Tomorrow, The Supremes Will Hear Argument, On Whether Tennessee Can Restrict (Prevent Administration Of) A Class Of Drugs... To Any Human "Not Presenting" As The Gender [Written In, For Them, By A Nurse] At Birth, In A Hospital

As many well-know, we have closely followed the purported Tennessee law known as Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-101, as its constitutionality is tested in the federal courts. It purports to tell doctors that there is only one class of patients they may not treat for gender dysphoria. That class (according to Tennessee) should be any human who does not present in the gender written by a nurse on a birth certificate, in many cases, nearly two decades ago. Those are the only humans that Tennessee would prevent from getting a doctor's therapy. [Weird.]

So -- in advance of tomorrow, here is how the US Solicitor General sees the case:

. . .Because [Tennessee] SB1’s prohibition applies only when a covered treatment is prescribed to allow individuals to live in conformity with a gender identity other than their sex assigned at birth, the law does not restrict the provision of puberty blockers or hormones for any other purpose. The law also explicitly exempts those treatments when they are prescribed “to treat a minor’s congenital defect, precocious puberty, disease, or physical injury.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(b)(1)(A). The terms “[c]ongenital defect” and “disease” are defined to include an “abnormality present in a minor that is inconsistent with the normal development of a human being of the minor’s sex” but specifically exclude “gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, [and] gender incongruence.” Id. §§ 68-33-102(1), 68-33-103(b)(2).

Violations of SB1 are punishable by civil penalties of $25,000 for each prohibited treatment, professional discipline, and potential civil liability in private suits. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 68-33-105 to 68-33-107. The law took effect on July 1, 2023. . . .

SB1 warrants heightened scrutiny twice over: It explicitly classifies based on sex and it discriminates based on transgender status. Indeed, one of its declared purposes is to enforce gender conformity and discourage adolescents from identifying as transgender. The Sixth Circuit erred in holding that such a law is subject to no greater scrutiny than mundane economic regulation. . . .

Now you know -- an Indian rocket launches a very heavy esa payload, and arguments at the high court -- both on tap, tomorrow. Onward.

नमस्ते