Justice Sotomayor Says Supreme Court Just Countered 'Decades' of Precedent
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the Supreme Court countered "decades" of legal precedent in its decision to uphold a Tennessee law banning certain medical treatments for transgender youth.
The Court ruled 6-3 to uphold the legislation on Wednesday, with liberal Justices Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan dissenting.
The Court's majority opinion, delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, states that some medical treatments are "uniquely bound up in sex."
"In the medical context, the mere use of sex-based language does not sweep a statute within the reach of heightened scrutiny," Roberts wrote. Sotomayor challenged this finding in her dissent.
"Fashioning a medical-context-only exception also runs counter to decades of equal protection precedents," Sotomayor said.
She added that the Court has previously held that "every sex-based distinction does warrant intermediate scrutiny."
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor speaks at an event in Miami, Florida, on February 11, 2025.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor speaks at an event in Miami, Florida, on February 11, 2025.
AP Photo/Lynne Sladky
Why It Matters
The legislation at the center of this case, Tennessee's Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity, Senate Bill 1, was enacted in 2023. The law prohibits healthcare providers from prescribing, administering, or dispensing puberty blockers or hormones to minors. Three transgender minors, their parents and a doctor challenged the law.
The Supreme Court's ruling comes amid debates over the rights of transgender individuals under the law at both the state and federal levels.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 20, declaring that sex is "not changeable" and shall refer to an individual's biological classification as male or female.
What To Know
Roberts called the plaintiff's allegations of stereotyping on the basis of sex "misplaced."
"SB1 does not exclude any individual from medical treatments on the basis of transgender status but rather removes one set of diagnoses—gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence—from the range of treatable conditions," Roberts said.
Sotomayor said sex determines who has access to the medications restricted under Tennessee's law.
"Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a spade," Sotomayor said. "Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it."
The decision was met with criticism from legal rights and advocacy groups, including the Human Rights Campaign. The group's president, Kelley Robinson, called the ruling a "devastating blow to transgender youth and the families who love them" in a statement sent to Newsweek.
"This Court chose to allow politicians to interfere in medical decisions that should be made by doctors, patients, and families—a cruel betrayal of the children who needed them to stand up for justice when it mattered most," Robinson said.
What People Are Saying
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent: "The Court's willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent."
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, in the Court's majority opinion: "This 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."
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson, in a statement sent to Newsweek: "As parents, advocates, and community leaders, we know that our fight doesn't end in courtrooms—it lives in our communities, our hearts, and our unwavering commitment to each other. Still, we will not be deterred."
GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi told Newsweek: "The Court today failed to do its job. When the political system breaks down and legislatures bow to popular hostility, the judiciary must be the Constitution's backbone. Instead, it chose to look away, abandoning both vulnerable children and the parents who love them. No parent should be forced to watch their child suffer while proven medical care sits beyond their reach because of politics."
What Happens Next
The Court's ruling affirmed the decision made by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision upholds Tennessee's law banning puberty blockers and hormones among minors.
Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasts 'narrow-minded' judging on SCOTUS: ANALYSIS
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson unloaded on her Supreme Court colleagues Friday in a series of sharp dissents, castigating what she called a "pure textualism" approach to interpreting laws, which she said had become a pretext for securing their desired outcomes, and implying the conservative justices have strayed from their oath by showing favoritism to "moneyed interests." The attack on the court's conservative majority by the junior justice and member of the liberal wing is notably pointed and aggressive but stopped short of getting personal. It laid bare the stark divisions on the court and pent-up frustration in the minority over what Jackson described as inconsistent and unfair application of precedent by those in power. Jackson took particular aim at Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority opinion in a case brought by a retired Florida firefighter with Parkinson's disease who had tried to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act after her former employer, the City of Sanford, canceled extended health insurance coverage for retirees who left the force before serving 25 years because of a disability. MORE: Supreme Court upholds a state law banning some gender-affirming care for transgenders kids Gorsuch wrote that the landmark law only protects "qualified individuals" and that retirees don't count. The ADA defines the qualified class as those who "can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." "This court has long recognized that the textual limitations upon a law's scope must be understood as no less a part of its purpose than its substantive