US supreme court upholds Tennessee ban on youth gender-affirming care
Source: The Guardian
Wed 18 Jun 2025 10.40 EDT
First published on Wed 18 Jun 2025 10.19 EDT
A Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming care for minors can stand, the US supreme court has ruled, a devastating loss for trans rights supporters in a case that could set a precedent for dozens of other lawsuits involving the rights of transgender children.
The case, United States v Skrmetti, was filed last year by three families of trans children and a provider of gender-affirming care. In oral arguments, the plaintiffs as well as the US government, then helmed by Joe Biden argued that Tennessees law constituted sex-based discrimination and thus violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Under Tennessees law, someone assigned female at birth could not be prescribed testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could receive those drugs.
Tennessee, meanwhile, has argued that the ban is necessary to protect children from what it termed experimental medical treatment. During arguments, the conservative justices seemed sympathetic to that concern, although every major medical and mental health organization in the US has found that gender-affirming care can be evidence-based and medically necessary. These groups also oppose political bans on such care.
All six of the supreme courts conservative justices joined in at least part of the decision to uphold the law, although several also wrote their own concurring opinions. In his majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the ruling primarily rested on the justices finding that the law did not violate the equal protection clause, rather than on an ideological opposition to trans rights.
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/18/tennessee-supreme-court-gender-affirming-care-skrmetti
Link to RULING (PDF) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf
Article updated.
Original article -
Last modified on Wed 18 Jun 2025 10.21 EDT
A Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming care for minors can stand, the US supreme court has ruled, a devastating loss for trans rights supporters in a case that could set a precedent for dozens of other lawsuits involving the rights of transgender children.
The case, United States v Skrmetti, was filed last year by three families of trans children and a provider of gender-affirming care. In oral arguments, the plaintiffs - as well as the US government, then helmed by Joe Biden - argued that Tennessee's law constituted sex-based discrimination and thus violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Under Tennessee's law, someone assigned female at birth could not be prescribed testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could receive those drugs.
Tennessee, meanwhile, has argued that the ban is necessary to protect children from what it termed "experimental" medical treatment. During arguments, the conservative justices seemed sympathetic to that concern, although every major medical and mental health organization in the US has found that gender-affirming care can be evidence-based and medically necessary. These groups also oppose political bans on such care.
In recent years, the question of transgender children and their rights has consumed an outsized amount of rightwing political discourse. Since 2021, 26 states have passed bans on gender-affirming care for minors, affecting nearly 40% of trans youth in the US. Twenty-six states have also outlawed trans kids from playing on sports teams that correspond with their gender identity.

sinkingfeeling
(56,001 posts)SCantiGOP
(14,557 posts)Coney-Barrett and Roberts may rule the right way on occasion, but if religion is involved in the case they will go full MAGA.
all 6 of 'em.
Lonestarblue
(12,837 posts)maxsolomon
(36,978 posts)Those are off the table, too, right?
Polybius
(20,606 posts)Last year there were more big ones.
BumRushDaShow
(157,315 posts)still hasn't issued yet.
Polybius
(20,606 posts)I don't see it as big as this one, because there's virtually no chance that anything changes.
WestMichRad
(2,428 posts)And were defunding mental health care and suicide prevention, too.
Real compassionate bunch, them conservatives.
LetMyPeopleVote
(166,964 posts)The court considered whether the ban violates the Constitutions equal protection clause. The answer has nationwide implications.
Supreme Court says Tennesseeâs ban on gender-affirming care for minors is constitutional - MSNBC apple.news/A4yOnadEwRNW...
— Ms. Kevin (@kkalmes31.bsky.social) 2025-06-18T15:21:19.288Z
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-gender-affirming-care-ruling-minors-skrmetti-tennessee-rcna187760
The Republican-appointed majority said Wednesday that the state law isnt subject to heightened scrutiny under the Constitutions equal protection clause. Reasoning that the law doesnt discriminate based on sex, Roberts wrote that it prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers and hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minors sex.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent for the three Democratic appointees that the law plainly discriminated on the basis of sex, and so it deserved greater scrutiny from the court. By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims, she wrote.
The appeal presented national implications for other states with similar laws and for transgender rights more broadly. According to KFF, which tracks health policy, 27 states have laws or policies limiting youth access to gender-affirming care.
The justices took the case at the urging of the federal government during the Biden administration. Its petition noted that states across the country have laws that bar transgender adolescents from receiving certain treatments but dont restrict those same treatments for any other purpose. Those laws classify based on sex and transgender status, the petition argued.
Defending the law, the state said its not unconstitutional discrimination to say that drugs can be prescribed for one reason but not another. The state further argued that its law doesnt classify people based on sex but rather creates two groups: minors seeking drugs for gender transition and minors seeking drugs for other medical purposes.
After Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election, the federal government told the court in February that its Biden-era stance no longer represent the United States position. Still, the government didnt ask the justices to dismiss the appeal, citing several factors including that the courts resolution of the case would affect many pending cases in the lower courts.
LetMyPeopleVote
(166,964 posts)The Trump appointee wrote a concurrence in the Skrmetti case joined only by Thomas. Alito seems to agree with them, too.
Justice Amy Coney Barrettâs stance would further weaken #transgender rights.
— [The Great War & Modern Memory] (@ps9714.bsky.social) 2025-06-18T19:53:43.041Z
The Trump appointee wrote a concurrence in the #Skrmetti case joined only by #Thomas. #Alito seems to agree with them, too.
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/transgender-rights-skrmetti-decision-barrett-rcna213740
Her explanation came in a concurring opinion to Chief Justice John Roberts majority ruling in United States v. Skrmetti. Justices sometimes write concurrences to add their own thoughts, even if those thoughts dont create binding legal opinions on their own. They can lay the groundwork for future majority rulings and influence lower courts in the meantime. And though the Trump appointees concurrence was only joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, if her reasoning is adopted by a majority of the court in the future, it could further weaken transgender rights.
Barrett noted that, while laws are presumed constitutional and are generally upheld so long as they bear a rational relation to a legitimate goal, there are exceptions to the general rule, such as for classifications based on race and sex. When those so-called suspect classes are at issue, the government faces a greater burden to show why its actions are constitutional. In the Skrmetti case, the majority said Tennessee didnt have to shoulder that greater burden because, the majority reasoned, the state law didnt classify people based on sex or transgender status.
Barrett listed multiple reasons why she thinks transgender people dont deserve this suspect class status. Among other things, she suggested that transgender people have not sufficiently faced a history of legal discrimination like people have faced based on race or sex......
So, while the question of what general legal protections transgender people have wasnt the main issue in the Skrmetti case, at least three justices appear prepared to rule against them on that broader question, which could make it even more challenging for them to press legal claims in all sorts of cases going forward.
I know that some MAGA types are mad at Barrett for not rubberstamping rulings for trump. This ruling shows why the Federalist Society picked this very conservative asshole to be on the SCOTUS. She may not rubberstamp rulings for trump but she is still an asshole