The U.S. Supreme Court ruling announced on Wednesday the Tennessee law banning transgender health care for children.
In its 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Tennessee law prohibits access to hormone therapy and other medical interventions is not sex discrimination and does not violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause.
The ruling means that groups challenging similar laws targeting gender discomfort medical care could face a difficult fight in court.
Last year, a federal judge in Florida broke a state law that banned medical treatment for children with gender discomfort, saying it was unconstitutional.
Florida appealed, and the case is still pending in court.
Here’s what you need to know what a U.S. Supreme Court decision means for a Florida case:
What is Florida Law?
The Florida law passed in 2023 and promoted by Gov. Ron DeSantis, prohibiting children from receiving treatments such as adolescent blockers for gender discomfort, hormone therapy, and sexual rearrangement surgery.
That’s also what Tennessee law does. But Florida laws are broader.
Florida law also limits the way adults receive treatment for gender dysphoria. Adults can only receive treatment from doctors, not nurses or other healthcare providers.
A group of plaintiffs challenging Florida law targets adult restrictions along with a broad ban on child care.
How similar and different to the Scotus case?
The plaintiff’s lawyers argued that Florida law is a violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, which discriminates against the transgender status and gender.
In the case of Tennessee, lawyers opposed state law also made similar arguments. However, the US Supreme Court refused. The court upheld the Tennessee side. Tennessee argued that the law restricts access based on age and medical purposes, not sex discrimination.
However, U.S. Supreme Court laws claim that lawyers challenging Florida law deserve more scrutiny because the law is motivated by anti-transgender hostility from lawmakers.
A federal judge deemed Florida’s law unconstitutional agreed that aversion towards transgender people motivated the law. The Supreme Court decision on Wednesday pointed out that the law deserves more scrutiny if motivated by unfair discrimination.
As we move forward, courts considering Florida law must consider its separate arguments.
What’s coming next?
In January, the 11th Circuit heard debates over the Florida ban.
During these arguments, one judge asked a state lawyer if he thought the court should wait for “more legal developments from the Supreme Court.”
Mohammad Jazil, the state’s representative lawyer, said the court should wait because “Florida’s law is almost identical to that of Tennessee.”
It is not clear when the three judge panel in the court will issue that judgment in the case, or whether counsel on both sides will ask for a new argument in light of Scotts’ decision.
Attorney General James Usmier said on social media that the court’s decision was “a big victory for common sense and an even bigger victory for children.”
Simone Chris, a lawyer for Southern lawyers who challenge Florida law, said the court’s decision was “very disappointing.”
She said the cases were different because lawyers were able to establish that Florida laws were motivated by anti-transgender hostility.
“My heart is broken because of the families affected by this cruel order, but please be reassured that I will continue to sue cases that challenge the ban and restrictions of transhealth care in Florida,” Chris said in a statement.
