The Supreme Court Will Let Idaho Enforce Its Gender-Affirming Care Ban For All But 2 People

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Idaho to begin enforcing a state law barring transgender youth from receiving gender-affirming care, at least for now. This was the first time the justices have intervened in a case that touches on the question of gender-affirming care for minors — and transgender health more broadly.

The case, Poe v. Labrador, concerns whether Idaho’s ban on gender-affirming care is constitutional. The justices did not weigh in on the merits of the case in Monday’s decision, instead focusing on the question of whether the state could enforce the ban and for whom. For now, the ban will not affect the two anonymous plaintiffs, transgender Idaho teenagers, who sued the state.

Last May, Idaho’s Republican-controlled legislature passed the Vulnerable Child Protection Act , which prohibits transgender children from receiving a range of gender-affirming treatments, including puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy, which are the most common forms of treatment. Medical providers who violate the act face felony charges and up to 10 years in prison.

Two months after Idaho Gov. Brad Little ® signed the bill into law, the two plaintiffs, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the state, asking for a judge to block the law on the grounds that it violated their constitutional rights to equal protection.

In December, a district court judge temporarily blocked the ban from taking effect. Idaho tried to appeal the decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, but the judge denied the request.

Then Raúl Labrador, the state’s Republican attorney general, applied for emergency relief from the Supreme Court. Labrador asked the nation’s highest court to limit the injunction solely to