This is the right outcome for this court case. There is no conceivable way to interpret the equal protection clause that supports a ban on gender affirming care, especially in light of analysis that targeting trans people is specifically gender discrimination. If the care is available for a person, but for their gender, it seems plainly obvious that the discrimination is based on gender and doesn’t, in my view, even meet a rational basis analysis, let alone the slightly heightened analysis for gender discrimination.
Add comment