State bans on transgender care are unconstitutional. Even a Trump-appointed judge agrees.

Republican- and Democratic-appointed federal judges are pushing back against state laws that ban gender-affirming care for minors.

Courts are doing so for the reasons these laws should never have been passed in the first place: They are unconstitutional and infringe upon the rights of American citizens.

The systematic effort to use the power of government to marginalize transgender people and deny young people health care services based on ideology and against scientific consensus in states such as Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana and Florida has been rebuffed by jurists in the past several weeks.

That’s good news for all freedom-loving citizens.

Why the court ruled against Tennessee

The ruling on Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 came out last week and District Judge Eli Richardson, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote: “If Tennessee wishes to regulate access to certain medical procedures, it must do so in a manner that does not infringe on the rights conferred by the United States Constitution, which is of course supreme to all other laws of the land. With regard to SB1, Tennessee has likely failed to do just this.”

Richardson’s decision temporarily puts the law on hold while a lawsuit by parents and doctors against the state goes to trial. SB1 was scheduled to go into effect on July 1.

I'm a psychologist for trans kids. Why I have to leave Texas to keep doing my job.

Now leaders in the Republican-dominated Tennessee General Assembly are pushing back, saying they support appealing the ruling and continuing to claim that they are acting in the interest of children.

“It is a sad day in Tennessee when, in place of protecting innocent children, our courts normalize a dangerous ideology that promotes the abuse and chemical castration of healthy young people,” tweeted House Majority Leader William Lamberth.

Further, Lamberth asserted that the law would have banned “gender-mutilating surgeries,” but there is no evidence that these types of procedures ever occurred on minors in Tennessee.

Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, who co-sponsored SB1 with Lamberth, affirmed his colleague’s disappointment: “I appreciate Attorney General (Jonathan) Skrmetti’s commitment to vigorously appeal this decision – all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.”

Judge strikes down Tennessee drag law: A judge ruled Tennessee drag law unconstitutional and citizens are better off

Families worry about their privacy and dignity

Meanwhile, the attorney general’s office  has compelled Vanderbilt University Medical Center to turn over records of patients who underwent, inquired about or were referred to gender-affirming care at that institution – an incredibly intrusive request that has families worried about their privacy and dignity.

Skrmetti has taken a zealous approach to the gender-affirming care issue, using a powerful investigative legal tool called a civil investigative demand, which does not require a subpoena or judge’s signoff, to demand records and other information.

The AG’s investigation comes on the heels of a report last year claiming that the medical center was butchering, mutilating and sterilizing children – a claim that has not been proved, but it led only months later to the Tennessee General Assembly passing SB1.

In April, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the state on behalf of three Tennessee families because of the law. The U.S. Department of Justice intervened on behalf of the plaintiffs, asking a court to halt SB1.

Gov. Bill Lee’s office said it would work with Skrmetti to defend the state.

Skrmetti is the former chief legal counsel to Lee and former chief deputy attorney general. He was appointed to an eight-year term in his current role in 2022 by the Tennessee Supreme Court.

'Literally threaten trans existence': Flailing DeSantis campaign leans into anti-LGBTQ ad, tries to out-cruel Trump

It is not unusual that the AG would defend a state law, but what is strange is that Skrmetti, according to reports in The Tennessean, has praised laws that create an impact on the rights of transgender citizens. That includes a newly passed law prohibiting citizens from changing the sex on their driver’s license if they transition from male to female or female to male.

“This is an issue that really matters to us. We're fighting hard. This, whether we want it to be or not, is a huge legal battle – and it looks like it will be for a while to come,” Skrmetti said on June 5 about the law to the right-leaning Independent Women’s Network at The Hermitage Hotel in downtown Nashville, the place where groups in 1920 staged the fight for the ratification of women’s suffrage.

Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.

The problem is it appears his personal politics are getting in the way of protecting the constitutional rights of fellow citizens.

Lawmakers such as Lamberth and Jackson seem to be encouraging him. At the same time, they are sticking taxpayers with the bill to defend unconstitutional laws.

David Plazas is the director of opinion and engagement for the USA TODAY Network Tennessee. He is an editorial board member of The Tennessean, where this column first published. He also hosts the Tennessee Voices videocast and curates the Tennessee Voices and Latino Tennessee Voices newsletters. Email him at dplazas@tennessean.com

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Why bans on gender-affirming care for trans youth lose in US courts