Federal court supports state ban on gender-affirming care for minors.

Tennessee’s Gender “Medicine” Ban Upheld by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

In a recent ruling, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a district court’s injunction, allowing Tennessee to enforce its law prohibiting “gender-affirming” surgeries and hormone therapies for minors. This decision has brought relief to critics of gender ideology and advocates for cautious medical practices.

“The house of gender is built on sinking sand.”

The case was brought by three transgender minors, their parents, and a doctor who argued that the Tennessee law was unconstitutional. However, Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, writing the opinion for the appellate court, disagreed with the lower court’s ruling and rebuked the judge for overstepping his judicial discretion.

Protecting Children’s Well-being

The Sixth Circuit held that the state had a legitimate interest in safeguarding children from irreversible medical treatments. Tennessee’s cautious approach to gender “medicine” for minors was deemed rational and constitutional, as the state prioritized the well-being of its young citizens.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that state efforts to regulate health and welfare deserve a strong presumption of validity, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson. Judge Sutton reminded the district court of this precedent and highlighted the importance of considering alternate perspectives and engaging in democratic debate.

Questionable Consensus and Precedent

Judge Sutton also pointed out the lack of consensus among medical and regulatory authorities regarding hormone therapy for gender dysphoria. He argued that true consensus would require FDA approval, which has not been granted.

The court referenced the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in United States v. Hansen, where departing from precedent was criticized. This further supported the Sixth Circuit’s decision to uphold Tennessee’s law.

Protecting Vulnerable Children

Despite the prevailing voices advocating for gender theory, the Sixth Circuit recognized the importance of not compromising long-standing constitutional law principles and endangering vulnerable children. The court’s ruling serves as a reminder to prioritize the well-being and safety of minors.

It remains to be seen how other federal appeals courts, such as the 11th Circuit, will approach similar state laws regulating medicine and gender dysphoric minors.

Sarah Parshall Perry is a senior legal fellow for the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases