Nearly a month after the Supreme Courts devastating anti-trans ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti, lawyers for Florida are citing the decision in their efforts to get the states ban on Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care reinstated.In 2023, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle struck down the ban, ruling that it violated the federal Medicaid statute, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Affordable Care Act.The state has appealed the ruling to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Related Supreme Court just threw out four pro-trans rulings The justices ordered appellate courts to review cases involving gender-affirming care coverage and birth certificates. As CBS News reports, following the Skrmetti ruling, the 11th Circuit directed attorneys on both sides to file briefs explaining how the Supreme Courts decision would impact the case. Never Miss a Beat Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights. Subscribe to our Newsletter today Writing for the courts conservative majority in Skrmetti, Chief Justice John Roberts said that a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors does not discriminate on the basis of sex or on the basis of transgender status in violation of the Equal Protection Clause because the law only makes distinctions based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.In their July 11 filing, lawyers for Florida argued that because the states ban on Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care treatments is based on medical diagnoses, it also does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, and thus Hinkles decision should be struck down and the ban reinstated.Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case, meanwhile, argued that the Skrmetti decision was fairly limited in its scope and breadth, according to CBS News. The Supreme Courts decision, they wrote in their brief, hinges on the Courts finding that Tennessees law classified based on age and medical condition. Floridas ban, meanwhile, irrationally targets transgender Medicaid beneficiaries of all ages.Floridas Medicaid coverage exclusions, they wrote, discriminate based on transgender status and therefore sex in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.Skrmetti, the plaintiffs brief continued, does not bless nor give license to such discrimination. To the contrary, the Fourteenth Amendment protects persons from governmental enactments, like the exclusions, that facially discriminate based on transgender status and/or are designed to effect an invidious discrimination against transgender individuals. Floridas lawyers, meanwhile, argued that it doesnt matter that the states ban targets adults as well as children.Falsely characterizing gender-affirming care treatments as experimental procedures, the states lawyers wrote that such treatments raise concerns for minors and adults alike, and the state gets to protect its minor and adult citizens from such procedures.In fact, every major American medical association and leading world health authority has endorsed gender-affirming care as evidence-based, safe, and in some cases lifesaving for both transgender adults and minors.Subscribe to theLGBTQ Nation newsletterand be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.