Federal Appeals Court Reviews Transgender Health Coverage Cases, Eyeing Potential Supreme Court Litigation

by Michael Nguyen
Transgender Health Coverage Cases

A United States federal appeals court is presently reviewing pivotal cases originating from North Carolina and West Virginia, which could substantially impact whether states are mandated to extend health care coverage to transgender individuals via government-funded insurance plans.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, recently conducted oral hearings on matters pertaining to the coverage of gender-affirming care through North Carolina’s state employee health program and gender-affirming surgical procedures under West Virginia’s Medicaid system.

During the court sessions, multiple judges expressed the view that these cases will likely be escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court for final adjudication. Both states have appealed earlier court decisions that ruled against them, stating that the denial of gender-affirming medical treatments is both discriminatory and in violation of constitutional principles. Prior to this, panels comprising three judges from the Fourth Circuit had heard each of the cases separately before opting to consolidate them and present them before the full court consisting of 15 judges.

Lambda Legal’s Senior Attorney, Tara Borelli, who is representing the transgender plaintiffs who were denied medical services in both states, emphasized that the denial of coverage constitutes direct discrimination, contravening the Fourteenth Amendment. In her courtroom argument, Borelli insisted that a faithful reading of the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause necessitates coverage for transgender individuals.

Legal representatives for the state of North Carolina countered that the state’s insurance plan is not legally obligated to cover gender-affirming therapies or surgeries as transgenderism is not classified as a medical illness. Attorney John Knepper posited that only a particular subset of transgender individuals experience gender dysphoria, a diagnostic term for emotional distress arising from a mismatch between one’s gender identity and assigned sex at birth.

Legal counsel for West Virginia maintained that their case is not one of discrimination, but rather a matter of the state judiciously allocating its limited resources amid a growing Medicaid deficit. The state plans to prioritize funding for prevalent health issues such as heart disease, diabetes, drug addiction, and cancer.

There is yet no timeline for when the appeals court will deliver its judgment. In June 2022, a North Carolina court mandated that the state’s health plan should cover “medically necessary services,” inclusive of hormone therapy and certain surgeries, for its transgender employees and their dependents. Meanwhile, a federal judge in West Virginia decreed in August 2022 that the state’s Medicaid program must include coverage for gender-affirming care.

The legal actions come against a backdrop of broader debates on transgender rights and healthcare coverage. Outcomes of these cases could have profound implications for transgender individuals and for the evolving understanding of healthcare as a constitutional right.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Transgender Health Coverage Cases

What are the key issues in the transgender health coverage cases in North Carolina and West Virginia?

In these cases, the central issues revolve around whether individual states are legally obligated to provide health care coverage for transgender individuals through government-sponsored insurance plans. Specifically, the cases concern the coverage of gender-affirming care in North Carolina’s state employee health plan and gender-affirming surgery under West Virginia Medicaid.

Why is the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals involved in these cases?

The Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is overseeing these cases because they pertain to legal questions about discrimination and constitutional rights, falling within the jurisdiction of this federal appeals court.

What did the lower court rulings conclude, and why did both states appeal them?

The lower courts in both North Carolina and West Virginia ruled against the states, finding that denying gender-affirming care constituted discrimination and was unconstitutional. Both states appealed these rulings, leading to the current appeals court proceedings.

Why do some judges believe these cases might reach the U.S. Supreme Court?

At least two judges involved in the appeals court proceedings believe that these cases have the potential to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court due to their significance in shaping legal precedents related to transgender rights and healthcare coverage.

What arguments have been presented by the parties involved?

Lambda Legal, representing transgender individuals in both states, argues that denying coverage for gender-affirming care is a clear case of discrimination prohibited by the 14th Amendment. In contrast, attorneys for North Carolina and West Virginia argue that their insurance plans are not obligated to cover these treatments, as being transgender is not considered a medical illness.

Are there any indications of when the appeals court will issue a ruling?

There is currently no specified timeline for when the appeals court will render its decision on these cases.

How have earlier court rulings affected transgender healthcare coverage in these states?

In North Carolina, a trial court ruled that the state’s health plan must cover “medically necessary services,” including hormone therapy and certain surgeries for transgender employees and their dependents. In West Virginia, a federal judge mandated that the state’s Medicaid program should provide coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender residents.

What broader implications do these cases have for transgender rights and healthcare coverage?

These cases have the potential to set important legal precedents regarding transgender rights and access to healthcare. They also contribute to the ongoing debate about whether healthcare, particularly gender-affirming care, should be recognized as a constitutional right.

More about Transgender Health Coverage Cases

You may also like


InfoGeek September 24, 2023 - 3:47 pm

No timeline 4 ruling tho, we gotta wait.

LegalEagle September 24, 2023 - 9:09 pm

Lambda Legal & states arguin’ ’bout dis, hope da judges make da right call!

Journ0Pro September 25, 2023 - 5:40 am

fedral courtz r dealin’ wid dis trans health stuff in NC & WV, might end up @ SCOTUS! big deal!

SeriousReader September 25, 2023 - 6:00 am

Thes casis r 4 equal rightz 4 trans ppl, courts got 2 decide.

PolicyWonk September 25, 2023 - 11:41 am

Big implications 4 trans rights & healthcare in these cases.


Leave a Comment


BNB – Big Big News is a news portal that offers the latest news from around the world. BNB – Big Big News focuses on providing readers with the most up-to-date information from the U.S. and abroad, covering a wide range of topics, including politics, sports, entertainment, business, health, and more.

Editors' Picks

Latest News

© 2023 BBN – Big Big News