Federal ruling adds heat to Georgia's transgender care debate

Maya T. Prabhu, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Jun 19, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

ATLANTA - The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that will allow Tennessee to continue to ban gender-affirming care to minors will likely affect a challenge to Georgia’s law, advocates said.

In a 6-3 decision issued Wednesday, the Supreme Court said banning minors from receiving certain treatments for gender dysphoria, the diagnosis given to most transgender people, is not discriminatory.

Georgia passed a ban on most gender-affirming medical care for minors in 2023, blocking doctors from prescribing hormone replacement therapy or performing surgery on anyone under 18.

The families of transgender children then sued the state saying the law takes away the rights of parents to make health care decisions for their children.

Jeff Graham, executive director of LGBTQ+ rights organization Georgia Equality, said families he’d spoken with on Wednesday were “devastated.”

“Folks are feeling heartbroken,” Graham said during a news conference after the ruling. “It’s not a good day. I think we had all hoped that we would have a better decision — a different decision.”

Attorneys representing the state have defended Georgia’s law, saying more studies should be done before claiming the benefits of allowing minors to receive hormone or surgical treatment outweigh any potential medical risks, such as blood clots, heart disease or infertility.

When asked for comment, the Georgia attorney general’s office pointed to a post on X by Attorney General Chris Carr addressing the Supreme Court ruling.

“This is a commonsense measure and one we’re proud to defend, just like we’re doing with our own law here in Georgia,” Carr wrote. “We’ll always fight to protect our children.”

State Sen. Carden Summers, a Republican from Cordele who sponsored Georgia’s law, said he felt validated by the Supreme Court’s decision.

“It pleases me to know the Supreme Court holds up the law (and) finds the law to be justified,” he said. “That kind of validates what we went through to try to help young people.”

Georgia’s law allows minors who were already receiving hormone therapy before the law took effect on July 1, 2023, to continue receiving the medicine. It also allows doctors to continue to prescribe puberty blockers to minors, which is often the first medical step taken by transgender people.

Tennessee’s law does not allow the prescription of any gender-affirming medications.

A federal judge initially stopped enforcement of Georgia’s law but allowed it to resume once it was clear the U.S. Supreme Court would be making its own determination in the similar case.

Attorneys for the parents said it was still unclear what the Supreme Court decision would mean for Georgia, but stressed the ruling was limited to gender-affirming care for minors.

“There are some windows of hope in the decision,” said Cory Isaacson, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia. ACLU represents the Georgia families suing the state.

“They felt that this Tennessee ban was not intentional discrimination against transgender people, but they very much left open the possibility that it’s a challenge worth coming along that did involve what they felt like wasn’t mutual discrimination, that very well may be something that the court would not sanction,” Isaacson said.

She said that means there will still be opportunities to challenge laws limiting the participation of transgender people in sports, regulating bathroom use or banning gender-affirming care for adults.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the Supreme Court order that Tennessee’s law does not discriminate on the basis of sex, as attorneys challenging the law had argued, but instead blocked the care from people with a specific diagnosis.

“We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,” Roberts wrote.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented with Roberts’ order. Justice Sonia Sotomayor read a summary of her dissent from the bench, saying it plainly discriminates.

“By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims,” Sotomayor wrote. “In sadness, I dissent.”