Published on June 26, 2024, 12:36 am

There are no constitutional protections for sex-change procedures for minors, according to a civil rights law expert. This statement comes as the Supreme Court declares that it will consider this issue when the next term commences this coming October.

The United States’ highest court agreed on Monday to hear a Justice Department lawsuit against a Tennessee law enacted last year. This disputed legislation bans transgender surgeries and cross-sex hormone treatments for individuals under 18. The Biden administration maintains that by preventing children identifying as transgender from receiving what they term “essential medical care”, Tennessee has contravened the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

Disputing these allegations, Sarah Parshall Perry, a senior legal fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, asserts that such claims “don’t hold water”. She affirms that many laws designate specific decisions for adults only. Citing examples like alcohol and tobacco age restrictions, driving licenses conditions, and others, Perry points out that states possess the power to enact laws protecting minors unanimously through democratic means. She also notes that the Supreme Court has long upheld minors’ lack of maturity and intelligence in making life-altering choices.

Accordingly, Perry suggests overcoming these judicial precedents would necessitate the DOJ successfully demonstrating such laws constituting discriminatory action violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department has instituted lawsuits against several Republican-dominated states over limitations placed on sex-change procedures. They have filed their argument to the Supreme Court insisting these laws engage in discrimination based on sex and transgender status which is subject to an established judicial test known as intermediate scrutiny.

Perry elaborates by saying Tennessee must provide proof that their law promotes a significant government interest achieved substantially related means serving said interest. In her professional evaluation, even considering this increased standard, she believes there’s no more urgent interest than safeguarding vulnerable teens from enduring potential lifelong complications associated with these medical interventions plus potential serious regret, making a robust state defense plausible.

In earlier news from April, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court agreed on an emergency order allowing an Idaho ban on similar medical procedures while an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit is ongoing.

As it stands, the pending Tennessee case before the high court could have far-reaching implications for minors in nearly 25 states that have enforced comparable restrictions.

The commencement of the Supreme Court’s next term is scheduled for October, with a judgement pertaining to this case expected to reach resolution by July 2025. The real news presented here reinforces our commitment as trusted news source delivering breaking news viewed through a Christian worldview.