authorizations," Gorsuch concluded in his opinion in Stanley v. City of Sanford. It was joined by all the court's conservatives and liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Jackson fired back, accusing her colleagues of reaching a "stingy outcome" and willfully ignoring the "clear design of the ADA to render a ruling that plainly counteracts what Congress meant to -- and did -- accomplish" with the law. She said they had "run in a series of textualist circles" and that the majority "closes its eyes to context, enactment history and the legislature's goals." "I cannot abide that narrow-minded approach," she wrote. MORE: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says 'whole truth' about Black history must be taught Gorsuch retorted that Jackson was simply complaining textualism didn't get her the outcome she wanted, prompting Jackson to take the rare step of using a lengthy footnote to accuse her colleague of the same. Saying the majority has a "unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role," Jackson said her colleagues' "refusal" to consider Congress' intent behind the ADA "turns the interpretative task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences." "By 'finding' answers in ambiguous text," she wrote, "and not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined parts of Jackson's dissent, explicitly did not sign-on to the footnote. Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the liberal wing, joined the conservative majority in all three cases in which Jackson dissented, but she did not explain her views. In 2015, Kagan famously said, "we're all textualists now" of the court, but years later disavowed that approach over alleged abuse by conservative jurists. MORE: Supreme Court allows Trump to begin removing 500,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela In two other cases decided Friday, Jackson accused her colleagues of distorting the law to benefit major American businesses and in so doing "erode the public trust." She dissented from Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion siding with major tobacco manufacturer, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., that gives retailers the ability to sue the Food and Drug Administration over the denial of new product applications for e-cigarettes. Barrett concluded that a federal law meant to regulate the manufacture and distribution of new tobacco products also allows retailers who would sell the products to seek judicial review of an adverse FDA decision. Jackson blasted the conclusion as "illogical" again taking her colleagues to task for not sufficiently considering Congress' intent or longstanding precedent. "Every available indictor reveals that Congress intended to permit manufacturers -- not retailers -- to challenge the denial," she wrote. MORE: Justice Stephen Breyer's blunt message to Supreme Court conservatives: 'Slow down' Of the court's 7-2 decision by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, giving gasoline producers the right to sue California over limits on emission-producing cars, Jackson said her colleagues were favoring the fuel industry over "less powerful plaintiffs." "This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens," she wrote. Jackson argued that the case should have been mooted, since the Trump administration withdrew EPA approval for California's emissions standards thereby eliminating any alleged harm to the auto and fuel industry. MORE: Supreme Court limits environmental impact studies, expediting infrastructure projects "Those of us who are privileged to work inside the Court must not lose sight of this institution's unique mission and responsibility: to rule without fear or favor," she wrote, admonishing her colleagues. The court is next scheduled to convene Thursday, June 26, to release another round of opinions in cases argued this term. Decisions are expected in a dispute over online age verification for adult websites, parental opt-out rights for kids in public schools exposed to LGBTQ themes, and, the scope of nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump's second-term policies.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Iran Nominates Trump for Nobel Peace Prize As He Threatens Neighboring Iran
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Pakistan has announced its nomination of President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, crediting him with averting a major conflict in South Asia at a time when the U.S. leader is contemplating intervention in the Middle East. "The Government of Pakistan has decided to formally recommend President Donald J. Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, in recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis," the Pakistani government's official X, formerly Twitter, account wrote in a post Friday. The nomination comes just two days after Trump met with Pakistani Army Chief of Staff Field Marshall Asim Munir at the White House. In addition to the four-day conflict between India and Pakistan, sparked by a deadly Islamist militant attack in India-administered Kashmir, one of the items discussed by the two men on Wednesday was the deepening conflict between Israel and Iran. The two longtime foes have traded direct strikes against one another since Israel launched a massive series of attacks against Iran last week, alleging that Tehran was secretly moving toward producing a nuclear weapon, a claim denied by Iranian officials. Pakistan, which neighbors Iran, has repeatedly condemned Israel over its operations. Yet Trump, whose administration had entered into talks with Iran aimed at reaching an agreement on the country's nuclear program, has backed the Israeli offensive and has openly contemplated joining the Israeli campaign through strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. A statement released Thursday by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, a day after Trump's meeting with Munir, indicated that Trump was still holding out for a potential diplomatic