Staff Reports
Recent news revealed that the United States Supreme Court has given the green light for Idaho to enforce a ban on “gender affirming care” for minors, including procedures such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy treatments, and sex reassignment surgery. This decision came after the state legislature passed a law banning these irreversible and experimental transgender treatments for children, which was later signed into law by Republican Governor Brad Little.
According to reports, three liberal Supreme Court justices, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan, expressed objections to allowing the ban to be enforced. Nonetheless, the law now makes it a felony for doctors to administer such treatments to minors. This move aligns with other states, like Indiana and Louisiana, which have implemented similar laws.
Supreme Court Announces Decision on Idaho's Ban on 'Gender Affirming Care' for Kids https://t.co/lQoBsiO8cv
How long before the current administration announces they will fly children anywhere in the country for these procedures. They’ll also offer to pay for all expenses making…
— Johnny (@jcan59) April 16, 2024
The ban is significant, as it applies to almost everyone except for the plaintiffs who brought the challenge to court. Although the focus of the opinions did not delve into the controversial issue of transgender care, the broader legal question of universal injunctions took center stage. This term refers to a single judge issuing a far-reaching decision that extends beyond the immediate parties involved in the dispute, a tactic that some justices have signaled interest in reviewing.
While the outcome of the case did not include detailed reasoning, it was met with varied perspectives among the justices. On one side, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the plaintiffs, expressed disappointment, stating that the ruling jeopardizes the wellbeing of transgender youth and their families throughout the state. Meanwhile, Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador hailed the decision, emphasizing the state’s responsibility to protect children from harm and the importance of recognizing biological differences between boys and girls.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision to allow Idaho’s ban on “gender affirming care” for minors is seen as a crucial step in addressing the broader legal question of universal injunctions. The ruling reflects the state’s efforts to protect its youth from potentially harmful and irreversible treatments, drawing both support and criticism from different quarters.
