Amid oral arguments in the historic SCOTUS transgender case, experts weigh in on the pendulum's swing.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) commenced oral arguments for a significant case concerning Tennessee's prohibition of transgender medical treatments for minors. An expert has stated that this landmark case signifies "the pendulum is shifting."

The constitutionality of Tennessee's ban on transgender medical procedures will be determined in the case U.S. v. Skrmetti, potentially influencing other states to enact similar bans and enabling individuals to sue medical providers.

According to Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, there is an increasing number of individuals who are willing and eager to sue pharmaceutical companies and doctors who prescribe medication or perform surgery.

"Staver, whose legal group filed an amicus brief in support of Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, stated, "I believe that the pendulum is swinging, and regardless of the Supreme Court's decision, I think the lawsuits will ultimately be the death knell for this kind of intervention.""

The SCOTUS building was surrounded by supporters and opponents of gender transition treatments holding transgender Pride flags and "Kids' Health Matters" banners as oral arguments began Wednesday morning. The justices listened to both sides present their arguments and asked questions for over two hours.

The court's ruling on transgender rights could impact other ongoing legal battles over bathroom access and scholastic sports, and could also establish a legal precedent for future disputes involving the LGBTQ community and whether sexual orientation should be considered a "protected class" with the same rights as race and national origin.

Although some lower court rulings have been reversed on appeal, appellate courts have consistently upheld state bans on gender-affirming care for minors. Staver predicts that the Supreme Court will likely continue this trend, viewing the issue as a matter of regulating medical procedures rather than a constitutional protection.

Staver stated that in his opinion, the issue at hand is whether it qualifies for constitutional protection, which he believes it does not.

In November 2023, the Biden administration filed a petition to the Supreme Court, arguing that a Tennessee law restricting access to puberty blockers and hormone therapies for transgender minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This clause mandates equal treatment under the law for individuals in similar circumstances.

Sarah Perry, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, stated to Planet Chronicle Digital that it is not surprising to her that the Biden administration would consider this as a victory for transgender rights.

The administration's petition for Supreme Court review highlighted the "urgent need" for review, citing the impact on families who risk losing essential medical care. The DOJ also emphasized the broader implications of similar laws in other states, arguing that the bans disproportionately target transgender youth while permitting similar treatment for non-transgender minors.

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act may present an interesting potential with the incoming Trump administration, as they have made it clear during the campaign that they intend to restrict these procedures for minors, according to Perry.

What do the justices do if the Department of Justice under President Trump files a motion to dismiss or voluntarily dismisses the case?

Transgender issues have sparked intense discussions in the country's culture wars. Numerous prominent medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, support transgender medical treatments for children.

Over 26 states have enacted laws limiting or prohibiting them.

After the arguments, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti stated that the Constitution grants states the right to safeguard children from unproven, potentially life-changing treatments based on questionable scientific evidence.

A ruling is expected by July 2025.

Planet Chronicle' Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this report.