In a recent decision, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court granted Idaho officials' request to enforce a near-total ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender youth while the case is pending. The move has drawn criticism from Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who accused her conservative colleagues of lacking "reason and restraint" in their decision.

The ban, which was signed into law last year by Republican Governor Brad Little, had previously been temporarily blocked by a lower court. However, the Supreme Court's decision allows its enforcement, though it does not apply to the two teenage transgender girls whose families filed a lawsuit against the ban.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his concurring opinion, argued that the plaintiffs would face no harm from the partial stay, asserting that blocking the ban could prevent Idaho from executing any aspect of its law for years.

Nevertheless, Justice Jackson, along with liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, voiced their objection to the decision. In her dissenting opinion, Jackson criticized the court's failure to show "respect for lower court judges" and argued that Idaho had not demonstrated that blocking the ban during the appeal would cause irreversible harm to the state.

Jackson further pointed out that Idaho had already conceded that the new law was likely unconstitutional when applied to the plaintiffs. Notably, the Supreme Court's decision did not address the constitutionality of the law.

The ruling has sparked controversy and dismay among transgender rights activists and advocates. Erin Reed, a transgender activist and journalist, described the decision as "incredibly devastating" for transgender people, particularly trans youth nationwide.

On the other hand, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador celebrated the decision, characterizing it as a "BIG win to protect vulnerable kids." Labrador asserted that the ban was necessary to ensure that children were not exposed to "dangerous drugs and procedures."

The issue of transgender rights, specifically the access to gender-affirming medical care for youth, has become a potent political battleground in recent years. In Republican-led states across the nation, dozens of bills similar to Idaho's ban have been either passed or proposed.

It is worth noting that major mainstream medical organizations, such as the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, support gender-affirming care as the most effective treatment for transgender adults and youth. These treatments often involve the use of puberty blockers, which have been safely used for both transgender and non-transgender children with precocious puberty.

The Supreme Court's decision to allow the enforcement of Idaho's transgender health care ban during the appeal underscores the deep divisions surrounding transgender rights and the potential impact on the lives of transgender youth. As the case progresses, the outcome will undoubtedly have significant implications for the larger conversation on transgender rights and medical care.