Well, we'll have to see. This is the sole "Question Presented" from the government's petition for certiorari which the Supreme Court granted this morning:
"Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow 'a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex' or to treat 'purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,' Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
In other words, the federal government asserts that it already has the only "constitutional amendment" it needs in order to argue that the Tennessee statute violates the U.S. Constitution. See how that works? That's how we got same-sex marriage nationwide, following the Obergefell decision, even though the definition of "marriage," as a civil matter, had always been something left to the individual states to decide.
Following the Civil War, passage of the Fourteenth Amendment completely reworked the previous constitutional order in the United States. Those who don't understand that simple fact of history are NGMI.
We'll just have to wait and see if five or more Justices of the Supreme Court believe that the Fourteenth Amendment works the same sort of magic here as it worked in the Obergefell case. If I had to guess, Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson, and the weirdo Gorsuch, he of the horrendous Bostock decision from 2020, are already on board.
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" This would have to be the most likely reasoning behind the conclusory assertion that the law statute violates the 14th Amendment. However, that reasoning would necessarily assume that other statutes regarding minors were all passed without due process being afforded to the minor. Which is a pretty ridiculous assumption. How many times have your legislatures asked you personally whether you agree or disagree with a proposed statute? Never? Why is that? Because Laws are passed by a legislature after debate and the governor signs them into law. That right there supplies the "due process" in the passage of the law.
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". There is really no equality issue with the statute in question. So this isn't it.
Conclusory assertions in a Question Presented are generally made by Attorneys when they have no qualifying facts or nothing real or concrete to offer legally on the subject and are simply appealing to the emotions of the court. There should be, at the very least, a summary explanation of the reasoning behind the assertion in the short answer portion and in the full argument section