DOJ Now Supports Tennessee’s Child Medical Mutilation Ban

The lawsuit was originally filed by three gender-confused teenagers and their parents against the state attorney general arguing it violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause because it denies gender interventions based on sex. The Tennessee Solicitor General defended SB1 by arguing the law does not draw a sex-based line but a line on risky medical practice. The Biden administration had inserted itself into the case in 2023 due to a federal law that allows it to do so if the Attorney General certifies that the case has equal protection implications and is of “general public importance.” The federal government took the lead in the case when it petitioned the Supreme Court to review the matter.

According to tradition, the federal government generally maintains its legal positions when a presidential administration changes from one party to another after legal cases have already been argued before the High Court. However, the Trump administration has departed from tradition in this case to seemingly remain consistent with its recent executive order declaring these medical procedures as “barbaric” and stopping federal funding to organizations that support these irreversible mutilating surgeries for minors under the age of 19.

In the letter, Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Curtis Gannon noted the change in presidential administrations prompted the DOJ to reconsider the government’s previous views against Tennessee’s SB1. The DOJ came to the conclusion that those views “no longer represent” the government’s position.

“The [DOJ] has now determined that SB1 does not deny equal protection on account of sex or any other characteristic,” wrote Gannon. “Accordingly, the new Administration would not have intervened to challenge SB1.”

Gannon then recommended against dismissing the case by noting that a “prompt resolution” of the equal protection issue “will bear on many cases pending in the lower courts.”

If the case is not dismissed, the Supreme Court is expected to decide by June 2025. The decision will not only affect Tennessee’s “SAFE Act,” but also similar laws in Kentucky, Arkansas, and Alabama. In September 2023, U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Kentucky’s “SAFE Act” 2-1 alongside Tennessee’s law. A month prior, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Alabama can fully enforce its 2022 “Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act,” which also makes it a felony to provide any of these procedures to a minor.

However, in Arkansas, a federal judge declared in June 2023 that its “SAFE Act” was unconstitutional. Arkansas appealed the ruling, and all 11 judges of the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in April 2024. The Eighth Circuit did not give a timeline on when they would deliver a decision and is likely awaiting the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti.

Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief in Skrmetti arguing the states have the authority to regulate certain conduct, such as invasive medical interventions.

At least 26 states now have laws banning these experimental and often irreversible procedures on minors.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The Biden administration should have never intervened in this case. The Constitution does not guarantee a right to mutilate children with experiments and irreversible procedures. The Trump administration has made a commonsense move to reverse an agenda harmful to children.