A 20-year-old UCLA student is suing two California doctors, alleging they pushed her into gender transition without adequately informing her of the risks or consequences. So Clementine Breen Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court naming Dr. Scott Moser and St. Francis Memorial Hospital as defendants.
The lawsuit claims that Dr. Olson-Kennedy, who oversees the largest transgender youth clinic in the US at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, diagnosed Breen. Gender dysphoria During their first meeting, shortly after Brin’s 12th birthday. According to the suit, Olson-Kennedy recommended puberty blockers at this initial consultation, followed by further treatment including hormones and a double mastectomy by age 14.
Breen argues that medical professionals hid important information about the long-term effects and risks of these treatments while exaggerating their effectiveness. The suit claims this caused irreversible physical changes and significant psychological distress, including regret over her transition.
Supreme Court hears landmark transgender rights case
On 4 December 2024, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments
United States v. Scarmetti
A landmark case challenging Tennessee’s 2023 law that bans gender-affirming medical care — including puberty blockers and hormone therapy — for transgender minors.
Presented the main arguments
- Status of Plaintiff: The plaintiffs, which include transgender teenagers and their families, argue that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They argue that the Tennessee law discriminates on the basis of gender and gender identity, violating constitutional rights.
- Defense Status: Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice defended the statute, asserting that the state had the power to regulate medical treatment for minors, especially those deemed experimental or potentially harmful.
Judges’ reactions
The court’s conservative justices appeared inclined to uphold the state ban, suggesting deference to state legislatures on such matters. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Cavanaugh signaled a preference for allowing states to set their own policies on medical treatment for minors.
In contrast, liberal justices expressed concern about potential discrimination. Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted similarities between the state’s arguments and those historically used to justify racial discrimination in questioning the constitutionality of the law.
Implications of the case
The court’s decision, expected as early as summer 2025, could have far-reaching effects on transgender rights across the United States. A ruling in Tennessee’s favor could spur other states to enact similar restrictions, potentially restricting access. Gender-affirming care For minors across the country. Conversely, a decision against the ban could support and protect the rights of transgender youth to receive necessary medical treatment.
Public response
The case has attracted considerable public attention by demonstrating outside the Supreme Court as lawyers from both sides protested during the proceedings. Proponents of transgender rights emphasize the importance of access to gender-affirming care for the well-being of transgender youth, while opponents raise concerns about the appropriateness and safety of such treatment for minors.
The intersection of this high-profile legal battle and Breen’s lawsuit further underscored the complexity and polarization surrounding gender-affirming care for minors in the US.