We'll hear argument this morning in case 23477, United States v. Scrimetti.

General Preliger.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, this case is about access to medications

that have been safely prescribed for decades to treat many conditions, including gender dysphoria.

But SB1 singles out and bans one particular use.

In Tennessee, these medications can't be prescribed to allow a minor to identify with

or live as a gender inconsistent with the minor sex.

It doesn't matter what parents decide is best for their children.

It doesn't matter what patients would choose for themselves.

And it doesn't matter if doctors believe this treatment is essential for individual patients. SB1 categorically

bans treatment when and only when it's inconsistent with the patient's birth sex.

Tennessee says that sweeping ban is justified to protect adolescent health. But the state mainly

argues that it had no obligation to justify the law and that SB1 should be upheld so long as

it's not wholly irrational. That's wrong. SB1 regulates by drawing sex-based lines and declares

that those lines are designed to encourage minors to

appreciate their sex. The law restricts medical care only when provided to induce physical

effects inconsistent with birth sex. Someone assigned female at birth can't receive medication

to live as a male, but someone assigned male can. If you change the individual sex, it changes the

result. That's a facial sex classification, full stop, and a law like that can't stand on bare

rationality. To be clear, states have leeway to regulate gender-affirming care, but here

Tennessee made no attempt to tailor

its law to its stated health concerns. Rather than impose measured guardrails, SB1 bans the care

...