U.S. Supreme Court upholds Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors
Demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court in December, when justices heard arguments in a case about Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The court upheld the law Wednesday. (Photo by)
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a potential landmark decision, upheld Tennessee's law prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors, saying children who seek the treatment don't qualify as a protected class.
In United States v. Skrmetti, the high court ruled 6-3 Wednesday to overturn a lower court's finding that the restrictions violate the constitutional rights of children seeking puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria. The U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the district court's decision and sent it to the high court.
The court's three liberal justices dissented, writing that the court had abandoned transgender children and their families to 'political whims.'
Tennessee lawmakers passed the legislation in 2023, leading to a lawsuit argued before the Supreme Court last December. The federal government, under the Biden administration, took up the case for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and three transgender teens, their families and a Memphis doctor who challenged the law, but the Department of Justice under President Donald Trump dropped its opposition.
In its ruling, the court said that the plaintiffs argued that Senate Bill 1 'warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications.' But the court found that neither of the classifications considered, those based on age and medical use, are determined on sex.
'Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor's sex,' the ruling states.
The ruling says the application of the law 'does not turn on sex,' either, because it doesn't prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing it for minors of the opposite sex.
In Pride month, transgender Marylanders reflect on strengths, weaknesses, of state protections
Tennessee's House Republican Caucus issued a statement calling it 'a proud day for the Volunteer State and for all who believe in protecting the innocence and well-being of America's children.'
Tennessee Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, who sponsored the bill, said he is grateful the court ruled that states hold the authority to protect children from 'irreversible medical procedures.'
'The simple message the Supreme Court has sent the world is 'enough is enough,'' Johnson said in a statement.
The Tennessee Equality Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group, expressed dismay at the decision.
'We are profoundly disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to side with the Tennessee legislature's anti-transgender ideology and further erode the rights of transgender children and their families and doctors,' the group said in a statement. 'We are grateful to the plaintiffs, families, and the ACLU for fighting on behalf of more than 1.3 million transgender adults and 300,000 youth across the nation.'
The group said gender-affirming care saves lives and is supported by medical groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association.
The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that the law enforces 'a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex.'
The court found that laws that classify people on the basis of sex require closer scrutiny if they involve 'impermissible stereotypes.' But if the law's classifications aren't covertly or overtly based on sex, heightened review by the court isn't required unless the law is motivated by 'invidious discriminatory purpose.'
'And regardless, the statutory findings on which SB1 is premised do not themselves evince sex-based stereotyping,' the ruling says.
In response to the outcome, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said Tennessee voters' common sense won over 'judicial activism' on a law spurred by an increase in treatment for transgender children.
'I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor [Bill] Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood,' Skrmetti said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., criticized the ruling just moments after it came out when asked about it during a press conference.
'This Supreme Court seems to have forgotten that one of their jobs is to protect individual rights and protect individuals from being discriminated against,' Schumer said. 'It's an awful decision.'
Democrats, he said, are 'going to explore every solution,' though he didn't elaborate.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion that the case 'carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field.'
'The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best,' Roberts wrote.
'Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,' he wrote.
The ACLU said in a statement the decision is based on the record and context of the Tennessee case and doesn't extend to other cases involving transgender status and discrimination.
Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, called the ruling 'devastating,' but despite the setback said transgender people still have healthcare options.
'The court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful,' Strangio said in a statement.
