In a move that upholds the sovereignty of state legislature and parental rights, the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently permitted the implementation of Tennessee’s law prohibiting sex-change procedures for minors, despite an earlier temporary halt.
Trump-appointed Judge Eli Richardson had previously paused the enforcement of the law on June 29, expressing concern that it potentially encroached on the “fundamental right of parents to direct the medical care of their children”.
This legal pause came mere days before the law was set to become effective.
However, the early morning of July 8 witnessed a reversal of this decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, effectively supporting the state’s bid to stall the lower court’s injunction as the appeal continues.
Tennessee’s Republican Governor, Bill Lee, originally signed the law into existence back in March.
It places restrictions on healthcare providers, preventing them from administering any sex-change procedures—ranging from surgeries to the provision of puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones—to minors.
In a demonstration of the complex decision-making process, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote, “Both sides have the same fear, just in opposite directions—one saying the procedures create health risks that cannot be undone, the other saying the absence of such procedures creates risks that cannot be undone.”
This reflection was shared by Judge Amul Thapar, a Trump appointee.
Sutton pointedly noted that such difficult decisions are often best left to elected representatives who assess and balance the associated costs and benefits, rather than judges.
Despite granting the stay, the court candidly admitted that their initial stance “may be wrong” and has therefore accelerated the appeal process for the preliminary injunction, aiming to reach a resolution before September 30, 2023.
In contrast, Judge Helene White, another George W. Bush appointee, disagreed with the majority.
She suggested that Tennessee’s law “likely discriminates against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”
Despite this belief, she admitted she wouldn’t maintain the lower court’s injunction in its current form, but rather, she would “narrow its scope.”
This case continues to spark widespread dialogue on the complexities of transgender healthcare for minors, a discussion that is emblematic of broader national debates on the topic.
RELATED: Federal Judge Overturns Tennessee Law Restricting Drag Shows: ‘Unconstitutionally Vague’
