Transgender Rights Federalism: Protecting Gender-Affirming Care in State Courts

Authors

• Julia Hunter

Abstract

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court rejected a landmark equal protection challenge to Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. In doing so, the Court substantially hindered or, at worst, entirely foreclosed federal equal protection challenges to gender-affirming care bans. Many Americans consider the Supreme Court the final arbiter of their constitutional rights. For decades, they would have been correct—when the Court was consistently expanding fundamental liberties, there was little incentive to look elsewhere for protection. But in eras of federal rights retrenchment, state courts have shown a willingness to step forward and interpret their constitutions independently and expansively. Because the federal judiciary has been increasingly hostile to equal protection and fundamental rights claims—a disheartening trend solidified for transgender litigants in Skrmetti—now is the time to look to state courts as a frontier for expanding transgender civil rights. In this Note, I argue that some state constitutions provide a promising avenue for equal protection claims. Where state constitutions often provide more protection than their federal counterpart, litigants should not underestimate the importance of a state law approach.

Recommended Citation

Julia Hunter, Transgender Rights Federalism: Protecting Gender-Affirming Care in State Courts, 77 UC Law SF L.J. 939 (2026).
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol77/iss4/8