The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday in a pivotal case challenging a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming care for minors. The outcome of this case could influence similar legislation in 25 other states and shape broader policies affecting transgender individuals, including sports participation and access to facilities. The court, now dominated by conservative justices, is addressing its second major transgender rights case, following its 2020 decision in favor of Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman fired by her employer. In that case, the justices ruled that federal laws against sex discrimination protect transgender individuals. The Core Debate: Equal Protection and Sex Discrimination At the heart of the Tennessee case is whether the state’s law violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similar groups equally. The law bans puberty blockers and hormone treatments specifically for transgender minors, while allowing these treatments for other medical purposes. Chase Strangio of the American Civil Liberties Union, the lead attorney representing the families challenging the law, argued that targeting transgender minors for these bans constitutes sex discrimination. The Biden administration also supports this view, with Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar emphasizing that such restrictions cannot be enforced without considering a person’s sex. “That is sex discrimination,” Prelogar wrote, urging the court to use its 2020 analysis, which recognized that “sex plays an unmistakable role” in discriminatory practices. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti defended the law, arguing it is not about discrimination but about protecting minors from irreversible medical interventions. He asserted that the law distinguishes between minors seeking treatment for gender transition and those seeking similar medications for other medical reasons. Scrutiny Levels: A Legal Battleground A key legal debate centers on the level of scrutiny the court should apply. The state wants the law evaluated under “rational basis review,” a lenient standard that often upholds legislation. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati sided with Tennessee, stating the law fell within lawmakers’ authority to regulate medical practices. Read: Bangladesh's transgender community ready to shatter boundaries with education However, the challengers argue for “heightened scrutiny,” which applies in sex discrimination cases. This standard requires the state to demonstrate that its law addresses a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. A decision to apply heightened scrutiny could lead to the case being sent back to the appeals court. Broader Implications for Transgender Rights The case arrives amid an intensifying national debate over transgender rights. Former President Donald Trump and his allies have campaigned to restrict transgender protections, while states have passed laws regulating gender-affirming care, participation in sports, and access to bathrooms. The medical community overwhelmingly supports gender-affirming care for youth, with organizations like the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics advocating for these treatments. However, Tennessee and its allies point to studies from European countries like Sweden and Finland that highlight potential risks and call for cautious use of such interventions. Personal Stakes for Families The Williams family of Nashville, one of the challengers, described how the ban has affected their transgender daughter, L.W. Her father, Brian Williams, shared that puberty blockers and hormone treatments have allowed her to thrive and plan for her future. Yet, due to the state’s law, she must travel out of state for care. “This ban forces us to fight harder for our child’s well-being,” Williams said. Read: DU admission test: Students demand cancellation of  transgender quota As the justices deliberate, their decision could significantly shape the legal landscape for transgender rights in the U.S., marking a crucial moment for families, healthcare providers, and advocates on both sides of the issue. Source: With inputs from agencies