BOISE, Idaho — Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador recently joined a 24-state coalition in filing an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to oppose court-ordered gender-affirming surgeries for state prisoners.
An amicus brief provides a court with legal arguments by parties affected but not directly involved in a particular court case.
The brief follows the federal case Wagoner vs. Winkelman, which began in the District of Alaska, where the court ordered the state to refer a prisoner to a medical professional for evaluation regarding gender-affirming surgery.
In 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Edmo vs. Idaho Department of Correction, deciding that the prohibition of gender-affirming surgery to an Idaho prisoner constituted "deliberate indifference" to a medical need, which in turn violated the Eighth Amendment that forbids cruel and unusual punishment of prisoners.
Labrador, who was joined by Indiana Attorney General Theodore Rokita in authoring the brief, contends the more recent Alaska court order "exceeds constitutional limits and overrides states' authority over prison medical care and policy, so the decision should be reversed."
"Nothing in the Eighth Amendment’s text or history allows prisoners to demand whatever medical interventions they desire. Nor does anything in its text or history require States to provide risky, controversial medical procedures of uncertain benefit to prisoners. And the Eighth Amendment certainly does not appoint federal courts to be the referees of robust, ongoing debates within the medical community. As sovereigns who have long regulated medicine to protect public health and safety, amici States have an interest in protecting their authority, including for the prisoners in their care. They urge the Court to vacate the district court’s injunction requiring Alaska to facilitate a prisoner’s desired sex-change surgery." - Brief of Amici Curiae: Indiana, Idaho, 21 other states, and the Arizona legislature in support of the appellant and reversal
The brief goes on to state that "deliberate indifference" regarding medical needs does not apply to "any particular treatment—especially those that are unproven, highly debated, and carry significant risks with uncertain benefits."
"The Eighth Amendment stops cruel and unusual punishment. It doesn’t give prisoners the right to demand risky, optional surgeries when doctors and scientists still strongly disagree about whether they’re safe or even helpful," said Indiana Attorney General Rokita. "If courts force states to provide these expensive, controversial procedures in one prison, it will open the floodgates everywhere—putting Hoosier taxpayers and families across the country on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars per surgery in virtually every state.”
The amicus brief concludes by requesting the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacate the district court's injunction and instead allow states to exercise discretion regarding prisoner healthcare.
Read the entire amicus brief below:
ALSO READ | Scouting America to require use of biological sex, not gender identity, Pentagon says
