As a national civil rights organization committed to protecting and advancing the civil rights of LGBTQ+ people and everyone living with HIV, we are closely monitoring U.S. Supreme Court cases that could have major impacts on our communities this term. From employment protections and health care access to religious exemptions and educational equity, the outcomes of these cases could very well roll back hard-won rights and shape the future of LGBTQ+ life in America.
Below, we break down four critical cases and how they could affect LGBTQ+ people and everyone living with HIV.
U.S. v. Skrmetti
This case filed by Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenges Tennessee’s discriminatory ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors, and its outcome will likely impact similar laws in other states. At its core, this case is about whether transgender young people can access the same medical care that is commonly provided to cisgender adolescents and about whether their parents can make healthcare decisions in consultation with their doctors without interference by politicians. The state argues that it has the authority to prohibit this care, despite decades of medical consensus affirming the safety, necessity, and effectiveness of puberty blockers and hormone therapies for trans youth with gender dysphoria.
Why it matters:
This case will have a significant impact on how courts across the country consider bans on gender affirming medical care to treat gender dysphoria, and how much of a free pass state officials get when they enact them. A win for the families would mean recognizing that these bans are inherently discriminatory so courts have to examine them and the state’s justifications for them very closely. This case would return to the lower courts to apply the correct standard to Tennessee’s ban. If Tennessee prevails, local trans youth would continue to be denied life-saving care, families who support their children may be forced to relocate or live in fear, and healthcare providers run the risk of losing their livelihood and being criminalized. Other states’ bans may also be allowed to remain in place and the door would be open for other states to follow suit.
Notable Quote:
“No court should be allowed to disregard the overwhelming evidence supporting both the safety and efficacy of this health care for transgender youth simply because a state legislature passed a mean-spirited bill. We look forward to this Court understanding that a wholesale ban on treatments solely because they are prescribed to help transgender youth live as their authentic selves is discrimination, plain and simple.” —Karen L. Loewy, Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice for Lambda Legal
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management
In this case, a for-profit Christian business named Braidwood Management seeks a broad exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that they have to provide the HIV prevention medication PrEP to their employees cost-free, citing religious objections. The plaintiffs argue that being required to include PrEP in health plans this way violates their freedom of religion. The crux of their argument before the Supreme Court is that the government taskforce that recognized PrEP as necessary preventive care that plans must be provided without cost sharing did not have the authority to do so.
Why it matters:
While the case originally singled out PrEP and HIV prevention medication, Braidwood has evolved into a major threat to most current Affordable Care Act preventative care coverage requirements, which are providing millions of Americans with access to several health services such as cancer screenings, heart disease medications, medications for infants, PrEP, and several other preventive care services without paying out-of-pocket.
Notable Quote:
“The Braidwood case is about whether science or politics will guide our nation’s public health policy. Allowing ideological or religious objections to override scientific consensus would set a dangerous precedent. Although this case began with an attack on PrEP coverage, a critical HIV prevention tool, it would be a serious mistake to think this only affects LGBTQ people. The real target is one of the pillars of the Affordable Care Act: the preventive services protections.” —- Jose Abrigo, HIV Project Director at Lambda Legal
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
This case challenges a Texas law requiring age verification for access to adult content websites, which infringes on privacy and First Amendment rights.
Why it matters:
While this may seem less directly related to LGBTQ+ rights, age-verification laws have historically been used to restrict access to LGBTQ+ content under the guise of protecting minors. LGBTQ+ creators, educators, and communities already face over-policing of online expression. If these laws expand, it could further restrict access to affirming and educational content, especially for youth seeking to understand LGBTQ+ culture and their identities in hostile environments.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
This case was brought by a group of parents who claim that their religious rights were unconstitutionally burdened by not being allowed to opt their children out of reading storybooks that were part of an LGBTQ+ inclusive literacy curriculum in the Montgomery County, Maryland Public School System (MCPS).
Why it matters:
Inclusive curricula are essential in creating school environments where all students can safely learn and thrive. A ruling for MCPS would affirm that school districts’ efforts to make sure that the full diversity of their communities are reflected in the materials their students are using to learn are appropriate and important and cannot be vetoed by parents who object. A ruling in favor of the parents would send a chilling message to LGBTQ+ people, especially youth, everywhere: Your stories are offensive and others shouldn’t have to be exposed to them against their will.
Notable Quote:
“Research makes it clear that all students benefit from a school climate that promotes acceptance and respect. Our [Lambda Legal’s] amicus brief demonstrates how inclusive curricula – including these storybooks that MCPS wants to teach – advance a compelling interest in ensuring a safe, supportive school environment where all students can thrive, consistent with public schools’ traditional role in preparing students to navigate our diverse society.” —Helen Parshall, Digital Director at Lambda Legal
What to watch for next:
Petitions for review by the Supreme Court are pending in Lambda Legal’s cases Folwell v. Kadel, Crouch v. Anderson, West Virginia v. BPJ, and Stitt v. Fowler, all of which may be directly impacted by the decision in Skrmetti.