Department Of Justice Drops Challenge Of Tennessee’s Ban On Transgender Procedures For Kids

Image Credit: Canva

The Tennessee Conservative Staff –

The Justice Department notified the Supreme Court on Friday that it would no longer be pursuing a challenge to Tennessee’s law protecting minors from transgender medical treatments.

According to a letter from Deputy Solicitor General Curtis Gannon, the DOJ was no longer of the opinion that Tennessee’s ban on transgender care for children was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“Following the change in Administration, the Department of Justice has reconsidered the United States’ position in this case,” the letter read. “The purpose of this letter is to notify the Court that the government’s previously stated views no longer represent the United States’ position.”

The law, which bans puberty blockers, hormones, and sex change operations for minors, was initially blocked by a federal judge. The Sixth Court of Appeals allowed the law to take effect, but it was challenged in December by the Biden administration.

“The Department has now determined that SB1 does not deny equal protection on account of sex or any other characteristic. Accordingly, the new Administration would not have intervened to challenge SB1 — let alone sought this Court’s review of the court of appeals’ decision reversing the preliminary injunction against SB1,” Gannon wrote. 

The DOJ has not asked for the case to be dismissed, instead requesting a “prompt resolution” from the Supreme Court. The Court has shown itself to be leaning in the state’s favor.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti expressed appreciation for the DOJ’s change of opinion and also noted that the state would welcome the Supreme Court’s decision.

“We commend President Trump for abandoning the previous administration’s effort to enshrine gender ideology into the Constitution and prevent the people’s elected officials from resolving these important and contentious issues,” Skrmetti said. “We look forward to receiving much-needed clarity when the Court issues its decision.”