Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The appeal involving Indiana’s law banning gender-transition procedures for minors is continuing to attract attention from amici, including from an Oscar-nominated actor.
The case — K.C., et al. v. The Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, in their official capacities, et al., 23-2366 — focuses on Senate Enrolled Act 480, which prohibits Indiana doctors from performing gender-transition procedures on minors, and from aiding or abetting another doctor to do so.
The lawsuit was filed in April, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana entered a preliminary injunction in June, which the Indiana Attorney General’s Office is now appealing.
Amici both in support of and against SEA 480 have filed briefs with the appellate court.
Among the amici supporting the preliminary injunction is one filed by Elliot Page, a Canadian actor known for movies such as “Juno” and “The Umbrella Academy.” Page — who was born female but now lives as a transgender man — has also become a prominent figure in the transgender community.
Page’s brief is joined by 55 other individuals, all of whom are transgender. They argue that the care SEA 480 prohibits is “lifesaving.”
“Some amici were fortunate enough to be able to begin receiving this care as minors. For the majority, however, the barriers to accessing this care — due, fundamentally, to discrimination — were insurmountable until adulthood,” the brief, filed Sept. 27, says. “The amici who received gender-affirming healthcare as minors describe it as crucial to their wellbeing and even survival. Many who started care after adolescence suffered as a result of the delay.”
Writing that the amici “lead both ordinary and extraordinary lives,” the brief says Indiana “wholly ignores the lived experiences of these individuals to support their view that transition ruins lives.”
“For many amici, transitioning has allowed them to be more comfortable with themselves and, in turn, to connect more deeply with their families and communities,” the brief states.
Further, “Making decisions about how they live in their own bodies is critical to many amici’s wellbeing,” the brief continues. “Amici’s family and friends often noticed a positive difference after they received the care they wanted and needed.”
Among the people highlighted in the brief is Alejandra Caraballo, a Massachusetts attorney who teaches at Harvard Law School.
In the brief, Caraballo says, “One of the consistent things I’ve been told by friends and family is just how much happier and joyful I am after I came out.”
Finally, the amici argue that “transgender youth deserve the chance to seek and obtain gender-affirming care.” They say many of them knew their gender and experienced gender dysphoria from a young age.
“Most amici were not able to access gender-affirming healthcare until adulthood. For some, it is difficult even to imagine having sought or obtained earlier care because they did not have the language to describe their experience as transgender people at the time, or because their own or others’ gender nonconformity was harshly punished. Some keenly regret that they did not have the opportunity to receive care earlier and reflect on what it would have meant to them to start treatment during adolescence,” the brief states.
According to the amici, transgender people with or without disabilities can make health care decisions and benefit from gender-transition care.
“Some amici who were able to receive care as minors may not have lived to adulthood without it, and many who were not able to receive care until later in life think of the time that they were not able to live authentically as lost years,” they argue. “The care banned by S.E.A. 480 has alleviated the suffering of countless transgender people and has paved the way for them to live more fulfilling and joyful lives.
“Amici respectfully request that this Court take their lived experiences into account while deciding questions implicating young people’s ability to access gender-affirming healthcare with the support of their parents and medical providers.”
Another brief in support of the injunction came from legal and civil rights organizations including GLAD, The National Women’s Law Center, Family Equality, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the National Center for Transgender Equality, The Trevor Project and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
Those amici are arguing that SEA 480 is subject to heightened scrutiny because it discriminates based on sex.
“Constitutional limitations on gender classifications apply with full force to laws that single out people who do not conform to sex stereotypes,” their brief, also filed Sept. 27, states. “Many of the Supreme Court’s foundational sex-discrimination cases involve such litigants.”
Further, they argue that SEA 480 cannot withstand heightened scrutiny.
“Indiana’s S.E.A. 480 has banned all medical treatment for transgender minors seeking to live according to their gender identity,” their brief continues. “Even if the minor, the minor’s parents, and the minor’s doctor are unanimous that the medical treatment would be safe and beneficial, the State has declared such care to be flatly illegal across the board. There is no ‘exceedingly persuasive justification’ for this law.”
The case has not yet been scheduled for oral argument.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.