Gender-Affirming Care Bans and the Constitutional Case for Rational Basis with Bite Standard

Piper Hinson, Southwestern Law School graduate, presents her award-winning law review article on the constitutional case against state gender-affirming care bans. Courts are split on whether these bans violate the Equal Protection Clause, and the divide comes down to one question: which standard of review applies. Piper argues that "rational basis with bite," rooted in City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, is the answer. These statutes ban puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors while expressly permitting the same treatments for intersex and cisgender minors, and she makes the case that animus, not child protection, is what's actually driving them.

The Rule of Law Writing Competition encourages law students to integrate Rule of Law concepts into their writings. Papers may be on any topic either directly discussing an aspect of the Rule of Law, demonstrating how the Rule of Law affected the topic, defining the Rule of Law, criticizing the Rule of Law, or demonstrating the economic social or political effects of the Rule of Law.

100% of proceeds from this program will be donated to the Beverly Hills Bar Foundation. The Foundation, a 501(c)(3) public charity is the community arm of the Beverly Hills Bar Association with direct impact in promoting equal access to justice, community service and law-related education.

Piper Hinson
Matthew Kanin