In a significant move that reignites the ongoing culture wars, the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to a Tennessee law that prohibits gender affirming hormone treatments for patients under the age of 18. The case will be heard next fall, and a decision is expected in 2025.

The challengers in this case are three teenagers, aged 13 to 16, who have undergone puberty blockers as part of their transition away from their sex assigned at birth. They, along with their parents, argue that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law, and that parents should have the right to determine their children's medical treatment.

The specific claim that the Supreme Court will address is whether Tennessee's law denies transgender minors equal protection of the law. The law allows hormone treatments for some minors, such as those who begin puberty early, but forbids the same treatment for transgender patients under 18. The Biden administration, in a separate suit, has urged the court to consider only this limited question, specifically whether such laws should be subjected to more rigorous judicial scrutiny.

Previously, in the Tennessee case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the lowest level of scrutiny, ruling that the law had a "rational basis" for its enactment. Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote in a divided panel that there was no reason to subject these laws to heightened scrutiny. However, the Biden administration and the ACLU, representing the transgender patients, argue that the law should face "heightened scrutiny" as it treats transgender minors differently and less favorably than those receiving hormone treatment for other reasons.

It is important to note that currently, around 25 Republican-led states have implemented various bans on gender affirming hormone treatments for minors. Tennessee's law, like others, also includes a ban on surgeries, although this specific issue is not under consideration in the current case.

These bans on gender affirming hormone treatments for minors have faced strong opposition from major medical groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association. The AMA, for instance, sent a letter to the National Governors Association in 2021, citing evidence that gender affirming care can significantly reduce suicide attempts while decreasing rates of depression and anxiety among young people.

In addition to the ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, another circuit, the Eleventh Circuit, has also rejected legal challenges to similar bans. The Supreme Court has chosen not to block these rulings while it considers the overarching issue in the upcoming term.

The Supreme Court's decision to take up this case will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for transgender rights and the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children. As the issue continues to garner attention and debate, the nation awaits the court's decision in 2025.