Hammons v. University of Maryland Medical System, Inc.

ReligionGender Affirming Care4th CircuitMarylandEstablishment ClauseEqual ProtectionAffordable Care ActDistrict of Maryland

Apr 23

Written By Mack Karbon

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

On appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Case no. 23-1394 STATUS: ONGOING

UPDATE: This case is currently being held in abeyance (temporary suspension) pending the Fourth Circuit’s en banc decision in Anderson v. Crouch.

BACKGROUND

Jesse Hammons was denied a commonly performed medical procedure at the University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center because he is transgender. The taxpayer-owned hospital argued that performing a hysterectomy on Mr. Hammons to treat his diagnosed gender dysphoria would be a violation of their religious beliefs.

In July of 2020, Mr. Hammons brought suit against the hospital alleging violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Section 1557”). The Establishment Clause and Equal Protection claims were dismissed on Defendants’ motion.

On January 6, 2023, the Maryland District Court ruled in favor of Mr. Hammons and granted his motion for summary judgment on his Section 1557 claim.

Mr. Hammons appealed the dismissal of his constitutional claims, and the defendants cross-appealed the granting of summary judgment for Mr. Hammons.

On August 1, 2023, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Mr. Hammons’s unopposed motion to hold the case in abeyance pending a decision by the court in Anderson v. Crouch. On April 29, 2024, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a joint decision in Anderson and Kadel v. Folwell finding that employers cannot deny coverage for gender-affirming care in employee healthcare plans.

On May 22, 2024, the parties submitted a joint letter to the court requesting that the case remain stayed while the Supreme Court contemplates any petitions for certiorari from the losing parties in Anderson and Kadel.

On June 24, 2024, after the Supreme Court announced that it would take up the issue of gender-affirming care for trans youth, defendants wrote to the court to reiterate their desire to hold the case in abeyance. Defendants noted that:

[If] the Supreme Court ultimately affirms the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Skrmetti, that would supersede this Court’s en banc ruling in Kadel v. Folwell, and dramatically change the law applicable to this appeal, which likewise concerns whether the denial of a gender transition surgery constitutes unlawful discrimination as a statutory or constitutional matter.

As of June 28, 2024, the appeals court not yet decided whether the case will remain stayed. Follow for updates.