Prom
What does ‘heightened scrutiny’ mean, and why is it significant?
Written by Adam Liptak
Providing updates from
The issue being considered by the judges is whether a Tennessee law that prohibits certain medical treatments for transgender minors goes against the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Laws that are questioned on this basis are usually reviewed by courts with a more lenient approach known as rational basis review. Any reasonable justification will likely be accepted, and it is widely believed that the state’s concern for medical safety would easily meet this standard.
However, laws that show bias based on gender are subject to stricter evaluation, which requires states to prove that the laws are significantly connected to accomplishing a crucial goal. This is a significant challenge.
However, the parties have differing opinions on whether the Tennessee law shows bias based on gender.
During a court hearing, Elizabeth B. Prelogar, who serves as the U.S. solicitor general for the Biden administration, explained to the judges that the law in question specifically considered gender as a factor.
She explained that if a state prevents a female-born adolescent from taking testosterone to transition to a male, but allows a male-born adolescent to do the same, it is using a gender-based classification. Therefore, the state must provide a valid reason for this law under closer examination.
During the court hearing, Jonathan Skrmetti, who is the attorney general of Tennessee, stated that the state’s law does not have any specific classification based on sex.
He stated that there is a distinction between minors who are looking for drugs for gender transition and minors seeking drugs for other medical reasons. Both boys and girls can be found on either side of this distinction.
Ms. Prelogar suggested that the Supreme Court should consider subjecting distinctions based on transgender status to heightened scrutiny, but it is unlikely that this argument will be successful.
According to a report from Georgetown’s Supreme Court Institute in September, there have been no new classifications that require closer scrutiny in court for many years. The report also stated that the chances of the court adding new classifications for heightened scrutiny are extremely unlikely.
Adam Liptak is a journalist who focuses on reporting about the Supreme Court and legal news in his column, Sidebar. He attended Yale Law School and worked as a lawyer for 14 years before starting his career at The New York Times in 2002.
Prom
Index of the Website
Navigation Information for the Website