In a landmark ruling, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that gender identity is a protected characteristic, and that Medicaid bans on treatments for gender dysphoria are unconstitutional.
I cried tears of joy hearing this. I'm a trans person on the NC state employee health plan. I'm recovering from bottom surgery rn that I was able to get because the injunction but I was terrified my part 2 wouldn't be covered if they came out against us here. I am so so relieved to read this ruling. It's so scathing, I love it.
I think that is more likely than not, but it might take a long time to get there, and in the meantime, decisions like this will make it harder for them to rule that way. I'm not saying they won't, but this decision has the antidote long term and will likely be referenced in the future in beating back the horrible precedent.
It will take awhile for them to address it and by that time hopefully we have made some strides that make it more difficult for them. Thank You Erin for making my day with all the work you contribute to every.
Does Bostock not give us some hope that Roberts and Gorsuch would join a somewhat narrow decision with the liberals? I think we're dead to rights on gender affirming care for youth but am a little hopeful on this.
Your posts are educational -- they show me a lot of how the logic of courts works. And (lately) how the SCOTUS decides what to ignore and what to give credence to.
Thank you so much Erin, as always for your dedication and determination!
Reading this a couple of things struck me as laying foundation stones for future merit based rulings.
1. Finally a court has explicitly stayed that cisgender people get these same procedures as gender affirming care. Just in their case, it's to affirm a gender identity and sex assigned at birth that align.
That directly puts the question to every state that bans gender affirming care. They either have to offer it to everyone or deny it everyone. I need to go look, but I think the language in some states would currently outlaw breast augmentation or even vaigra for cisgender folks. Especially when the ban applies to medicaid. (You listening Florida?)
2. Exclusion of expert testimony. You need actual experts it turns out. And someone who says "well, I read these studies my students wrote" just doesn't cut it. Also, I love how they narrowed expertise, even within a broader field.
3. A reasonable basis for laws. This really called out legislatures. A law without reasonable basis, and a clear benefit to society, and that isn't done in the least restrictive way possible should now be something to be challenged on those grounds.
Thanks Erin as always for the great reporting on such timely issues,
Of course this is good news, but I’m not celebrating all that much because - as has already been noted by other comments - SCOTUS is likely (but not absolutely certain) to overturn this if/when it gets there. The prior Bostock decision in no way assures me or gives me comfort wrt the outcome of such a future decision.
Much of the reasoning behind the 4th circuit decision is very gratifying and hopefully will help trans people out in future cases - but everything is so polarized on this issue that if someone is determined not to accept this reasoning, they won’t.
Alas, a glimmer of hope!! I’m curious, though, why/how the bans are approved in the first place - without evidence of “harm” for treatment that will continue to be prescribed to kids with precocious puberty & other on-label use? (Guilty before proven innocent?) These kids are subject to the same side-effects & potential harm too!
I've said this before and I'm no legal scholar in fact I've been accused of being stupid and ignorant just for bringing it up but it seems to me there should be some mechanism for preventing laws that are fundamentally unconstitutional from being passed in the first place. Our present system allows any law to be passed for any reason or any justification Even if it conflicts with our Constitution. Then the law has to be challenged in court which can take years so for a period of years we can have unconstitutional laws on the books causing irreparable harm.
It would be logical for a law to have to pass at least a rudimentary constitutional vetting process before it can be accepted.
This is Amazing News!!! Our family had to leave Florida ( our home that we loved) last summer due to same laws that went into effect. Its so tragic what these family's are going through. Lambda Legal is Amazing in all they do!! They really helped us in our legal battle against this same thing.
Good on the 4th Circuit... I just wish we could still expect this kind of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court- which, based on its explosive malfunctions and meltdowns in recent years, I propose renaming "the 𝘚𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵 Circuit."
Any chance this could have a future effect on the law they used to strip my proper gender modification to my birth certificate? I spoke with you about it at your KU appearance.
I hope the senate of SC learns of this landmark ruling from the USCA4 before taking up the vote in SC's Senate. I sent another letter to Sen. Brian Adams reaffirming my beliefs that voting yes to H. 4624 - which is coming to discussion and possibly a vote today, 5/2/2024 - would violate people's 14 Ammendment to the Constitution and put children in harms way. Additionally, I added that allowing the state to govern how parents raise their children could lead to a dystopian state similar to what happened in Germany before WW2. The decision made by the 4th court of appeals should send a strong message that making a law that violates federal laws will have consequences. I think it interesting that the suit named those in authority who failed to uphold Title 9 also responsible. States and Insurance companies that accept federal money must abide by federal guidelines. This was also brought out in this case. Please if you haven't already done so, download the opinion by the judges. It is lengthy but oh so worth it.
I cried tears of joy hearing this. I'm a trans person on the NC state employee health plan. I'm recovering from bottom surgery rn that I was able to get because the injunction but I was terrified my part 2 wouldn't be covered if they came out against us here. I am so so relieved to read this ruling. It's so scathing, I love it.
I did too, Hann.
I'm so relieved for you and everyone else this decision supports.
