Trans Kids Are Not A Thing
The United States Supreme Court Ruled On Skrmetti Today
Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding the constitutionality of Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which bans gender-affirming medical care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, for transgender minors. The majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the Court’s conservative justices, held that the law satisfies rational basis review, the lowest tier of judicial scrutiny, and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court rejected arguments that the ban constitutes sex discrimination, asserting that it regulates medical treatments based on age and purpose rather than sex or transgender status. This decision marks a significant moment, as it is the first time the Supreme Court has directly addressed the application of the Equal Protection Clause to gender-affirming care for minors, potentially entrenching similar bans in 25 other states.
The case originated from a challenge by three transgender teenagers, their families, and a Memphis-based physician, represented by the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and others, who argued that Tennessee’s law discriminates by allowing the same medical treatments for cisgender minors but prohibiting them for transgender youth. The plaintiffs, supported by the Biden administration, contended that the ban violates equal protection by classifying based on sex and transgender status, warranting heightened scrutiny. However, the majority opinion dismissed parallels to Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which linked gender identity discrimination to sex discrimination under Title VII, stating that equal protection analysis differs and that Tennessee’s law serves a legitimate state interest in regulating experimental medical interventions for minors. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s questioning during oral arguments hinted at sympathy for parental rights, though this issue was not central to the ruling, leaving open the possibility of future challenges on those grounds.
The Court’s liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented, arguing that the law targets transgender minors with discriminatory intent, as evidenced by its plain language and legislative history. Critics, including legal scholars and transgender rights advocates, echoed this view, decrying the ruling as a setback for transgender youth and their families. They argue it prioritizes political motives over medical evidence, which shows gender-affirming care can reduce suicidality and improve mental health outcomes for transgender adolescents. The decision has sparked debate about its broader implications, with some fearing it emboldens further state restrictions on transgender rights, while others see it as a victory for state authority and judicial restraint. As the ruling aligns with a growing trend of state-level bans, it underscores the ongoing legal and cultural battles over transgender healthcare and bodily autonomy.
The Supreme Court’s decision today, in United States v. Skrmetti supported Tennessee’s law, Senate Bill 1, which stops transgender kids under 18 from getting certain medical treatments like puberty blockers or hormone therapy. Some people think this is a good thing because it lets the state decide how to handle medical care for young people, especially when the treatments might be risky or not fully studied. The Court said the law isn’t unfair because it focuses on the type of treatment and the age of the person, not their gender or identity. This ruling gives states the power to make their own rules about these treatments, which supporters say is important for protecting kids from making big decisions they might not fully understand yet.
Supporters also believe the ruling respects parents’ rights to guide their kids’ choices and keeps medical decisions careful and slow. They argue that the law isn’t about picking on anyone but about making sure kids don’t get treatments that could cause problems later, like issues with bones or fertility. The Court’s decision means states can set their own rules instead of having the same rules everywhere, which some people think is fairer because different places have different beliefs. It also encourages more research into these treatments before they’re used widely, which supporters say is a smart move to keep kids safe.
Lastly, some people like the ruling because it pushes back against groups who might be too quick to support these treatments without looking at all the science. There are studies that suggest these treatments could have serious side effects, and some kids might change their minds later. By supporting Tennessee’s law, the Court is saying it’s okay for states to be careful and protect kids while we learn more. People who agree with this think it’s better for elected officials, not judges, to make these tough calls, so communities can decide what’s best for their kids.