The legal landscape regarding gender-transition treatments for minors is experiencing a significant shift as federal appeals courts uphold state laws that restrict such medical interventions. The latest decisions come from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently declined to block Oklahoma's ban on medical sex-change treatments for minors, emphasizing the state's legitimate interest in protecting the health and welfare of children.
The 10th Circuit's decision backed a lower court's stance to await the Supreme Court's guidance on a comparable Tennessee law. The panel, comprising judges appointed by Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, concluded that the minors' pursuit of puberty blockers and hormones, as well as their parents' due process claims, had little chance of success under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The judges highlighted permanent health risks, such as impaired brain development and infertility.
This ruling aligns with the Supreme Court's recent decision regarding a Tennessee law, both finding little distinction between the two states' legislation. The 10th Circuit rejected the notion that Oklahoma's law was driven by anti-transgender animus, instead pointing to legislative intentions aimed at safeguarding children's health.
Simultaneously, in Idaho, U.S. District Judge David Nye ruled against allowing trans-identifying students at Boise High School to use opposite-sex restrooms. This decision is part of ongoing litigation over Idaho's Senate Bill 1100, which mandates restroom and locker room use based on biological sex. Earlier, the 9th Circuit refused to block this law, with Judge Nye underscoring longstanding privacy concerns due to biological differences.
Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador lauded the decision, framing it as a triumph for common sense and the dignity of women and girls. In contrast, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the minors and parents challenging the laws, decried the outcomes as the "tragic results" of Supreme Court precedents and is contemplating further action.
The 8th Circuit is currently reviewing Arkansas's ban on "gender-affirming care" for minors, which has been characterized as substantially similar to Tennessee's law. After the Supreme Court's decisions, the appeals court has requested additional briefs, acknowledging that rational basis review is appropriate for the case.
These legal developments underscore a broader conservative perspective that laws emphasizing biological sex over "gender identity," particularly in the context of minors' medical care and school facilities, are constitutional and prioritize the health and privacy of children.
