Days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tennessee could ban gender-affirming health care for minors, Florida officials argued the decision allows them to deny coverage to adults.

In August, a federal judge ruled Florida cannot legally deny health care coverage for gender-affirming care to state employees. The state appealed that decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

After the June Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld a Tennessee law banning hormone therapy and puberty blockers only for transgender minors, appellate judges asked both sides in the Florida case if the verdict impacted arguments.

Attorneys representing the state of Florida said the Skrmetti ruling opened the door to government dictating health care decisions, according to CBS news.

“There were good reasons for the State law in Skrmetti,” wrote Florida attorney Mohammad Jazil in a court brief. Jazil went on to quote from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ 6-3 majority ruling in Skrmetti, adding: “The State legislature ‘concluded that there is an ongoing debate among medical experts regarding the risks and benefits associated with administering puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence. … ‘The law’s ban on such procedures responds directly to that uncertainty.’”

But attorneys for Kori Dekker and other plaintiffs challenging Florida’s denial of coverage say Skrmetti should have no bearing on their lawsuit centered around insurance coverage, noting that Skrmetti was “fairly limited in its scope and breadth.” The ruling also importantly did not reverse prior Supreme Court decisions affirming transgender rights, most notably the 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which affirmed that employers cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

“Skrmetti did not reject Plaintiffs’ arguments that classifications based on transgender status are subject to heightened scrutiny, as Plaintiffs have argued here,” reads a brief filed by attorney Omar Gonzalez-Pagan.

The Supreme Court also recently ruled that Planned Parenthood cannot challenge South Carolina’s termination of the organization’s Medicaid funding because it provides abortions. Appellate judges also asked how the Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic ruling impacted Florida’s ability to dictate coverage. Jazil argued that it affirms Florida’s ability to regulate Medicaid spending on transgender health care.

“Anything short of some clear and unambiguous rights-creating language prevents a private enforcement suit,” he wrote.

But Gonzalez-Pagan said the state hasn’t made such an argument before.

Moreover, plaintiffs’ attorneys say none of the recent high court decisions mean Florida has can now intentionally discriminate against transgender people by denying health care coverage.

“It is not—and cannot be—the law that transgender people are strangers to our Constitution’s protections against invidious governmental discrimination,” Gonzalez-Pagan’s brief reads. “Skrmetti does not bless nor give license to such discrimination.”