Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Paul A. Eknes-Tucker, et al. v. Steven T. Marshall, Attorney General of Alabama, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 22-11707 · judgment August 21, 2023


Dismissed · June 6, 2025
Pre-decision estimate: 1% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

In 2022, the Alabama Legislature enacted a categorical ban on the use of certain medical treatments for transgender minors. The ban applies when the treatments are used “for the purpose of attempting to alter the appearance of or affirm the minor’s perception of his or her gender or sex, if that appearance or perception is inconsistent with the minor's sex.” Ala. Code § 26-26-4(a) (the “Treatment Ban”). A federal district court preliminarily enjoined the Treatment Ban as applied to the use of pubertyblocking medication and hormone therapy for transgender adolescents. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, holding that the Treatment Ban was likely to satisfy rational basis review. The questions presented are:

  1. Whether Alabama’s Treatment Ban triggers heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status. The Court has already granted certiorari on this question in another case this Term. See L.W. v. Skrmetti, 83 F.4th 460 (6th Cir. 2023), cert. granted, No. 23-477, 144 S. Ct. 2679 (June 20, 2024).

  2. Whether Alabama’s Treatment Ban triggers heightened scrutiny under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it burdens parents’ right to direct the medical treatment of their minor children. (i)

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Jennifer Lynn Levi
GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders

For respondent
Edmund Gerard LaCour Jr.
Office of the Attorney General

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Jun 06 2025
    Petition Dismissed - Rule 46.
  2. May 16 2025
    Joint stipulation to dismiss the petition pursuant to Rule 46.1 filed.
  3. Feb 12 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/28/2025.
  4. Jan 27 2025
    Brief of respondent Steven Marshall, et al. in opposition filed. VIDED.
  5. Dec 13 2024
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 3, 2025.
  6. Dec 12 2024
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 3, 2025 to February 3, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
  7. Nov 26 2024
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 3, 2025)