US Supreme Court upholds Tennessee law banning youth transgender care
Washington: The U.S.
Supreme Court
upheld a Republican-backed ban in
Tennessee
on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors on Wednesday in a setback for transgender rights that could bolster efforts by states to defend other measures targeting transgender people.
The court, in a 6-3 ruling powered by its conservative justices, decided that the ban does not violate the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment promise of equal protection, as challengers to the law had argued.
The ruling affirmed a lower court's decision that backed Tennessee's law, which bars medical treatments such as puberty blockers and hormones for people under age 18 experiencing gender dysphoria. The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented.
"Tennessee concluded that there is an ongoing debate among medical experts regarding the risks and benefits associated with administering puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder and gender incongruence. (The law's) ban on such treatments responds directly to that uncertainty," conservative Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority.
Gender dysphoria is the clinical diagnosis for significant distress that can result from an incongruence between a person's gender identity and the sex assigned at birth.
Chase Strangio, a transgender American Civil Liberties lawyer who represented some of the challengers in the case, called the ruling "a devastating loss for transgender people, our families and everyone who cares about the Constitution."
Transgender rights as an issue has become a major flashpoint in the U.S. culture wars. Since returning to office in January, Republican President Donald
Trump
has taken a hardline stance against transgender rights.
Wednesday's ruling will have a broad impact as Tennessee's law is one of 25 such policies enacted by conservative state lawmakers around the United States. U.S. Attorney General
Pam Bondi
, a Trump appointee, in a social media post applauded the ruling and encouraged other states to "follow Tennessee's lead and enact similar legislation to protect our kids."
Various other state restrictions have been enacted in recent years targeting transgender people, from bathroom use to sports participation, some limited to minors but others extending to adults.
Liberal Justice Sonia
Sotomayor
expressed dismay that the Supreme Court largely deferred to the state legislature's policy choices in upholding the ban.
"By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent," Sotomayor wrote, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The Justice Department under Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration had challenged the law. Trump's administration told the Supreme Court in February that Tennessee's ban was not unlawful, reversing the government's position.
Tennessee's law, passed in 2023, aims to encourage minors to "appreciate their sex" by prohibiting healthcare workers from prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to help them live as "a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex."
Providers can be sued and face fines and professional discipline under the law for any violations. The law allows these medications to be used for any other purpose, including to address congenital defects, early-onset puberty or other conditions.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti welcomed Wednesday's ruling, saying that the state legislature had "voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand."
Several plaintiffs - three transgender minors and their parents, as well as a doctor who provides the type of care at issue - sued to challenge the Tennessee law's legality. Biden's Justice Department subsequently intervened in the lawsuit, opposing Tennessee's law.
The challengers argued that the law discriminates against these adolescents based on sex and transgender status, violating the 14th Amendment.
'DIGNITY AND EQUALITY'
Some transgender people gathered at a church near the Supreme Court building and denounced the ruling.
"I am myself trans, and I am very concerned about efforts to erase transgender people from public life," Nicky Sundt said in an interview.
The ACLU's Strangio said, "We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person."
Tennessee has said it is banning "risky, unproven gender-transition interventions," pointing to "scientific uncertainty," tightened restrictions in some European countries and "firsthand accounts of regret and harm" from people who discontinue or reverse treatments.
Medical associations, noting that gender dysphoria is associated with higher rates of suicide, have said gender-affirming care can be life-saving, and that long-term studies show its effectiveness.
Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, a lawyer at the ACLU of Tennessee, said, "This ruling creates a class of people who politicians believe deserve healthcare, and a class of people who do not."
A federal judge blocked the law as likely violating the 14th Amendment but the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed the judge's preliminary injunction.
In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll of Americans, 53% of respondents said they supported "laws that prevent transgender children under the age of 18 from getting medical treatment related to gender identity and gender transitioning."
Another 28% opposed such laws and the rest were unsure or did not answer the question. Among Republicans, support for such laws was at 57% and opposition at 28%. Among Democrats, support was at 23% and opposition at 54%.
The Supreme Court on May 6 permitted Trump's administration to implement his ban on transgender people in the military while legal challenges play out.
Trump has taken actions targeting "gender ideology" and declaring that the U.S. government will recognize two sexes: male and female. Trump issued executive orders curtailing gender-affirming medical treatments for youth under 19 and excluding transgender girls and women from female sports, while rescinding Biden's orders combating discrimination against gay and transgender people.
