WASHINGTON, Oct 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to re-enter the nation's ongoing culture wars as it begins its new nine-month term on Monday. This term promises to address a series of contentious issues including transgender athletes, gay conversion therapy, gun rights, and race. The first case to be heard will occur on the second day of the term, where arguments will center around the legality of a Colorado law that bans conversion therapy aimed at altering a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.
The law in question has garnered support from the administration of former Republican President Donald Trump, which backs the Christian professional counselor challenging the legislation. As noted by Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, this term will echo the cultural divisions exacerbated during the Trump presidency. The Supreme Court, currently holding a 6-3 conservative majority, previously upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors and permitted parents to exclude their children from classrooms where LGBT-themed storybooks are read.
The plaintiff in the Colorado case argues that the state's law infringes upon her First Amendment rights, claiming it unlawfully restricts her ability to communicate with clients. Despite lower courts upholding the law, legal experts anticipate that the Supreme Court's conservative justices will be receptive to the First Amendment argument. Georgetown University law professor Stephanie Barclay predicts a 6-3 ruling in favor of the counselor, emphasizing that the case revolves around client-led talk therapy rather than coercive methods. Barclay further asserts that there is no substantial evidence to suggest that this type of therapy is harmful.
Colorado may be facing challenges in defending its law, especially given the Supreme Court's recent history of siding with Christian plaintiffs against state anti-discrimination measures. Notable cases include a website designer who refused to create custom designs for same-sex weddings and a baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Both cases were decided in favor of the plaintiffs, citing First Amendment rights related to free speech and religious freedom.
The Colorado law imposes disciplinary actions on mental health professionals who provide conversion therapy to minors, even if the client seeks such treatment. Democratic Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser argues that conversion therapy is linked to increased rates of depression and suicide attempts, asserting that states have the authority to regulate professional conduct to protect patients from harmful practices, even at the expense of free speech.
In a separate case, states like Idaho and West Virginia are pushing to enforce laws that prohibit transgender athletes from competing on female sports teams in public schools. Federal appeals courts have previously ruled against these state laws, and the Trump administration is backing the states in this ongoing legal battle. Chemerinsky highlights that the participation of transgender athletes in sports is a pivotal issue in the culture wars, touching upon the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Recent rulings indicate that Idaho's treatment of transgender athletes likely constitutes a violation of the equal protection clause. U.S. District Judge David Nye noted that the negligible percentage of transgender women athletes and the lack of evidence supporting claims of physiological advantages demonstrate that Idaho's exclusionary law does not promote equality for female athletes.
Experts suggest that the Supreme Court might grant states significant authority to regulate transgender athlete participation in school sports, similar to its decision in the landmark Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, which shifted the regulatory power over abortion to individual states. Taraleigh Davis, a law professor at Bradley University, emphasizes that the court is likely to continue this trend of allowing states to address contentious moral and social issues through democratic processes.
Another significant case from Hawaii presents an opportunity for the conservative justices to broaden gun rights further. The Supreme Court will review a challenge to a Hawaii law that restricts the carrying of handguns on privately owned properties that are accessible to the public, such as businesses. A lower court has determined that Hawaii's law is likely compliant with the Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms.
The issue of race will also return to the forefront as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on October 15 regarding a Louisiana electoral map that increases the number of Black-majority congressional districts from one to two out of six. This change was prompted by a judicial ruling that found the previous map violated the Voting Rights Act. The current plaintiffs, twelve Louisiana voters identifying as non-African American, argue that the new map violates their equal protection rights.
With nearly one-third of Louisiana's population being Black, the implications of this case could significantly influence how electoral districts are redrawn across the United States. Michael Dimino Sr., a professor at Widener University Commonwealth Law School, notes that the outcome could have far-reaching consequences for electoral representation and voting rights nationwide.
As the Supreme Court embarks on this contentious term, the outcomes of these cases are likely to resonate deeply within the fabric of American society, reflecting the ongoing cultural and political debates that shape our nation.
