Northwestern Pritzker School of Law's LGBTQI+ Rights Clinic is Counsel of Record for an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the U.S. v. Skrmetti case - which will consider Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors, specifically puberty blockers and hormone therapy. The brief, filed today, highlighted the centuries-old medical practice of gender-affirming care in the United States, reiterating that the practice is not experimental.
Kara Ingelhart, clinical assistant professor of law and director of the clinic, spoke on the significance of the case.
"This case [U.S. v. Skrmetti] is one of the most significant civil rights cases of our time," Ingelhart said. "Tennessee is one of two dozen states that have passed laws banning necessary health care for transgender and nonbinary adolescents. But, to be clear, the same medical interventions that are banned in Tennessee for treating gender dysphoria - hormone therapy and puberty blockers - are not prohibited to alleviate medical symptoms for other diagnoses in cisgender young people."
The brief focuses on the fact that trans people have existed throughout history, highlights the continuous development of health care inventions throughout history to treat gender dysphoria, and the establishment of the provision of cross-gender hormones, surgery and puberty blockers for adults and minors.
"This brief has the power to change hearts and minds because most Americans are not aware of the deep historical roots of people identifying as a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth," Ingelhart said. "The political conversation today ignores the fact people across cultures and time have experienced the desire to transition their sex identity, that this is nothing new, and more than that, the medicine behind treatment for gender-affirming care is as well-developed as other forms of medicine."
The brief is similar to other historian amicus briefs in the past, e.g., the OAH brief in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health (filed 2021), the OAH brief in Obergefell v. Hodges (filed 2015), and the brief of historians in Bostock v. Clayton County (filed 2019), with a focus on expertise in field medical history.
The Supreme Court has not set a hearing date for the case, as of yet.
