The Supreme Court granted Idaho the ability to enforce a ban on gender-affirming treatment for minors, signaling a willingness to address contentious cultural issues. In a divided decision, conservative justices allowed the ban to take effect despite objections from liberals. The focus of the discussion was on the legal concept of universal injunctions, where a single judge’s decision applies broadly beyond the immediate parties involved in the case.
Justice Gorsuch emphasized the significance of examining the use of universal injunctions, citing concerns about lower courts overstepping their authority. On the other hand, Justice Jackson expressed reservations about addressing complex issues in an emergency docket case. The decision drew criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the plaintiffs, while Idaho officials, such as Attorney General Raúl Labrador, praised the ruling as a means to protect children from potentially harmful procedures. The law, known as the Vulnerable Child Protection Act, makes it a criminal offense for medical providers to offer transgender-related care to minors in Idaho.