On Wednesday, the Supreme Court confirmed the ban on Tennessee for gender confirming the care of a minor transgender, a stunning failure to Transgender’s rights.
The judges’ 6-3 in the case of Tennessee effectively protects against legal challenges that many efforts of the Republican administration of President Donald Trump and the state government irrigate the protection for transgender people. Another 26 countries have laws similar to laws in Tennessee.
The main judge John Roberts wrote for the conservative majority that the law does not violate the clause on the same protection of the Constitution, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people.
In the dissent, joined by her liberal colleagues, Sonia Sotomayor wrote that most “left Transgender children and their families on political whims”.
The decision comes in the middle of many other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including those sports competitions that can join and which bathrooms can use. In April, President Donald Trump’s administration sued Maine for not fulfilling government pressure on the ban on Transgender’s athletes in girls’ sports.
The Republican President also tried to block federal spending on sex care for the younger 19 years-the place to promote the therapy of discussion only about the treatment of young Transgender people. In addition, the Supreme Court allowed him to kick the members of the Transgender Services from the Army, even if the judicial battles continue. The President also signed another order to define sex as only men and women.
Trump’s administration also called for the use of therapy, not wider health measures, to treat the transgender of young people.
The judges acted a month after the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court issued a failure to Transgender’s rights and unanimously decided that the British Equality Act means that trans women can be excluded from some groups and spaces for one sex, such as dressing rooms, homeless shelters, swimming and medical or consulting services provided only to women.
Five years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Transgender people, as well as homosexual and lesbian people, were protected by the dominant feature of the Federal Act on Civil Rights, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. This decision is not affected by Wednesday’s decision.
On Wednesday, however, the judges refused to apply the same kind of analysis used by the court in 2020, finding that “sex plays an unmistakable role” in employers’ decisions to punish Transgender people for qualities and behavior that otherwise tolerate.
According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, there are about 300,000 people aged 13 and 17 and 1.3 million adults who identify themselves in the United States in the United States. Williams Institute is a Think tank that examines the demography of sexual orientation and gender identity to inform the laws and decisions of public policy.
When the case was argued in December, the then President Joe Biden called the Democratic Administration and the Transgender’s Adolescent Family to the High Court to strike Tennessee as unlawful gender discrimination and to protect the constitutional rights of vulnerable Americans.
They argued that the law violates the clause of the same protection of 14. Appendix.
Tennessee’s law prohibits puberty blockers and hormonal treatment for a minor transgender, but it allows for other purposes to be used for other purposes.
Soon after Trump joined the office, the Ministry of Justice told the court that his position had changed.
The main problem in this case was a reasonable level of control courts for such laws.
The lowest level is known as a rational overview of the foundation and almost every law is eventually supported in this way that has been so looked at. In fact, the Federal Court of Appeal in the Cincinnati, which allowed to enforce the Tennessee Act that the legislators acted rationally to regulate medical procedures, well within their authority.
The Court of Appeal was annulled by the court, which used a higher level of review, increased control that relates in cases of sex discrimination. According to this exam, more searching must identify an important goal and show that the law helps to achieve.
(Tagstotranslate) the judgment of the US Supreme Court
