abortion rights:

"Given the court's conservative supermajority and its recent history of throwing out decades old, very established legal precedents... there's lots of reasons to worry about their decision and what it could mean for other civil rights protections." [04:26]

She elaborates on how a ruling in favor of Tennessee could set a dangerous precedent, potentially enabling more restrictive health care laws targeting transgender individuals and undermining broader civil rights protections.

c. Connection to Other Supreme Court Decisions

Swaminathan draws parallels between the challenges faced in transgender healthcare and the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which returned the authority to regulate abortion to individual states. She argues that both cases represent governmental overreach into personal bodily autonomy:

"Both implicate a form of control by the government on our bodies... it's the same sort of rhetoric used to control people and control their bodies." [07:57]

d. Broader Impact on the LGBTQ Community and Civil Rights

Addressing the ripple effects of the ruling, Swaminathan expresses concern over the potential erosion of various civil rights for the LGBTQ community. She warns of increased governmental intrusion into personal lives and the institutionalization of discrimination:

"This is about limiting bodily autonomy... government intrusion into one of the most personal aspects of one's life." [09:06]

She underscores the urgency of the case, stating that the outcome could influence future battles over access to public spaces, participation in sports, and the ability to self-identify in official documents.

5. Conclusion: The Stakes at Hand

The episode underscores the high stakes involved in U.S. vs. Grammar. A ruling that upholds SB1 could not only restrict healthcare for transgender youth but also embolden further anti-trans legislation across the nation. Conversely, a decision in favor of the plaintiffs could reinforce constitutional protections against sex discrimination and support the continuation of gender-affirming care practices endorsed by medical authorities.

Jane Coston concludes the discussion with a call to support ongoing legal efforts:

“Thank you to everyone who is supporting us today in our case at the Supreme Court.” [10:58]

---

Additional News Highlights

Beyond the primary focus on the Supreme Court case, the episode briefly touches on other significant news events:

• South Korea's Martial Law Controversy: President Yoon Suk Seol's temporary declaration of martial law and its subsequent reversal amid political tensions.

• Ukraine's NATO Membership Debate: President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's openness to a peace deal with Russia contingent upon NATO membership, juxtaposed with NATO officials' hesitance.

• Iowa's Voter Fraud Lawsuit: Republican efforts in Iowa to challenge voter legitimacy in the 2024 election by suing the Biden administration for voter citizenship data.

• Donald Trump's Legal Challenges: Trump's attempt to use his son's pardon as a precedent to dismiss his own hush money case, highlighting ongoing legal battles facing the former president.

Final Thoughts

This episode of What a Day offers a comprehensive examination of a crucial Supreme Court case that sits at the intersection of healthcare, civil rights, and legal precedent. Through informed discussions and expert insights, listeners gain a clear understanding of the potential ramifications for transgender youth and the broader implications for civil liberties in America.

---

For more insightful summaries and analyses, subscribe to What a Day on your preferred podcast platform or watch on YouTube.

Transcript

[Jane Coston]

It's Wednesday, December 4th. I'm Jane Coston, and this is what a Day. The show that didn't steal 2,500 pies from a Michelin starred chef in Northern England. And you can't prove it if we did. On today's show, South Korea's president called for martial law and then took it back. And Trump's lawyers looked to Hunter Biden's pardon as a defense to drop his hush money case. Let's get into it. Today, the Supreme Court is taking up a landmark case for trans rights. The justices will hear arguments in US vs. Grammar. The case deals with the constitutionality of a 2023 Tennessee law that bans gender affirming care for trans minors in the state. The law bars treatments like hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and gender transition surgery, despite the fact that surgery is almost never performed on minors. Tennessee isn't alone. About half of states have similar laws banning gender affirming care for people under the age of 18. Most of them are facing lawsuits, too. And major medical groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, and the American Medical association all support gender affirming care. The AMA says it's medically necessary health care and that denying it to patients can have really dire physical and mental health consequences. A group of families, a doctor, the Biden administration, and civil rights groups like the ACLU are challenging Tennessee's law. ACLU lawyer Chase Strangia was among the lawyers arguing against Tennessee's law before the justices today. He's also the first openly trans person to ever argue before the court. He told Democracy now that the law is textbook sex discrimination. So if you take, for example, a transgender adolescent boy, he cannot receive testosterone to live consistent with his male identity because he was assigned female at birth. Had he been assigned male at birth, he could receive that same medication for that same same purpose. That is sex discrimination, and Tennessee has to justify it. But given the court's conservative supermajority and its recent history of throwing out decades old, very established legal precedents, like the right to an abortion or affirmative action, there's lots of reasons to worry about their decision and what it could mean for other civil rights protections. So for more on the case and its potential consequences, I spoke with another ACLU lawyer. Shruthi Swaminathan is a staff attorney for the LGBTQ and HIV Project. They're a part of the team that helped prep the case and will be in the courtroom for oral arguments. Shruthi, welcome to what a Day.

