Idaho has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to enforce a state ban on sex-change-related procedures for minors after the law was blocked last month by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The Vulnerable Child Protection Act (VCPA), which Gov. Brad Little (R) signed in 2023, criminalizes physicians prescribing puberty-blocking drugs, hormone therapy, and selected surgeries for minors who identify to be transgender. Fines and prison terms can be imposed.
“In signing this bill, I recognize our society plays a role in protecting minors from surgeries or treatments that can irreversibly damage their healthy bodies,” the governor said at the time.
“However, as policymakers, we should take great caution whenever we consider allowing the government to interfere with loving parents and their decisions about what is best for their children.”
At least 22 states have passed legislation banning transgender surgery for minors, according to the Movement Advancement Project. On the other hand, 14 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation protecting youth access to transgender health care, according to the group.
A federal district court in Idaho temporarily enjoined the state statute last year, while the litigation works its way through lower courts. The 9th Circuit affirmed the injunction.
The new emergency application in the case, Labrador v. Poe, was reportedly filed on Feb. 16 but had not appeared on the Supreme Court’s online docket as of press time. The office of Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador (R) gave The Epoch Times a copy of the document (pdf).
“I’ve witnessed firsthand the devastating consequences of drugs and procedures used on children with gender dysphoria, and it’s a preventable tragedy,” Mr. Labrador said in a statement.
“The state has a duty to protect and support all children, and that’s why I’m proud to defend Idaho’s law that ensures children are not subjected to these life-altering drugs and procedures.
“Those suffering gender dysphoria deserve love, support, and medical care rooted in biological reality. Denying the basic truth that boys and girls are biologically different hurts our kids. No one has the right to harm children, and, thankfully, we as the state have the power—and duty—to protect them,” he said.
The application was directed to Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the 9th Circuit. Justice Kagan may act on the application by herself, or she may refer the matter to the full court.
The application states that the rulings of the district court and the 9th Circuit “violate controlling precedent on the limits of equitable remedies. That violation matters because it harms non-parties, leaving vulnerable children subject to procedures that even [the] Plaintiffs’ experts agree are inappropriate for some of them.”
The Supreme Court should stay the lower court ruling because “the equities decisively favor a stay pending appeal. Every day Idaho’s law remains enjoined exposes vulnerable children to risky and dangerous medical procedures and infringes Idaho’s sovereign power to enforce its democratically enacted law,” the document states.
“These procedures have lifelong, irreversible consequences, with more and more minors voicing their regret for taking this path,” it continues. The district court’s “sweeping injunction hamstrings Idaho’s ability to protect its citizens from well-recognized harms.”
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is assisting Idaho in the Supreme Court application, also weighed in on the case.
“Idaho’s law rightly supports children’s natural biological development, ensuring children experiencing gender dysphoria have a chance for comprehensive healing and compassionate mental health support,” said Jonathan Scruggs, ADF’s vice president of litigation strategy.
“Respected authorities continue to assert that the overwhelming majority of children will naturally resolve their dysphoria as they mature,” he said.
“And there is no reliable scientific evidence that these dangerous transition procedures improve mental health. That’s why countries like Sweden, England, and Finland—which once recommended these procedures for children—are now restricting them and protecting children from the devastating effects these procedures have had on countless lives. Idaho should be free to enforce its law.”
The Supreme Court has issued several rulings in transgender cases in recent years.
The court held 6–3 in 2020 that employees can’t be fired from their jobs because of their preferred gender identity.
The landmark ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County brought an expanded meaning to the phrase “on the basis of sex” that appears in the nondiscrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Supreme Court has sidestepped other cases involving transgender young people.
In Gloucester County School Board v. Grimm in 2021, the court refused to take up a Virginia case about requiring students to use the bathroom that corresponds to their sex after a lower court determined the policy was unconstitutional.
The student, Gavin Grimm, was born female but began identifying as male. She has since graduated from high school and is now an activist in California.
It is unclear when the Supreme Court will act on the application in Labrador v. Poe.
From The Epoch Times
