Case Digest on Brandt v. Rutledge

Laws discriminating based on sex and transgender status are subject to heightened scrutiny, requiring an "exceedingly persuasive justification" to uphold such laws.

This ruling has been decided in August 2022 on the case of Brandt v. Rutledge. Check out this two-minute case digest by Audio Law Reader.🎧📚

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Act 626, an Arkansas law enacted in April 2021, prohibited healthcare professionals from providing gender transition procedures to individuals under 18 years old and referring them for such procedures. This includes medical or surgical services intended to alter or remove physical or anatomical characteristics typical for an individual's biological sex or instill characteristics resembling a sex different from their biological sex.

Plaintiffs, which included transgender youth, their parents, and healthcare professionals, filed a complaint asserting that Act 626 violated the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the First Amendment. They argued that the Act discriminated based on sex and transgender status and limited their fundamental rights.

ISSUE OF THE CASE:

Whether Act 626 violated the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against individuals, particularly transgender youth, on the basis of sex and transgender status;

RULING OF THE CASE:

Yes, the Court concluded that Act 626 violated the Equal Protection Clause as it discriminated on the basis of sex, subjecting it to heightened scrutiny. It held that the Act was not substantially related to the state's interest in protecting children from experimental medical treatment and regulating medical ethics.

The court then granted a preliminary injunction based on the equal protection claim, preventing the Act from taking effect. The district court's decision to grant the preliminary injunction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

IMPACT TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM:

This case reaffirms the principle of equal protection and clarifies its application to laws that discriminate against transgender individuals. It underscores that discriminatory laws based on gender identity will face rigorous judicial scrutiny.