[Shruthi Swaminathan]

Thank you for having me so can.

[Jane Coston]

You give me a little bit of backstory on the case before the court today? What will the justices be weighing?

[Shruthi Swaminathan]

Sure. So I can give you the whole story. You know, we filed this case in April of 2023, just level setting, you know, with respect to healthcare. More than half the states have enacted bans on the provision of gender affirming medical for these young people. And as a result, about like 39% of trans youth living in this country cannot access care in the state that they lived in. And this is care that's approved by all the major medical groups in the US that's recommended by their doctors, that their parents want them to receive and that, most importantly, they want. And, you know, when we filed this lawsuit, the United States joined us in the lawsuit in support of our plaintiffs in our case, which is, you know, extremely important because it's not something that we can perhaps expect in the next four years. So for the government to step in and show their support for these young people was pretty huge. And so the only question before the supreme court is whether SB1, Tennessee's law violates the equal protection guarantee of the 14th amendment.

[Jane Coston]

So just to get down to brass tacks, what medical care is actually at stake for trans kids in this case?

[Shruthi Swaminathan]

Right. So I think it's really important to discuss what's at issue here and what's not. And so the only treatments that we're talking about are puberty delaying medications. They're often called puberty blockers and hormone therapy, which is estrogen and testosterone. Our case does not focus on surgical care, and I think that's a big distinction because in the media, there's all of this focus on young people accessing surgeries, not happening. Not a part of our case.

[Jane Coston]

So let's say that this conservative court, which granted, I mean, Bostic happened, we remember that. But conservative court, let's say it sides with the states. Could that translate to broader risks for the kind of care trans adults could be able to get in the future?

[Shruthi Swaminathan]

I think it absolutely has implications for other forms of care. And so, for example, you know, Tennessee's law, SB1, it says that no medical treatment inconsistent with your sex if you are a minor. And it goes even further to say that Tennessee has a compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty. So when the sixth Circuit in this case, which is the court that reversed our good decision that we had at the district court, when the sixth Circuit said, this is not about sex, it's just a regulation of medicine, it's really difficult to stand behind. So if Congress passed a ban on medical care for trans people of all ages, and the ban said no medical care, if it is inconsistent with sex assigned at birth, under the 6th Circuit's logic, that would also be reasonable. You know, this is a principle that could extend to other forms of restrictions on health care for adults as well. And that's what's so dangerous about the six circuits ruling. And that's why we brought this case to the Supreme Court.

[Jane Coston]

It's interesting also because there are tons of forms of gender affirming care that CIS people have that make them feel more the way that they want to feel, and yet we don't talk about that as much. But this case also falls into a larger legislative push in Republican controlled states to restrict life for trans people with bathroom bans, sports bans, things like that. So even if the court does side with the kids and their families, what does the legal landscape of anti trans legislation still look like? We're in this weird patchwork where states like California or cities like DC can be safe spaces for trans people, whereas states like Oklahoma and Mississippi, where lots of trans people do live, are not safe.

