WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court heard the most high-profile case of its term on Wednesday, weighing Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender minors.
Similar laws have been passed by other conservative-leaning states. Challengers say they deprive kids of treatment they need, while the states defend them as protecting minors from life-changing decisions.
The conservative-majority court appeared ready to uphold Tennessee's law. It comes against the backdrop of escalating pushback to transgender rights, notably from President-elect Donald Trump.
Here are some takeaways from the arguments:
In the arguments on Wednesday, five of the court's six conservatives seemed skeptical of the argument that the ban on gender-affirming care for minors is discriminatory.
Two key conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, repeatedly challenged the arguments from lawyers challenging the ban.
Roberts questioned whether judges should be weighing in on a question of regulating medical procedures, an area usually left to state lawmakers. Barrett sounded skeptical of the administration’s argument that the law discriminates because of sex.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch was notably silent, asking no questions.
The court’s other three conservatives seemed to favor Tennessee. The three liberals largely backed the challengers, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighting the risks of suicide among kids with gender dysphoria.
The litigation marked only the second time the high court has heard a case that represented a fundamental test of transgender rights.
In a case involving LGBTQ+ rights four years ago, two conservative justices, Roberts and Gorsuch, joined with its liberals to expand protections for transgender workers. Barrett wasn’t on the bench at the time and had no record on transgender rights.
Gorsuch wrote the opinion, which left open claims of discrimination in other situations.
The court isn’t expected to rule for several months. The decision could have direct effects in the 26 states that have passed versions of the bans, and might have ripple effects on other measures that restrict sports participation and bathroom use by transgender people.
Supporters of the health care laws argue the gender-affirming treatments are risky, and the laws protect kids from making decisions before they’re ready.
Challengers say many medical interventions come with some degree of risk, and families should be able to weigh those against the benefits. The arguments in favor of Tennessee’s ban could also be used to back federal restrictions, said Chase Strangio, the ACLU attorney who represented three families challenging the law.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said that his state’s arguments would still let each state set its own policy.
Ben Appel, of New York, right, who describes himself as a gay man who is concerned that gender nonconformity is being medicalized, rallies with others who support a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2024, outside the Supreme Court in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
A young person who preferred not to give her name, cheers as supporters of transgender rights rally by the Supreme Court, Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2024, in Washington, while arguments are underway in a case regarding a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
NEW YORK (AP) — The father of the victim at the center of the fatal New York City subway chokehold trial has sued the defendant as a Manhattan jury continued to deliberate the case Thursday.
Jordan Neely ’s father, Andre Zachary, filed the suit Wednesday against Marine veteran Daniel Penny in New York Supreme Court.
He accuses the Long Island native of negligence, assault and battery, which led to the death of his unarmed, 30-year-old son on May 1, 2023, on an underground train.
The then-24-year-old Penny placed Neely in a chokehold for about six minutes after Neely, who was homeless, began shouting and acting erratically on the crowded train.
Zachary is seeking a judgment awarding damages “in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction,” according to the lawsuit.
Penny’s lawyer Steven Raiser dismissed the suit as a distraction.
“The timing is unfortunate as Danny is awaiting a verdict from the jury where the potential consequences are far greater than any civil suit could threaten,” he said in a statement Thursday, adding that Penny had not yet been served the complaint. “We will not be distracted by this attempt to attack Danny while he is under such tremendous stress.”
Lawyers for Zachary didn’t respond to an email seeking comment. But Christopher Neely, Jordan’s uncle, repeated the family’s position that Neely didn’t deserve to die over his tirade.
“What gave Daniel Penny the right to choke Jordan nearly for six minutes?” he said outside the courthouse. “He had an option to go to another car. He had the option to say something and not do nothing.”
The third day of deliberations ended Thursday without a verdict.
The jury, which resumes its closed-door discussions Friday, heard a readout of a city medical examiner’s testimony during the monthlong trial.
They also asked the judge to re-read the criminal definitions of recklessness and negligence in open court and be provided with written copies of the statutes.
Jurors relistened to Dr. Cynthia Harris’ testimony about issuing a death certificate for Neely after conducting an autopsy and reviewing the bystander’s video and investigative findings.
Penny’s defense focused, in large part, on challenging the city medical examiner’s office’s determination that the chokehold killed Neely.
A defense pathologist testified Neely died from using synthetic marijuana, also known as “K2,” along with schizophrenia, a genetic condition and his struggle with Penny.
On Wednesday, jurors asked to review the police and bystander video, including the responding officers’ body camera videos and police video of Penny’s subsequent station house interview with detectives.
Penny has pleaded not guilty to manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.
Prosecutors say he recklessly squeezed Neely’s neck too hard and for too long, but Penny’s lawyers maintain his actions were justified in protecting fellow subway riders.
Penny and some passengers recalled Neely had ranted about being willing to die, willing to go jail — even willing to kill.
The case has been a flashpoint in long-simmering debates over race relations, public safety, homelessness and mental illness.
Some have cast Penny as a valiant protector while others view the now 26-year-old architecture student as a white vigilante who summarily killed a troubled Black man in need of help.
Follow Philip Marcelo at twitter.com/philmarcelo.
Daniel Penny leaves a courtroom in New York, Thursday, Dec. 5, 2024. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)
Daniel Penny leaves a courtroom in New York, Thursday, Dec. 5, 2024. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)
Daniel Penny arrives to the courthouse in New York, Thursday, Dec. 5, 2024. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)