– This article first appeared in the Tennessee Lookout, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
31 minutes ago
- New York Times
Supreme Court Finds Retired Firefighter Cannot Sue for Disability Discrimination
The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a retired Florida firefighter cannot sue her former employer under federal disability rights law for refusing to provide her the health benefits that she had once been promised. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote the opinion in a tangled decision, finding that because the alleged discrimination took place after the firefighter, Karyn Stanley, had retired and left her job, she could not bring a lawsuit claiming that she was discriminated against in the workplace. Upholding a federal appeals court ruling, Justice Gorsuch wrote that the section of the Americans with Disabilities Act at issue in the case did not cover disability discrimination claims by retirees. In order to bring a successful claim, Justice Gorsuch wrote, a plaintiff must show that she held or wanted a job and 'could perform its essential functions' at the time of the alleged disability-based discrimination. In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined, in part, by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the justices had abandoned protections for vulnerable retirees. 'Disabled Americans who have retired from the work force simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination,' Justice Jackson wrote, adding that Congress had 'plainly protected their right to do so' when it drafted the federal disability rights law. Justice Sotomayor, in a separate writing, argued that a majority of the justices appeared in agreement that retirees may be able to bring disability discrimination claims for actions that occurred while they were still employed. Ms. Stanley might have been able to argue that this would apply in her case, too, Justice Sotomayor wrote, but the court had not been asked to weigh in on that question. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Los Angeles Times
35 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump calls for special prosecutor to investigate 2020 election, reviving long-standing grievance
WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden, repeating his baseless claim that the contest was marred by widespread fraud. 'Biden was grossly incompetent, and the 2020 election was a total FRAUD!' Trump said in a social media post in which he also sought to favorably contrast his immigration enforcement approach with that of the former president. 'The evidence is MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING. A Special Prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin!' Trump's post, made as his Republican White House is consumed by a hugely substantial foreign policy decision on whether to get directly involved in the Israel-Iran war, is part of an amped-up effort by him to undermine the legitimacy of Biden's presidency. Earlier this month, Trump directed his administration to investigate Biden's actions as president, alleging aides masked his predecessor's 'cognitive decline.' Biden has dismissed the investigation as 'a mere distraction.' The post also revives a long-running grievance by Trump that the election was stolen even though courts around the country and a Trump attorney general from his first term found no evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome. The Department of Homeland Security's cybersecurity arm pronounced the election 'the most secure in American history.' It was unclear what Trump had in mind when he called for a special prosecutor, but in the event Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi heeds his call, she may face pressure to appoint someone who has already been confirmed by the Senate. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment Friday. The Justice Department in recent years has appointed a succession of special counsels — sometimes, though not always, plucked from outside the agency — to lead investigations into politically sensitive matters, including into conduct by Biden and by Trump. Last year, Trump's personal lawyers launched an aggressive, and successful, challenge to the appointment of Jack Smith, the special counsel assigned to investigate his efforts to undo the 2020 presidential election and his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla. A Trump-appointed judge agreed, ruling that then-Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland had exceeded his bounds by appointing a prosecutor without Senate approval and confirmation, and dismissed the case. That legal team included Todd Blanche, who is now deputy attorney general, as well as Emil Bove, who is Blanche's top deputy but was recently nominated to serve as a judge on a federal appeals court. Tucker writes for the Associated Press.
Engadget
an hour ago
- Engadget
Meta tells the Oversight Board it isn't removing the word 'transgenderism' from its hate speech rules
If anyone was holding out hope that the Oversight Board would provide some kind of check on Meta's rewritten hate speech policy , Meta has just made it clear exactly where it stands. The company published its formal response to the board's criticism, and has declined to commit to any substantive steps to change its rules. The Oversight Board previously criticized Meta's January policy changes as " hastily announced " and wrote that it was "concerned" about the company's decision to use the term "transgenderism" in its rewritten community standards. The company's policy, announced by Mark Zuckerberg in January shortly before President Donald Trump took office, now permits people to claim that LGBTQ people are mentally ill. "We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words such as 'weird,'" the policy now states. In a decision related to two videos depicting public harassment of transgender women, the Oversight Board had sided with Meta on its decision to leave the videos up. But the board recommended that Meta remove the word "transgenderism," from its policy. "For its rules to have legitimacy, Meta must seek to frame its content policies neutrally," the board said. The word has a long association with discrimination and dehumanization, human rights groups have said. Human Rights Campaign noted that the term is "socially and scientifically invalid" and "often wielded by anti-trans activists to delegitimize transgender people." GLAAD has likewise noted that "framing a person's transgender identity as a 'concept' or 'ideology' reduces a core identity to an opinion that can be debated, and therefore justifies dehumanization, discrimination, and real-world violence against transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming people." In its formal response, Meta officials said they were still "assessing feasibility" of removing the word from its policies. The company said it would "consider ways to update the terminology" but added that "achieving clarity and transparency in our public explanations may sometimes require including language considered offensive to some." Meta also declined to commit to the board's three other recommendations in the case. The board had recommended that Meta "identify how the policy and enforcement updates may adversely impact the rights of LGBTQIA+ people, including minors, especially where these populations are at heightened risk," take steps to mitigate those risks and issue regular reports to the board and the public about its work. It had also recommended that Meta allow users to designate other individuals who are able to report bullying and harassment on their behalf, and that the company make improvements to reduce errors when people report bullying and harassment. Meta said it was "assessing feasibility" of these suggestions. Meta's response raises uncomfortable questions about just how much influence the ostensibly independent Oversight Board can have. Zuckerberg said that Meta created the Oversight Board so that it wouldn't have to make consequential policy decisions on its own. Previously, the social network has asked the board for help in major decisions, like Donald Trump's suspension and its rules for celebrities and politicians. But Zuckerberg's decision to roll back hate speech protections and ditch third-party fact checking took the board by surprise. Meta has always been free to ignore the Oversight Board's recommendations, but it has allowed it to influence some of its more controversial policies. That seems like it could be changing, however. Zuckerberg's decision to roll back hate speech protections and ditch third-party fact checking took the board by surprise. And the company now seems to have little interest in engaging with the board's criticism of those changes.
