The U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Idaho law on Monday that says transgender surgeries on children are illegal. This could affect a similar law that was just passed in Wyoming.
The high court’s ruling meant that Idaho, which is right next door, could start broadly enforcing a new law that bans many types of transgender surgeries and care for minors.
A similar rule was passed in Wyoming during this year’s legislative session. It says that doctors can’t usually do gender-change surgeries or treatments on minors in the state. Different medical boards can also take away the licenses of nurses and doctors who break the law.
Senate Enrolled Act 52 in Wyoming will become law on July 1.
‘Makes it Stronger in a Big Way’
State Sen. Anthony Bouchard, R-Cheyenne, pushed for the law and told Cowboy State Daily that he thinks the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday makes Wyoming’s law stronger.
“I think it’s being held up in other states because the Supreme Court says it’s the law,” Bouchard said. “I believe it makes it stronger in a big way.”
Bouchard thinks that doctors aren’t being honest about the risks that come with transgender treatments for teens who are going through puberty.
“Those people should be ashamed of not telling the truth,” he said.
Medical groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics have spoken out in favor of gender transition care and against Wyoming’s rule.
In March, the law passed through the Legislature. Afterward, AAP President Mike Sanderson told Cowboy State Daily, “We regret that the bill sponsors and supporters did not see the value in working with Wyoming physicians to craft legislation that would better fit Wyoming families living in Wyoming circumstances.” “Instead, they have chosen to bend to out-of-state interests for the sake of the political moment.”
A few miles from the border with Idaho lives State Rep. Mike Yin, D-Jackson, who is against the Wyoming law.
“More families will realize they have more freedom to raise their families outside of our region as long as parental rights are attacked,” Yin said.
What Did The Judge Say?
The Supreme Court didn’t make a clear decision on the problem as a whole or on whether these kinds of bans violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. This means that there are still questions about the future of these kinds of laws.
Monday, the court mostly talked about whether individual judges can stop a law even though only a few people have come forward to challenge it because of a personal link to them.
This is a lot like what’s happening in Wyoming right now with their law against most types of abortion, though they probably won’t take it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The majority of the high court was skeptical about the idea of courts granting broad state injunctions for cases with few plaintiffs. Three of the conservative judges said that some district courts have widened their authority from the immediate issues brought before them to enforcing state or federal policy.
In this case, as in many others recently, the district court’s universal injunction turned a small dispute between a few parties about one part of the law into a much bigger vote on the law’s whole provisions that affected everyone, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote.
How did that thing get there?
The Idaho law was meant to go into effect at the start of this year, but in December, the families of two unnamed transgender girls sued the state, and a federal court judge temporarily stopped it.
Then, in January, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco supported that choice.
Because of this, Idaho officials sent an emergency application to the Supreme Court to let them apply the ban. They chose not to appeal the lower court’s decision about the two minor plaintiffs, though.
Court papers say that the kids and their parents said that the two minors would probably have major mental health problems if they couldn’t get estrogen and puberty blockers.
The high court overturned the lower court’s ruling that Idaho could not enforce the law at all. However, the two anonymous teens whose families had sued to stop the law from being enforced were still protected.
Three of the court’s liberal judges disagreed with the decision.
At the height of a legal case, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Jackson wrote, “I believe we should not be forced to serve when our involvement amounts to micromanaging the lower courts’ exercise of their discretionary authority.” “This Court does not have to get up and act every time an applicant rushes to us with an alleged emergency. It is especially important that we do not do so in new, highly charged, and uncertain situations.”
The ban in Idaho is a lot like the one in Wyoming, but the punishments are worse. If a doctor breaks the law in Idaho, they could go to jail for up to 10 years. In Wyoming, the worst punishment for breaking the law is losing their medical license.
Politically, at least 20 states have made it illegal or hard for transgender people to get care and have treatments. In at least four states, those bans have been put on hold while issues are dealt with in federal court. Three states have passed laws that protect transgender teens’ right to get medical care.
