The Supreme Court has taken up more disputes for its upcoming term pertaining to transgender youth following the justices’ landmark ruling in which the court said last month that states can ban gender-transition medical treatment for minors.
In the next term, which begins in October, the conservative-led court will decide if states can ban transgender athletes from participating in sporting competitions reserved for girls and women.
In addition, the justices will take up a Colorado law requiring therapists to accept and encourage a client’s gender exploration. The law was challenged by a Christian therapist who seeks to counsel clients based on faith and that God establishes one’s identity.
Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, said this case “promises to be the biggest case of next term.”
“There’s a First Amendment angle here, with quite the restriction on both patients and therapists, so I can’t imagine that the Court would uphold the law,” Mr. Shapiro said.
Kaley Chiles, the licensed therapist being represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, says the Colorado law violates free speech rights. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, reasoning that it regulates conduct and not speech.
Colorado says it has authority to discipline therapists for practicing conversion therapy on minors because it falls below the standard of care.
“More than 20 states impose discipline on professional health care providers for engaging in this practice,” the state’s filing reads. “And no court has invalidated any of them.”
The case is Kaley Chiles v. Patty Salazar, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies.
The high court also is set to consider laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender athletes from competing with girls and women.
The states appealed to the justices after lower courts blocked their laws on grounds that they violate the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by discriminating based on sex.
The cases are B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education and Lindsay Hecox v. Bradley Little, Idaho’s governor.
“I think this is an area where the Justices are confident to reverse,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law.
The justices agreed to hear the cases just days after they ruled in June that Tennessee could limit transgender medical treatments for minors without violating the Equal Protection Clause.
The high court in that case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, said transgender medical science is evolving quickly and states have freedom to experiment without running afoul of the Constitution.
Rachel Rossi, president of the Alliance for Justice, said the “Supreme Court scoffed at the medical establishment to endorse discrimination against transgender young people across this country.”
“Thanks to the Skrmetti ruling, we have refugee families within our own nation fleeing to states where their transgender kids can receive the affirming, life-saving treatment they need and deserve,” Ms. Rossi said.
“Should the Court go on to endorse dangerous conversion therapy and cruel sports bans, it would only further confirm that the conservative justices care more about erasing queer people than upholding their fundamental, unalienable right to participate equally in society.”
