Oral Argument on medical treatments for transgender minors: United States v. Skrmetti скачать в хорошем качестве

Oral Argument on medical treatments for transgender minors: United States v. Skrmetti

Oral argument audio (including transcript) of case [23-477] United States v. Skrmetti argued at the Supreme Court of the United States on Dec 4, 2024. More information about the case: Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_... Justia: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede... Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/d... Oyez.org: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-477 Video produced based on information and transcripts on oyez.org, licensed under a CC-BY-NC License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/.... Not affiliated with oyez.org or the Supreme Court. Argued on Dec 4, 2024. Petitioner: United States of America Respondent: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter for Tennessee Advocates: Elizabeth B. Prelogar (on behalf of the petitioner) Chase Strangio (on behalf of the respondent) Matt Rice (on behalf of the respondent) Chapters 0:00:00 Elizabeth B. Prelogar 1:05:03 Chase Strangio 1:45:57 Matt Rice 2:19:12 Rebuttal: Elizabeth B. Prelogar Facts of the case (from oyez.org) In 2023, Tennessee and Kentucky passed laws restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors. These laws prohibited healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and sex-transition surgeries to minors for the purpose of altering their appearance or validating their gender identity when inconsistent with their biological sex. Both laws included exceptions for certain medical conditions and provided mechanisms for enforcement, including professional discipline for healthcare providers and extended statutes of limitations for lawsuits. In response, groups of transgender minors, their parents, and healthcare providers challenged these laws in federal court. The plaintiffs argued that the laws violated their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. They sought preliminary injunctions to prevent the laws from taking effect. In both cases, district courts initially granted injunctions, finding that the laws likely infringed on parents’ fundamental rights to direct their children's medical care and discriminated based on sex. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed these injunctions, allowing the laws to go into effect pending further legal proceedings. Question Does a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?