The Supreme Court has upheld Tennessee’s ban on transgender medical procedures for minors in a 6-3 ruling, affirming that such laws do not violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. This decision supports the growing number of states implementing similar restrictions.

The ruling could bolster efforts to restrict or ban gender-affirming treatments nationwide, especially if proposed federal legislation passes both chambers of Congress intact. One such bill, supported by House members, bans federal funding—via Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA—for procedures like puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and irreversible surgeries on minors and adults.

Particularly notable is a provision, known as the “Crenshaw Amendment,” which modifies the Social Security Act to eliminate federal payments for what it considers medically unnecessary gender-transition procedures. This amendment, championed by Rep. Dan Crenshaw, claims to save taxpayers approximately $2.5 billion over a decade by restricting funds for hormone therapy and surgeries.

This amendment faces the challenge of passing Senate reconciliation rules, notably the Byrd Rule, which excludes measures unrelated to the budget. It’s uncertain if it will make it into the final legislation, but Crenshaw’s office remains optimistic.

Supporters argue that these laws protect children from potentially harmful procedures with lifelong effects, citing concerns about medical risks and permanence.

Senator Roger Marshall, a veteran physician, praised the Supreme Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of protecting children from what he described as “horrible side effects” of gender-affirming treatments. He reaffirmed his commitment to legislation that restricts taxpayer-funded gender transition procedures both for minors and adults.

Overall, the case underscores ongoing debates around healthcare, rights, and government funding related to gender-affirming care, with significant legal and legislative implications moving forward.