Constitutional Analysis of State Laws Restricting Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

This opinion from the Tennessee Attorney General analyzes the constitutionality of state legislation restricting gender-affirming medical treatments for minors, in light of the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in United States v. Skrmetti. It examines equal protection, parental rights, and substantive due process challenges to the legislation.

The opinion discusses the rational basis standard as applied to the classification between treatments for gender dysphoria and other medical uses of the same medications. It analyzes the distinction between facial and as-applied challenges and the state's interest in protecting minors from potentially irreversible medical interventions.

The opinion concludes that the statute is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in regulating medical treatments for minors, and provides guidance for defending the law against both constitutional and statutory challenges.