The U.S. Department of Justice has withdrawn its opposition to Tennessee’s law regulating gender-affirming care for minors, signaling a significant shift in federal policy.
At a Glance
- DOJ no longer believes Tennessee’s SB 1 violates equal protection rights
- SB 1 prohibits certain “gender-affirming” treatments for “transgender” minors
- The law was initially blocked but later allowed to take effect by appeals court
- ACLU continues to challenge the law despite DOJ’s withdrawal
- Supreme Court appears likely to rule in favor of Tennessee’s stance
DOJ Reverses Course on Tennessee Law
In a surprising turn of events, the U.S. Department of Justice under the Trump administration has decided to withdraw its challenge to a Tennessee law that restricts so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors. This decision marks a significant shift in the federal government’s stance on the contentious issue of transgender rights and medical treatments for youth.
This “care” involves permanently sterilizing children with “puberty blockers” and hormones for the opposite sex, and may end up in mutilating genital surgery.
The law in question, Senate Bill 1, prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers and hormone treatments to so-called “transgender” minors in Tennessee. Initially, the DOJ had joined a lawsuit against the state, arguing that the law violated equal protection rights. However, the department has now reversed its position.
Details of the DOJ’s New Stance
Deputy Solicitor General Curtis Gannon communicated the DOJ’s updated position to the Supreme Court. In a letter, Gannon stated, “Following the change in Administration, the Department of Justice has reconsidered the United States’ position in this case. The purpose of this letter is to notify the Court that the government’s previously stated views no longer represent the United States’ position.”
“The Department has now determined that SB1 does not deny equal protection on account of sex or any other characteristic. Accordingly, the new Administration would not have intervened to challenge SB1 — let alone sought this Court’s review of the court of appeals’ decision reversing the preliminary injunction against SB1,” Gannon wrote.
This change in stance aligns with the Trump administration’s approach to transgender issues, which differs significantly from the previous administration’s policies.
Legal Background and Ongoing Challenges
The legal journey of SB 1 has been complex. Initially, a federal judge blocked the law, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals later allowed it to take effect. Despite the DOJ’s withdrawal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other advocacy groups continue to challenge the law in court.
“Tennessee’s discriminatory and baseless ban continues to upend the lives of our plaintiffs–transgender adolescents, their families, and a medical provider. These Tennesseans have had their Constitutional right to equal protection under the law violated by the state of Tennessee,” wrote the consortium of law firms challenging the Tennessee law.
The plaintiffs argue that the Tennessee law violates the constitutional right to equal protection under the law. However, recent Supreme Court proceedings suggest that the justices may be leaning towards upholding Tennessee’s stance.
Reactions and Implications
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti praised the DOJ’s decision, stating, “We commend President Trump for abandoning the previous administration’s effort to enshrine gender ideology into the Constitution and prevent the people’s elected officials from resolving these important and contentious issues. We look forward to receiving much-needed clarity when the Court issues its decision.”
The DOJ’s withdrawal from the case has significant implications for similar laws in other states and ongoing debates about gender-affirming care for minors. As the Supreme Court prepares to rule on this case, its decision is likely to have far-reaching consequences for transgender rights and healthcare policies across the nation.
