States are pressing the Supreme Court to give lower courts guidance on transgender rights in its term that begins in October.

Three disputes involving transgender individuals have already been brought to the court, and the justices are slated to consider at least one of them — a ban on gender-transitioning medical treatment for minors.

The justices also are weighing whether to take up a pair of cases on state prohibitions on transgender athletes participating in female sports.

---

---

And in a 5-4 decision, they recently halted the Biden administration’s rewrite of Title IX, which involves trans-friendly policies in schools, as lower courts first decide on the matter.

Supreme Court scholar Adam Feldman, creator of the EmpiricalSCOTUS blog, said the justices ducked the transgender issue in 2017, when the court took off its docket G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, a case involving a transgender male student using the boys restroom at school.

“I’ve said for some time now that transgender rights will be an important issue before the court,” Mr. Feldman said. “This area is more complex than pure ideological divisions.”

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a Bush appointee, joined the court’s four liberals in 2020 in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia — one of the court’s most recent landmark LGBTQ rights cases.

The majority in Bostock ruled that firing an employee over being gay or transgender violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in an opinion written by Justice Gorsuch.

The court said discrimination on the basis of sex included sex stereotyping.

But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. warned in his dissent that the ruling would give credence to arguments for using the opposite sex’s bathroom or locker room facilities.

“Under the Court’s decision … transgender persons will be able to argue that they are entitled to use a bathroom or locker room that is reserved for persons of the sex with which they identify, and while the Court does not define what it means by a transgender person, the term may apply to individuals who are ‘gender fluid,’” Justice Alito wrote.

Justice Gorsuch again joined the court’s liberals earlier this month in a dissent over the court nixing the Biden administration’s request to begin enforcing parts of its Title IX rewrite, which had been blocked by a lower court. Title IX is the law that prohibits discrimination in government-funded education programs.

In its rewrite, the Biden administration said it would be discriminatory against transgender students for schools not to allow them not to be able to use the restroom or locker room of their preference.

The issue could come back to the justices in its upcoming term, which runs from October through June 2025.

For now, the justices have agreed to hear arguments in a case out of Tennessee after the state enacted a ban on gender-transitioning medical treatment for minors. The Tennessee law bans administering puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and sex-transition surgeries to minors.

The case has become a major battleground, with the Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union opposing red states trying to ban the treatments for youths over concerns about safety and health.

Diagnosis of gender dysphoria among minors has surged, and courts have generally blocked state laws restricting treatment.

According to the ACLU, courts have rejected state bans on medical treatment for transgender youths in seven states — Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky and Indiana.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, meanwhile, allowed Tennessee’s law to take effect.

The Tennessee case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, was brought by three transgender minors, their parents and a doctor who had 16 transgender youths as patients.

A date for oral arguments has not yet been scheduled, but it’s expected to take place before May 2025. A ruling is anticipated by the end of the term, which generally wraps up by the end of June.

Meanwhile, the justices will meet in private in the coming weeks to discuss taking up two cases out of red states that have banned transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports.

Idaho and West Virginia asked the justices in July to consider their disputes, as their laws were challenged by transgender athletes claiming the legislation runs afoul of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

Twenty-six states have filed briefs on behalf of Idaho and West Virginia, saying they have similar legislation to protect women’s sports and need clarity from the high court.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against West Virginia’s law that requires biological males to compete on male-only or co-ed teams. A transgender female student challenged the law, and the 4th Circuit ruled in favor of that student.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction halting Idaho from enforcing its Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which bases sports participation on biological sex. A transgender female student wishing to run track at Boise State University challenged the law as running afoul of the 14th Amendment.

It would take four justices to vote in favor of hearing the disputes, B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education and Hecox v. Little.

Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, said transgender rights have been an issue brewing in lower courts for years, but now it seems to be increasingly bubbling up before the justices.

“Now, it seems like it really is percolating,” Mr. Levey said. “You have three different issues here.”

Zack Ford, senior manager of press and editorial relations at Alliance for Justice, said LGBTQ issues will be “a major spotlight” for this upcoming term.

“Unfortunately, we’ve seen this conservative Court too often interfere with medical experts’ ability to provide the best care for patients. Every major medical organization agrees that transgender young people deserve affirming care, and it’s only those who falsely believe they can prevent people from being transgender who disagree,” Mr. Ford said.

“While there was reason to be optimistic this Court might recognize the importance of protecting transgender people from discrimination given its 2020 Bostock ruling, its recent decision to block the administration’s Title IX guidance that was consistent with that ruling is disturbing. It remains to be seen just how much more harm this Court might do this term to the rights and protections we thought we could take for granted,” he said.