The plaintiffs challenging Arkansas’ ban on transgender minors’ health care asked a federal appeals court to send the case back to district court, while the defendants asked for a reversal of the lower court’s decision in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
In its United States v. Skrmetti decision in June, the Supreme Court
upheld Tennessee’s previously blocked ban
on puberty blockers and hormones for children with gender dysphoria. The ruling means the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should apply rational-basis review to Arkansas’ similar Save Adolescents From Experimentation (SAFE) Act, or
Act 626 of 2021
, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin and Solicitor General Autumn Hamit Patterson argue
in a brief
filed Friday and made public Wednesday.
Rational-basis review means analyzing whether a law is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. The standard is less rigid than strict scrutiny, which analyzes whether a law is narrowly tailored to a governmental interest.
U.S. District Judge James Moody of the Eastern District of Arkansas blocked the SAFE Act before it could go into effect, in response to a lawsuit filed by four families of transgender minors represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas. Moody permanently
enjoined the law
on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds in June 2023, and the state appealed the ruling.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
heard oral arguments
in the case last year and has yet to issue a ruling. In June, the court
ordered the parties on both sides
to file supplemental briefs in light of the Skrmetti ruling.
The SAFE Act “prohibits medical care on the basis of sex,” in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Moody wrote in his 80-page ruling. He also wrote that the rational basis test “does not apply when a classification is based upon sex.”
The plaintiffs’ attorneys reiterated these points
in their brief
.
“Plaintiffs presented substantial evidence [at trial] demonstrating that Act 626 does not further the government’s asserted interests and that it was enacted based on negative attitudes about transgender people,” the brief states.
However, the plaintiffs’ arguments “that the law failed rational basis review” did not factor into the district court’s injunction of the law, the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote. This merits returning the case to the district court “to determine in the first instance whether Plaintiffs have carried their burden of proving that Act 626 violates the Equal Protection Clause under the rational basis test,” they said.
Griffin and Patterson wrote that the SAFE Act is “substantively identical” to Tennessee’s law and that the Supreme Court decided the latter did not classify individuals based on sex or gender.
“Instead, it concluded that the law classifies based only on age and medical use, making rational-basis review the appropriate standard. The same is true here,” the defendants’ brief states. “…Although the Tennessee law regulated treatment for gender dysphoria that only transgender individuals seek, not all transgender individuals seek the prohibited treatment, and transgender individuals fall into the group that can receive the treatment for other purposes.”
This means the SAFE Act “does not violate the Equal Protection Clause,” Griffin and Patterson wrote.
Three of the four transgender minor plaintiffs — Dylan Brandt of Greenwood, Sabrina Jennen of Fayetteville and Parker Saxton of Vilonia — are now at least 18 years old. The fourth, Brooke Dennis, is 13 years old. The Dennis family has moved from Bentonville to another state in which Brooke’s health care is not in jeopardy, according to the plaintiffs’ brief.
“They would like the opportunity to be able to return to Arkansas, where they have deep family roots,” the brief states in a footnote. “The Dennises do not feel they can return to Arkansas unless and until Act 626 no longer poses a risk to continued care for their daughter.”
One parent of each child
shared their experiences
with their children’s gender transitions during the case’s eight-day trial in 2022, the nation’s first trial over a law like the SAFE Act. Brandt, then 17, was
the only minor
to take the witness stand.
The other two plaintiffs were Dr. Michele Hutchison and Dr. Kathryn Stambough, physicians who have treated transgender minors in Arkansas.
State officials in both Tennessee and Arkansas have claimed transgender health care for minors is rooted in activism and experimentation rather than evidence-based science.
All 14 members of the Arkansas State Medical Board are defendants in addition to Griffin.
Arkansas Advocate
is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions:
.
Partner Content by Arkansas Advocate
It’s dragon-slaying time!
In a time when critical voices are increasingly silenced, the
Arkansas Times
stands as a beacon of truth, tirelessly defending the fundamental rights and freedoms within our community. With Arkansas at the epicenter of a sweeping culture war affecting our libraries, schools, and public discourse, our mission to deliver unflinching journalism has never been more vital. We’re here to “slay dragons” and hold power accountable, but we can’t do it alone. By contributing today, you ensure that independent journalism not only survives but thrives in Arkansas. Together, we can make a difference — join the fight.
