California AG Rob Bonta: Following SCOTUS Oral Argument in U.S. v. Skrmetti, AG Bonta Reaffirms California’s Commitment to Protecting Access to Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Youth
“Following oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti in the Supreme Court, my office reaffirms our unwavering commitment to protecting the health and rights of transgender individuals to access medically necessary care,” said Attorney General Bonta.
OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court hearing oral argument in U.S. v. Skrmetti.
“Following oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti in the Supreme Court, my office reaffirms our unwavering commitment to protecting the health and rights of transgender individuals to access medically necessary care,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Laws such as Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 are dangerous and discriminatory by denying transgender youth the critical, lifesaving care they need. Amid a growing wave of legislative attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, it is more important than ever to stand against these harmful measures. I urge the Supreme Court to protect the rights of transgender youth and ensure they are not denied the care they need to live full and authentic lives.”
Background:
On September 3, 2024, California Attorney General Rob Bonta led a multistate coalition of 20 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Skrmetti, urging the Court to reverse a decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a state law in Tennessee that bans critical, lifesaving gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents suffering from gender dysphoria. In April 2023, plaintiffs in L.W. v. Skrmetti sued to enjoin Tennessee’s Senate Bill (SB) 1, which prohibits medical professionals from treating transgender adolescents with gender dysphoria using gender-affirming puberty blockers and hormone therapy—regardless of what the transgender minor, their parents, and their medical providers deem to be medically necessary. Tennessee enacted its categorical ban in the face of substantial medical and scientific evidence that the benefits of gender-affirming care far outweigh any limited risks, and every major medical organization agrees that such care is safe and effective. In the amicus brief, the coalition stressed that a ban on gender-affirming care constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex and transgender status, and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.