On April 15, 2024, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Idaho to temporarily enforce a law which criminalizes gender-transition care for minors. Following a brief order, the court has granted the state’s request to limit enforcement, ensuring that anyone not part of the current lawsuit challenging the ban is subject to the law. This law had previously been barred by a federal district court in Idaho from being enforced during an ongoing challenge to its constitutionality. Read the brief order here.
This ruling also drew attention to the stark differences among various court members with regards to the court’s emergency docket, reflecting the increasing significance and volume this docket has seen in recent years. Notably, five conservative justices either wrote or joined opinions supporting the handling of this state request; meanwhile, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
In the crux of the dispute is an Idaho law enacted the last year that makes it a crime for medical providers within the state to offer gender-transition surgeries, puberty blockers, or hormone therapy to transgender youths under 18, albeit allowed for other intents. This law was slated for enforcement from January 1, before two transgender girls receiving estrogen therapy, backed by their parents, contested the law in federal court last May.
Justice Neil Gorsuch joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas concurred in the ruling in his 13-page opinion. He spelled out that all the factors to decide on temporary relief were favouring the state. Criticizing the broad, ‘universal’, injunctions by the district court in this case, he has strongly argued that even though the plaintiffs had taken no stand on the other features of Idaho’s law, the court’s order went far and wide, barring the enforcement of ‘any provision’ against anyone indefinitely.
Reflecting on the increase in “applications for interim relief.” he emphasized that the lower court’s non-compliance with Supreme Court’s precedents may be the cause.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh likewise expressed his views in his own 13-page concurring opinion, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. He dealt with how the court should tackle emergency applications seeking to halt enforcement of a new state or federal law.
Justices Jackson and Sotomayor, while finding common ground with their conservative colleagues, voiced their concerns about being too eager to find fault in everyone but ourselves. Jackson, in particular, urged the court to proceed with caution while dealing with emergency relief requests.
For a more detailed account, read the full SCOTUSblog post.