And yet I still feel depressed because there’s an over 9000% chance the Supreme Court will overturn this.
I think that is more likely than not, but it might take a long time to get there, and in the meantime, decisions like this will make it harder for them to rule that way. I'm not saying they won't, but this decision has the antidote long term and will likely be referenced in the future in beating back the horrible precedent.
It will take awhile for them to address it and by that time hopefully we have made some strides that make it more difficult for them. Thank You Erin for making my day with all the work you contribute to every.
Does Bostock not give us some hope that Roberts and Gorsuch would join a somewhat narrow decision with the liberals? I think we're dead to rights on gender affirming care for youth but am a little hopeful on this.
It does give hope. When I say "more likely than not" I place the odds of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of trans bans at 70-30 or so.
But nobody really knows. It all depends on Gorsuch and Roberts holding to precedent.
3 years ago I think they do.
Right now the polarization is hitting the judges too.
When the sc gives Trump immunity Biden can get rid of Trump and the conservative psychopath justices
I wish. Not that I want Biden to be an Autocrat but to give the Troglodytes a taste of their own medicine.
Your posts are educational -- they show me a lot of how the logic of courts works. And (lately) how the SCOTUS decides what to ignore and what to give credence to.
Thank you so much Erin, as always for your dedication and determination!
Reading this a couple of things struck me as laying foundation stones for future merit based rulings.
1. Finally a court has explicitly stayed that cisgender people get these same procedures as gender affirming care. Just in their case, it's to affirm a gender identity and sex assigned at birth that align.
That directly puts the question to every state that bans gender affirming care. They either have to offer it to everyone or deny it everyone. I need to go look, but I think the language in some states would currently outlaw breast augmentation or even vaigra for cisgender folks. Especially when the ban applies to medicaid. (You listening Florida?)
2. Exclusion of expert testimony. You need actual experts it turns out. And someone who says "well, I read these studies my students wrote" just doesn't cut it. Also, I love how they narrowed expertise, even within a broader field.
3. A reasonable basis for laws. This really called out legislatures. A law without reasonable basis, and a clear benefit to society, and that isn't done in the least restrictive way possible should now be something to be challenged on those grounds.
I know 4th circuit only, for now.
This is the best news yet to come out of the courts. We'll have to see how it goes up the ladder.
Let them cook :) I love this precedent.
Thanks Erin as always for the great reporting on such timely issues,
Of course this is good news, but I’m not celebrating all that much because - as has already been noted by other comments - SCOTUS is likely (but not absolutely certain) to overturn this if/when it gets there. The prior Bostock decision in no way assures me or gives me comfort wrt the outcome of such a future decision.
Much of the reasoning behind the 4th circuit decision is very gratifying and hopefully will help trans people out in future cases - but everything is so polarized on this issue that if someone is determined not to accept this reasoning, they won’t.
Alas, a glimmer of hope!! I’m curious, though, why/how the bans are approved in the first place - without evidence of “harm” for treatment that will continue to be prescribed to kids with precocious puberty & other on-label use? (Guilty before proven innocent?) These kids are subject to the same side-effects & potential harm too!
I've said this before and I'm no legal scholar in fact I've been accused of being stupid and ignorant just for bringing it up but it seems to me there should be some mechanism for preventing laws that are fundamentally unconstitutional from being passed in the first place. Our present system allows any law to be passed for any reason or any justification Even if it conflicts with our Constitution. Then the law has to be challenged in court which can take years so for a period of years we can have unconstitutional laws on the books causing irreparable harm.
It would be logical for a law to have to pass at least a rudimentary constitutional vetting process before it can be accepted.
This is Amazing News!!! Our family had to leave Florida ( our home that we loved) last summer due to same laws that went into effect. Its so tragic what these family's are going through. Lambda Legal is Amazing in all they do!! They really helped us in our legal battle against this same thing.
What state are you in now and how are things going
Good on the 4th Circuit... I just wish we could still expect this kind of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court- which, based on its explosive malfunctions and meltdowns in recent years, I propose renaming "the 𝘚𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵 Circuit."
Any chance this could have a future effect on the law they used to strip my proper gender modification to my birth certificate? I spoke with you about it at your KU appearance.
Wonderful!
So happy about this!
I hope the senate of SC learns of this landmark ruling from the USCA4 before taking up the vote in SC's Senate. I sent another letter to Sen. Brian Adams reaffirming my beliefs that voting yes to H. 4624 - which is coming to discussion and possibly a vote today, 5/2/2024 - would violate people's 14 Ammendment to the Constitution and put children in harms way. Additionally, I added that allowing the state to govern how parents raise their children could lead to a dystopian state similar to what happened in Germany before WW2. The decision made by the 4th court of appeals should send a strong message that making a law that violates federal laws will have consequences. I think it interesting that the suit named those in authority who failed to uphold Title 9 also responsible. States and Insurance companies that accept federal money must abide by federal guidelines. This was also brought out in this case. Please if you haven't already done so, download the opinion by the judges. It is lengthy but oh so worth it.
I hope Ron DeSantis and Abbott are feeling the burn.