[Shruthi Swaminathan]

Yeah, I think that's the question I get most often. Like, what could this ruling mean broadly and narrowly? And so let's take a loss first, right? If we lose, the impact of that ruling is really going to depend on the scope and reasoning of the majority decision. So if the decision holds that discrimination based on gender identity is not a form of sex discrimination under the constitution, and that discrimination against trans people specifically only receives the lowest level of scrutiny, that's gonna have the most sweeping impact. Right. On other issues as well. Sports, bathrooms, identity documents. If instead, the court rules, as Tennessee's arguing here, that this law simply treats different medical conditions differently, that's gonna have the most limited impact, but it's still gonna keep the existing bans on the board across the nation. If, on the other hand, we prevail, then it's likely going to mean that all of the existing bans on minors accessing gender affirming care will also fall. And if the court agrees with us that the heightened scrutiny should apply here because discrimination against trans people constitutes sex discrimination under the equal protection clause, that's going to have the most sweeping impact. And it's going to bolster our existing challenges in all of those other spaces that you're talking about in terms of trans people's access to public life, access to restrooms and sports and other activities, as well as the identity documents that I was talking about. So it really depends. Depends on how the court rules here and to how far they're going to extend their ruling. But it could have very positive implications for our other cases.

[Jane Coston]

Hopefully your colleague who will be arguing the case, Chase Strangio, has been saying that the legal crackdowns on trans care in recent years is directly tied to the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs to return the decision about abortion legality to the states. How are these cases connected?

[Shruthi Swaminathan]

I think they're connected because both implicate a form of control by the government on our bodies. Both are imposing restrictions on medically necessary life saving care. And I think the way that the two sort of movements, you know, the reproductive freedom movement and the LGBTQ movement, have always been in parallel is very, very telling of the state sort of superimposing their idea of what's harmful and helpful to an individual in place of the individual's own decision making. SB1 uses sex as a sort of metric to define which treatments are prohibited and which ones are permissible. So it's really not, you know, the same type of analysis in terms of a legal landscape, but it's the same sort of rhetoric used to control people and control their bodies, and that's, you know, it's just so dangerous.

[Jane Coston]

So depending on how the justices rule, how could their decision in this case affect a broader swath of civil rights protections for other members of the LGBTQ community, women and the medical providers who treat them?

[Shruthi Swaminathan]

Yeah, it's just. It's so, you know, scary, the world we're living in, where individuals are not feeling safe in their own bodies. So, you know, this is about limiting bodily autonomy. This is about a uniquely burdensome regulation of medicine that's driven by animus for a specific group of people. This is about going from no regulation to categorical bans on an entire body of health care. This is about government intrusion into one of the most personal aspects of one's life. And frankly, this is about the dangers of institutionalizing discrimination against one of the most vulnerable groups of people in this country. And I think the reason that this is happening is because trans people, we challenge the notion that any of us can be confined to a box by our government for purposes of control. And frankly, this is about our ability to survive. So the question that begs from this is, what will they take away next? We have restrooms being policed. We have our healthcare. We have our ability to talk about ourselves in school and the curriculum that we're learning, being impacted by desire to remove gender and race and other topics out of sort of the school system. And I think all of these sort of things compounding make it a really difficult place for a young person to just be a young person. Instead of worrying about studying for their tests, they're worried about whether they can access the healthcare that allows them to defog their brain and be present in their lives. And so there are just wide reaching implications for the entire community. And you know, this isn't just about like marriage equality anymore. This is about all of us, you know, facing the threat of having fundamental rights taken away from us.

[Jane Coston]

Shruthi, thank you so much for joining me.

[Shruthi Swaminathan]

Thank you so much for having me. And thank you to everyone who is supporting us today in our case at the Supreme Court.

[Jane Coston]

