Montgomery, AL – Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall issued a statement following oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Skrmetti, a case examining the legality of Tennessee’s law imposing age restrictions on irreversible sex-change procedures for minors. The law, defended by Tennessee, faces challenges from the Biden administration and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which argue it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Attorney General Marshall attended the proceedings in support of Tennessee’s position. In his statement, he described the law as a “commonsense” measure aimed at protecting children from “powerful, often irreversible, chemical and surgical ‘sex-change’ procedures.” Marshall also referenced Alabama’s own legal battles over similar legislation, asserting that such matters fall under state regulatory authority rather than federal jurisdiction.
“The Constitution places the authority to regulate medicine with the States, not with activists or judges,” said Marshall, emphasizing that systematic evidence reviews do not support the need for these treatments for minors. He further criticized medical guidelines cited by challengers, claiming they were “intentionally crafted to mislead courts.”
Marshall expressed optimism following the Court’s questioning during oral arguments, suggesting skepticism toward the challengers’ position. He argued that the treatments at issue, such as hormone therapies and surgeries, have significant, often irreversible consequences and do not align with the Equal Protection Clause.
The case has drawn national attention as part of broader debates over states’ rights, medical ethics, and the role of the federal government in regulating healthcare for minors. Marshall highlighted Alabama’s own efforts to enforce similar legislation, noting that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the way in January for Alabama’s Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act to take effect.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by summer 2025. Until then, the case remains a focal point in the ongoing legal and political battles over gender-affirming care for minors across the United States.
Marshall also filed an amicus brief in October, arguing that medical guidelines supporting the challengers’ case lacked sufficient evidence. His involvement in defending Tennessee’s law underscores Alabama’s broader strategy of advocating for state control over such regulations.
This landmark case could set a precedent for how states regulate medical treatments for minors and how courts interpret the Equal Protection Clause in this context.”
