Landmark Supreme Court case on trans healthcare to hear from ‘deeply biased doctors’

A landmark transgender rights case before the US Supreme Court will reportedly include testimony from doctors described as “deeply biased” and having a “history of advocating against trans healthcare”, an investigation has found.

The case, which will determine whether trans youngsters in Tennessee have a constitutional right to access gender-affirming healthcare, has taken testimonies from medics linked to a right-wing Christian legal group, The Guardian revealed.

The newspaper claimed that six doctors who have defended the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors have a “history of advocating against trans healthcare”, while five of them have been “rebuked or discounted” by judges in previous cases because of their backgrounds.

Four of the doctors have been linked to the legal group, with the newspaper alleging that they have “profited” from testifying against gender-affirming care.

In addition, Dr Paul Hruz, Dr James Cantor and Dr Michael Laidlaw have little or no experience treating trans children, it is claimed. In a deposition in 2017, Hruz swore: “I intentionally do not treat transgender patients.”

In a 2022 case in Alabama, a judge noted that Cantor had never diagnosed or treated youth gender dysphoria and had no knowledge of the treatment methods used in the state’s clinics, which gave his testimony “very little weight”.

In 2023, an Arkansas federal judge said Hruz was “testifying more from a religious doctrinal standpoint rather than that required of experts”, The Guardian reported. Judges in North Carolina and Florida were also critical of him.

The Tennessee federal judge who initially blocked the ban in the case of US v Skrmetti described Cantor and Hruz as having a “deficiency in their experience”, adding that their arguments were “minimally persuasive”.

Caroline Ciccone, a former deputy assistant secretary at the US Department of Health and Human Services, told The Guardian that the case rests on “junk science”, describing the evidence as “unscientific, biased testimony from a small group of doctors who stand far outside the medical mainstream”.

She went on to say: “These so-called experts’ testimony has been discredited by courts already. It’s very telling that they can’t come up with anything better.”

What is the US v Skrmetti case about?

US v Skrmetti will determine the legality of a bill that prohibits transgender youngsters receiving gender-affirming medical care in Tennessee. Jonathan Skrmetti is state’s attorney general.

The bill would deny all under-18s in the state the right to gender-affirming healthcare, including puberty blockers. It would also leave doctors who provide such care to minors at risk of legal action.

Tennessee is one of 24 across the US that have passed laws restricting trans healthcare for young people, although two are currently blocked by the courts.

The bill has been roundly criticised, and several families, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the state in April 2023 to prevent the bill passing into law.

Although the ban was initially blocked by courts, it was upheld on appeal in September 2023. The ACLU described the decision as “beyond disappointing”.

The supreme court, which has a conservative majority, agreed to hear the case in June, and it will be argued on 4 December. While the outcome will specifically affect people in Tennessee, it is likely to set a legal precedent for similar laws across the country.

Samantha Williams, from Nashville, one of the parents who brought the case on behalf of her trans teenage daughter, said it was “incredibly painful” to watch her child suffer as a consequence of the proposed legislation.

“We have a confident, happy daughter now who is free to be herself and she is thriving,” Williams told the ACLU, adding that a ban on trans healthcare could force them to leave Tennessee.

Williams’ daughter added: “I don’t even want to think about having to go back to the dark place I was in before I was able to come out and access the care my doctors prescribed for me. I want this law struck down so I can continue to receive the care I need, in conversation with my parents and my doctors, and have the freedom to live my life and do the things I enjoy.”

Share your thoughts! Let us know in the comments below, and remember to keep the conversation respectful.