That was my conversation with Shruthi Swaminathan, ACLU Staff attorney for the LGBTQ Project. We'll get to more of the news in a moment, but if you like the show, make sure to subscribe. Leave a five star review on Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube and share with your friends. More to come after some ads what a Day is brought to you by bookshop.org maybe you're searching for an incisive history that helps you make sense of this moment, or a novel that takes you out of it. Bookshop.org has you covered. Bookshop.org helps foster culture, curiosity and a love of reading for generations to come. Every purchase made directly supports local independent bookstores. Right now I'm reading a great book on the history of death during the Civil War because I'm fun and I love fun things. And you can definitely find a book that is way more fun than that because your next read is waiting. Use code WAD to get 10% off your next order at bookshop.org crooked that's [e-mail] crooked for 10% off what a day is brought to you by the Zero Emission Transportation Association Education Fund. The Zeta Education Fund wants Americans to know about the positive economic impact the EV and battery supply chain is having on our communities. Like how it's already created 240,000 jobs and attracted $177 billion of investment. More than a million EVs were sold in the US last year and there are currently over 200,000 public charging locations in the United States. Join forces with the Zeta Education Fund and help spread the facts about what a transition to EVs means for the future of America. Get on board@zeta zeta.org join what a day is brought to you by Sling Seems like things change every 20 minutes. It's hard to keep up. That's why you should watch Sling. They provide the best value for your essential news channels. With Sling, you get all of your favorite news channels at the best price. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Hannity, Anderson Cooper, 360, the Rachel Maddow show, and more for just $40 a month. So yeah, with the election coverage and everything else happening, you can get news that will raise your blood pressure at prices that won't. Get the best price on news about what's going on in the world. Then say that's what's going on in the world. And it's not just news. Check this out. Sling has the live sports, news and entertainment channels you love and less of the ones you don't. So you save hundreds of dollars. Sling lets you choose and customize your channel lineup so you can choose the channels you actually like. Sling's cloud DVR lets you record your shows to watch in your schedule. There's no complex technology, no long term contracts, and no hidden rigmarole. I need to be able to watch football and I need to be able to watch football on my schedule. That's why I love Sling. Get rewarded for watching your favorite news channels. Sling lets you do that. Visit sling.com now to learn more and get started. That's sling.com now. Sling.com now. And now the news headlines. I hereby declare an emergency martial law. South Korean President Yoon Suk Seol shocked world leaders on Tuesday when he declared martial law in an unexpected televised address in order to defend the free Republic of Korea from the threat of North Korean communist forces and to eradicate the shameless pro north anti state forces that.

[Shruthi Swaminathan]

Are depriving our people of their freedom and happiness.

[Jane Coston]

Yoon accused the nation's parliament of quote, trying to overthrow free democracy without any evidence. He mostly just brought up how they always pushed back on his own political agenda. But lawmakers were quick to veto Yoon's martial law declaration, highlighting the long standing tension between the President's conservative government and the country's democratic parliament. And then, less than six hours later, Yoon reversed the order. Martial law would have given Yun the power to ban all political activities, including citizen led protests, as well as given him complete control of the news media. You know, like a dictator. The last time South Korea declared martial law was over 40 years ago, before the country became a democracy. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky suggested over the past week that he's open to negotiating a peace deal with Russia, but it would come with strings attached AKA letting Russia keep its occupied territories in exchange for Ukraine's NATO membership, zelenskyy told Sky News through an interpreter. It's an option. Even though no offer to join the alliance has been extended. The fact is that it is a solution to stop the hot stage of the war because we can just give the NATO membership to the part of Ukraine that is under our control, zelenskyy said. Ukraine needs NATO protection now. He said its country can get its other territories back, quote, diplomatically later. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte tried to dodge the topic of Ukraine's membership during a press conference Tuesday. I would now argue that Ukraine doesn't.

[Shruthi Swaminathan]

Need more ideas on what a peace.

[Jane Coston]

