We can’t have the final victory celebration yet, but this ruling puts us one step closer.
On April 16, the Supreme Court ruled that Idaho can enforce its Vulnerable Child Protection Act, which was passed to protect children from the "Lasting harm and irreversible damage" of transgender "Medical treatment." With the Supreme Court's order, the law can go into effect while the litigation winds itself through the court system.
Although the court didn't make a final ruling on the law's constitutionality, its short order and the concurring opinions shed light on where the court might rule when this case - or one like it - inevitably reaches the court on the merits.
The district court held that the plaintiffs were likely to win because the act, in the court's opinion, unconstitutionally denied transgender children the equal protection of the law and parents the right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.
In a very short order, the Supreme Court "Stayed" the district court's order, meaning that Idaho can enforce the act against all non-parties while the litigation plays out in the lower courts.
Even more important than allowing the law to go into effect is the signal that the Supreme Court sent on where it stands with respect to the constitutionality of laws like Idaho's Vulnerable Child Protection Act.
So how might the court rule? To be clear, it would be unwise to read too much into the Supreme Court's current order.
Second, in discussing the criteria for whether the Supreme Court should even accept emergency applications like Idaho's in the middle of litigation, Justice Kavanaugh, who was joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, stated that one of the criteria the Supreme Court should use is whether the merits of the case "Warrant [the] Court's review." In other words, the Supreme Court should be inclined to make interim emergency orders like this one if the case is significant enough that the Supreme Court will ultimately need to take the case at a later date and rule on the law's constitutionality.
No comments:
Post a Comment