breakthrough. "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks," Trump said, according to Leavitt. Reached for comment by Newsweek, the Pakistani Mission to the United Nations expressed hope that Trump would once again oversee a peaceful resolution. "As stated by us in the Security Council, Pakistan favours a peaceful resolution to the crisis through dialogue and diplomacy," the Pakistani Mission said. "We hope that the situation will not escalate militarily, and tensions will be diffused amicably through diplomatic engagement." "President Trump has distinguished himself as a peacemaker," the Mission added. "His statesmanship and successful diplomatic intervention with Pakistan and India played a crucial role in bringing about a ceasefire between the two countries in May 2025." The Mission stated, "we remain hopeful that his earnest efforts will continue to contribute towards regional and global stability, particularly in the context of ongoing crises in the Middle East, including the humanitarian tragedy unfolding in Gaza and the deteriorating escalation involving Iran." Newsweek has reached out to the White House for comment via email Friday. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the press upon arrival at Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, New Jersey, on June 20, 2025. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the press upon arrival at Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, New Jersey, on June 20, 2025. MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images Ties Between Two Islamic Republics Iran and Pakistan have a complex relationship, marked by both a long history of cooperation as well as tensions on key issues. Pakistan is suspected to have played a role in aiding Iran's nuclear efforts, dating back at least to the 1990s via nuclear physicist Abdul Qadeer Khan, considered to be the chief architect of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. Khan, who died in October 2021, drew controversy in 2004 after he admitted to transferring nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, though he claimed he did so without the knowledge of the Pakistani government. While Iranian officials have never officially acknowledged receiving components related to their country's nuclear program from Khan specifically, reports issued by the CIA, the International Atomic Energy Agency and other agencies have drawn connections between the two nation's nuclear prowess. Islamabad and Tehran also have established mechanisms of security cooperation, especially aimed at battling an array of militant groups, including Baloch separatist groups, that operate on both sides of their shared border. Yet mutual distrust has at times prevailed, with both sides occasionally accusing one another of failing to uphold their side of security commitments. This tension boiled over in January 2024 when Iran, having suffered the worst militant attack in its history perpetrated by the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), conducted surprise missile strikes against alleged positions tied to Baloch Islamist militant group Jaish ul-Adl in Pakistan's Balochistan province, as well as separate strikes against insurgents in Syria and an alleged Israeli spy base in northern Iraq. Pakistan reacted with fury to the strikes and conducted retaliatory air and artillery strikes against positions tied to the Balochistan Liberation Army and Balochistan Liberation Front separatist groups in Iran's Sistan and Baluchestan province. Officials from both sides quickly agreed to de-escalate after the clash. Pakistani students walk across the Pakistan-Iran border after returning from Iran in Taftan, in Balochistan province, on June 19, 2025, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. Pakistani students walk across the Pakistan-Iran border after returning from Iran in Taftan, in Balochistan province, on June 19, 2025, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. BANARAS KHAN/AFP/Getty Images Pakistan-Israel Tensions Intensify The Iran-Pakistan flare-up occurred as Tehran became increasingly embroiled in a separate conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist Hamas movement. After Hamas conducted a surprise attack against Israel in October 2023, the group was backed in the ensuing war with Israel by Iran and its Axis of Resistance coalition of non-state actors in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. The Axis of Resistance also counts allies from Pakistan, namely the Zainebiyoun Brigade, which consists of Shiite Muslim fighters predominantly involved in the fight against ISIS in Syria. Pakistan, the world's only Muslim nuclear weapons power, has repeatedly condemned Israel, with which Islamabad has never established diplomatic ties, over its campaigns in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. Israel is also widely believed to have nuclear weapons. Pakistani calls for de-escalation have ramped up since Israel's direct attacks on Iran. On Tuesday, Pakistan joined 19 other Muslim nations, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, in voicing a "categorial rejection" of Israel's aerial offensive against Iran and calling for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. The Israeli strikes have largely targeted sites and personnel tied to Iran's armed forces and nuclear facilities, though activists report a mounting civilian death toll. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) claim to have largely destroyed Iran's air defense network and to have made strides in depleting the country's missile capabilities, even as Iranian strikes continue to hit Israel. As of Thursday, however, Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesperson Shafqat Ali Khan said that Iran has not "asked us for any kind of military assistance so far." "Pakistan's position on Iran is clear and transparent," Khan told reporters. "We provide full moral support to Iran; we strongly condemn the aggression against Iran." A Shiite Muslim girl carrying placards shouts anti-Israel slogans during a protest rally in Lahore, Pakistan, on June 20, 2025, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. A Shiite Muslim girl carrying placards shouts anti-Israel slogans during a protest rally in Lahore, Pakistan, on June 20, 2025, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. ARIF ALI/AFP/Getty Images Trump's India-Pakistan Stance Pakistan's nomination of Trump serves as further evidence of potential warming of ties between Islamabad and Washington under the current administration, and at a potentially critical moment. Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in receiving a Nobel Peace Prize over the years, including in relation to his first administration's efforts to reach a nuclear deal with North Korea and his role in overseeing the 2020 Abraham Accords through which the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco normalized ties with Israel. When Trump delivered the first address of his second administration to a joint session of Congress in March, he credited Pakistan with helping the U.S. capture the suspected mastermind of a deadly attack conducted by ISIS against U.S. troops and Afghan civilians amid the U.S. withdrawal of Afghanistan in August 2021. Trump is also known for seeking a stronger relationship with India, having empowered the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue coalition between the countries as well as Australia and Japan during his first administration. Trump has met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi three times throughout his two terms, most recently in February. Vice President JD Vance also happened to be visiting India when Islamist militants killed 27 people in the town of Pahalgam, setting off the most serious India-Pakistan crisis in years. Amid the tensions, however, Trump appeared to leverage his ties with both sides in order to intervene diplomatically. The extent of his role remains disputed by Modi, who told Trump that India was not interested in third-party mediation over the Kashmir dispute during their call Tuesday, according to Indian External Affairs Minister Vikram Misri. Modi told reporters Friday that he "politely declined" an offer from Trump to meet at the White House this past week, citing a preexisting commitment. Speaking Friday in New Jersey, Trump spoke optimistically about the potential to strike trade deals with India and Pakistan and hailed his efforts to promote peace between the rivals and mediate on other conflicts, including between Iran and Israel. "As you know, we did a very great job with India and Pakistan," Trump said. "And we had India in, it looks like we're going to be making a trade deal with India, and we had Pakistan in, it looks like we're going to be making a trade deal with Pakistan. And this beautiful thing to watch." "Serbia Kosovo, likewise, they've been fighting for years, and as you know, we brought that one to a conclusion," he added. "And now we have a couple of big ones, we have Russia-Ukraine, we're making a little bit of progress, and we have Israel. And nobody really knows what that one is all about. We're going to find out pretty soon, I guess."
San Francisco Chronicle
4 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court delivers another blow to California's imperiled emissions standards
The Supreme Court reinstated legal challenges by oil and gas companies Friday to California's strict emissions standards for motor vehicles, standards that the Trump administration is likely to halt on its own in the near future. Federal law allows California to set tighter limits on auto emissions than the national standard, and since 1990 has allowed other states to adopt California's rules, an option taken by 17 states and the District of Columbia. But fuel companies affected by the increasing use of electric vehicles contend the state's standards are too restrictive and have sued to overturn them. Lower federal courts ruled that companies had failed to show they were being harmed by the standards, and therefore lacked legal standing to sue, because electric car sales are increasing for other reasons. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court.' But dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said lawyers in the case had told the court that the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump, was about to withdraw its approval of California's waiver from nationwide standards, 'which will put an end to California's emissions program.' The EPA took that action during Trump's first administration, which was reversed under President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump would prevent California from banning sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles in 2035, a law the state has challenged in court. The Supreme Court 'is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' and Friday's ruling 'will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,' said Jackson, a Biden appointee. In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court should have returned the case to a lower court to await the EPA's action. Kavanaugh, however, said fuel companies affected by California's current standards could seek to prove in court that they were arbitrary and unlawful. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said it was not a full-scale rejection of the state's emissions standards. 'This ruling does not change California's Advanced Clean Cars rulemaking, nor does it dispute what data has shown to be true: vehicle emissions are a huge source of pollution with grave health impacts, consumer adoption of zero emission vehicles continues to rise, and global auto manufacturers are committed to an electric future,' she said in a statement. But attorney Brett Skorup of the libertarian Cato Institute said the ruling was 'a welcome rebuke to judicial gatekeeping' and affirmed that 'predictable economic harms from government regulation' entitle 'injured parties (to) have their day in court.' The case is Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, No. 24-7.