Process could look like. Instead, Ruta told reporters, it's more important to strengthen Ukraine's military with additional aid and missile defense. Ukraine first raised the idea of joining NATO in 2008. Membership was also a big part of the victory plan Zelenskyy discussed with allies in October. The election has been decided for Trump, but Iowa Republicans are still trying to claim voter fraud. On Tuesday, Iowa officials sued the Biden administration to get the citizenship status of more than 2,000 registered voters from the Department of Homeland Security. Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate claimed in a statement that he needs the data to, quote, ensure that no Iowans vote was canceled by an illegal non citizen vote. Pate has been asking for this information for months. Here he is in October. That's why we've asked the county auditors through the poll workers to challenge those votes to allow them to confirm their citizenship status so that we can count their vote as well. As a reminder, there are no widespread instances of non citizens voting. The Des Moines Register reported that over 500 people on Pate's list proved they're citizens and cast their ballot. The Register said that most of the others didn't vote in the 2024 election. President elect Donald Trump may be a convicted felon, but he's trying to get out of it and he's using President Joe Biden's pardon of his son Hunter earlier this week to do it. Trump's lawyers on Monday asked New York Justice Juan Marchand to throw out the 34 convictions in his hush money case. In the paperwork, Trump's lawyers claimed that, like Hunter Biden, Trump was targeted for political reasons. They also argued that keeping the case going would disrupt Trump's work as president. Justice Mershon indefinitely postponed Trump's sentencing after the election. He hasn't set a timetable for his decision, but he could either dismiss the case or sentence Trump with up to four years in prison. And that's the news. One more thing I want to tell you about a story I've been thinking about a lot, and it's from France, and it's pretty difficult to talk about and hard to hear because it deals with sexual assault and misogyny. I wanted to warn you about that, but I think it's important to talk about, especially now. In Maison France, Giselle Pellico was married to a man named Dominique. For decades, they had three adult children, and Giselle believed that they had a perfect marriage. Then, in 2020, she received news that stunned her, her family, and honestly, the entire country. For over nine years, her husband had been drugging her, raping her, and inviting other men to come over to do the same, filming the assaults and saving them on its computer. The only reason this horrific crime came to light at all is that Dominique was arrested for taking upskirt photos of women. And in the investigation, police examined his computer and found a folder literally titled Abuses. In total, she was assaulted by at least 72 men, 50 of whom stood trial this fall alongside her now ex husband. In the United States, 33% of sexual assaults are committed by a current or former partner or spouse. If you're a person on the Internet, maybe you've noticed a rise in casual or in some cases, very, very serious misogyny on social media platforms or heck, even in your emails. It seems like all over the Internet, people are talking about how the real problem with the world is women. Women going to college or not going to college or not getting married, or maybe they are getting married but not in the right way, or they aren't having kids or having too many kids or dancing or not dancing or not being hot or being too hot or voting or non voting. There are people seriously talking seriously about repealing the 19th amendment or arguing that women shouldn't have jobs or that maybe the Taliban has it right and actually women shouldn't have their voices heard at all. Some of that is probably performative online bullshit, and probably some of it isn't. That worries me. But then I remember Gisele Pellicow. Because Giselle decided that she didn't want to remain anonymous and she demanded a public trial for her husband and all of the men who assaulted her. She even demanded that the tapes her husband made of the assaults be played in court while the perpetrators have hidden their faces and tried to explain away their actions. She has stood strong. She told the court, I've decided not to be ashamed. I've done nothing wrong and added, I'm not expressing hatred or hate, but I am determined that things change in this society. Women across France have come to the court in Avignon to express support for Giselle, putting up posters and giving her a round of applause every day as she enters and leaves. Misogyny has a cost, a real one. We see that in cases like Giselle's and in sexual assault cases here at home that are so incredibly common. Treating women as problems to be solved and not as people being people has consequences. And I hope, I desperately hope that we can remember that before we go on today's episode of Keep It Ira and Lewis are holding space to talk about Wicked and Gladiator will Glicked measure up to Barbenheimer Warning Spoiler alerts. Listen to this Gravity Defying episode only on the Keep it feed. New episodes drop every Wednesday. Subscribe so you never miss an episode. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review respectfully, steal some pies and tell your friends to listen. And if you're into reading and not just about what you do with 2,500 pies. Because that is, to be clear, clear a lot of pies like me. Water Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and [e-mail] subscribe I'm Jane Costen and seriously, what are you going to do with 2500 pies? What a Day is a production of Crooked Media. It's recorded in a mix by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producer is Raven Yamamoto. Our producer is Michelle Eloy. We need production help today from Tyler Hill, Johanna Case, Joseph Dutra, Greg Walters and Julia Clare. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison and our executive producer is Adrian Hill. Our theme music is by Colin Gilliard and Kashaka.

[Shruthi Swaminathan]

Netcredit is here to say yes because you're more than a credit score. Apply in minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day. Loans offered by Netcredit or lending partner banks and service by Netcredit. Applications subject to review and approval. Learn [e-mail] partners netcredit credit to the People if you're ready to elevate your driving experience, the first ever Kia K4 is worth a closer look.

[Jane Coston]

It combines style and performance with a.

[Shruthi Swaminathan]

Sleek, futuristic design featuring star map, LED headlights and an available panoramic display for unforgettable looks.

[Jane Coston]

SiriusXM comes standard in every Kia K4, bringing you closer to what you love.

[Shruthi Swaminathan]

Plus, with an available 190 horsepower turbocharged engine, the Kia K4 delivers everything driving enthusiasts crave. Learn more at kia.com k4.