Join WhatsApp Channel
Join Telegram ChannelA federal appeals court ruled this week against Texas doctors who tried to sue President Biden's administration over its transgender policies.
The three judges comprising the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals did not rule on the merits of the case, but instead unanimously concluded that the doctors lacked standing to sue. The court's ruling Monday affirmed that the doctors did not violate the policy nor were they threatened with prosecution.
Biden's policy prohibits discrimination against transgender people in health care. Monday's ruling overturns an earlier ruling favorable to the doctors by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.
Biden's Health and Human Services Department announced a rule change in 2021, choosing to interpret a section of the Affordable Care Act that prohibited discrimination based on sex to also apply to transgender people. The three Texas doctors argued that the interpretation went beyond the text of the law.
SUPREME COURT MAY TAKE HUGE STEPS TO KEEP TRANS ATHLETES IN GIRLS' SPORTS WITH HISTORICAL HEARING
Texas doctors seek to challenge President Biden's transgender policies. (Nathaniel Pawlowski, REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/archive photo)
Doctors further argued that this policy could force them to administer treatments they do not support. They cited examples like prostate cancer in a transgender woman, which would require treatment based on the individual's biological sex.
The ruling comes just weeks after the Supreme Court heard arguments in its own case on transgender policy, one focused on whether the Constitution allows a state ban on transgender surgeries on minors.
TRUMP’S AG PICK HAS A “HISTORY OF CONSENSUS”
Conservative justices on the Supreme Court were reluctant during oral arguments to overturn the Tennessee law at issue in the case. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh have suggested that state legislatures, rather than courts, are best equipped to regulate medical procedures. The Constitution leaves these questions “to the representatives of the people,” Roberts emphasized during the debates, rather than to nine Supreme Court justices, “none of whom are doctors.”
A transgender rights advocate takes part in a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court. (Getty Images)
Justice Samuel Alito, however, cited “overwhelming evidence” from certain medical studies listing negative consequences for adolescents who have undergone gender transition treatments. If the justices rule along party lines and uphold the lower court's ruling, it will have far-reaching implications for more than 20 U.S. states that have decided to implement similar laws.
The petitioners in the case were represented by the Biden administration and the ACLU, which sued to overturn the Tennessee law on behalf of the parents of three transgender teenagers and a Memphis-based doctor.
A flag supporting LGBTQ+ rights decorates an office on the Democratic side of the Kansas House of Representatives during a debate. (AP Photo/John Hanna, file)
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
At issue during oral arguments Wednesday was the level of scrutiny courts should use to assess the constitutionality of state bans on transgender medical treatment for minors, like SB1, and whether such laws are considered discriminatory on the basis of sex or against an “almost”. -suspect class”, thus ensuring a higher level of control under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Breanne Deppisch of Fox News and Reuters contributed to this report.