Will Dunham
)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
SSC Scam in West Bengal: Calcutta HC stays state govt's relief scheme for sacked non-teaching staff
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Friday granted an interim stay , restraining the West Bengal government from implementing a scheme to provide monetary assistance to non-teaching staff ( Group-C and Group-D ) who had lost their jobs following a Supreme Court judgment in April this year. The court has directed the state government to file an affidavit within four weeks and reply, if any, within a fortnight. The Single Judge Bench of Justice Amrita Sinha, who was hearing the case said, "As an interim measure, the State is restrained from giving any effect and/or further effect to the impugned Scheme till September 26, 2025 or until further order." Pointing out that the "conflicting stand of the State does not appear to be proper", the court observed that "If it is the specific stand of the State that the review application is pending, then the State ought to have taken leave of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to give effect to the impugned Scheme. On one hand the State proceeds to publish a new Scheme without obtaining leave of the Court where the matter is alleged to be pending, and on the other, when the said Scheme is challenged before the Court, the State opposes the same citing pendency of the review application. Such a conflicting stand of the State does not appear to be proper." The Group-C and D categories, along with the SSC teachers, had lost their jobs after the Supreme Court order on April 3, cancelling the appointments of 25,752 teaching and non-teaching staff in the cash-for-jobs scam last month. The West Bengal government had announced a stipend to Group-C and Group-D under the West Bengal Livelihood Social Security Interim Scheme, 2025 on a temporary basis, providing ₹25,000 and ₹20,000 for non-teaching staff Group-C and Group-D of the sacked employees respectively, to help their distressed families. They were recruited through the 2016 selection process conducted by the West Bengal School Service Commission. Meanwhile, the High Court's order has sparked a political slugfest . Trinamool Congress spokesperson Kunal Ghosh said, "West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee stood by the employees and their families, who lost their jobs following the apex court order, and took a humanitarian step and decided to provide an interim relief. People can identify who went to court against such a humanitarian stand. Justice Amrita Sinha has given an interim stay today." Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari welcomed the court's decision, asserting that the Chief Minister cannot unilaterally disburse funds from relief accounts.
The Hindu
44 minutes ago
- The Hindu
U.S. judge orders release of pro-Palestinian activist Khalil
A U.S. judge ordered on Friday (June 20, 2025) that Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil be released from immigration custody, a major victory for rights groups that challenged what they called the Trump administration's unlawful targeting of a pro-Palestinian activist. Mr. Khalil, a prominent figure in pro-Palestinian protests against Israel's war on Gaza, was arrested by immigration agents in the lobby of his university residence in Manhattan on March 8. President Donald Trump, a Republican, has called the protests antisemitic and vowed to deport foreign students who took part, and Mr. Khalil became the first target of this policy. After hearing oral arguments from lawyers for Mr. Khalil and for the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz of Newark, New Jersey, ordered DHS to release him from custody at a jail for immigrants in rural Louisiana. Mr. Farbiarz said the government had made no attempt to rebut evidence provided by Mr. Khalil's lawyers that he was not a flight risk nor a danger to public. 'There is at least something to the underlying claim that there is an effort to use the immigration charge here to punish the petitioner (Mr. Khalil),' he said. Mr. Farbiarz said as he ruled from the bench, 'and punishing someone over a civil immigration matter is unconstitutional.' Mr. Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the United States, says he is being punished for his political speech in violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Mr. Khalil condemned antisemitism and racism in interviews with CNN and other news outlets last year. Earlier this month, Mr. Farbiarz had ruled that the government was violating Mr. Khalil's free speech rights by detaining him under a little-used law granting the U.S. secretary of state power to seek deportation of non-citizens whose presence in the country was deemed adverse to U.S. foreign policy interests. But the judge declined on June 13 to order Mr. Khalil's release from a detention centre in Jena, Louisiana, after President Donald Trump's administration said Mr. Khalil was being held on a separate charge that he withheld information from his application for lawful permanent residency. Mr. Khalil's lawyers deny that allegation and say people are rarely detained on such charges. On June 16, they urged Mr. Farbiarz to grant a separate request from their client to be released on bail or be transferred to immigration detention in New Jersey to be closer to his family in New York. At Friday's (June 20, 2025) hearing, Mr. Farbiarz said it was 'highly unusual' for the government to jail an immigrant accused of omissions in his application for U.S. permanent residency. Mr. Khalil, 30, became a U.S. permanent resident last year, and his wife and newborn son are U.S. citizens. Trump administration lawyers wrote in a June 17 filing that Mr. Khalil's request for release should be addressed to the judge overseeing his immigration case, an administrative process over whether he can be deported, rather than to Mr. Farbiarz, who is considering whether Mr. Khalil's March 8 arrest and subsequent detention were constitutional.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Why bigger may not be better for Indian cities
This is true not just in India, but in other countries, too—such as the growth machines in the US and local governments in China, whose officials are often disciplined for corruption. It is understandable, therefore, if state politicians balk at handing these decisions and rents over to local representatives. By contrast, smaller cities with limited rents may stand a chance of being better governed. The GBA model is perhaps an acknowledgment of this tension with representation. It removes local politicians from decision-making and promises better coordination across civic functions. Should this be a model for the future? What if we had a trade-off, with chief ministers controlling the capital city, as in Bengaluru, but implementing the Constitution's 74th amendment—also known as the Nagarpalika Act—in letter and spirit in the other cities of the state? Could this create an open, constructively competitive ecosystem across secondary cities, resulting in a sustainable and vibrant process of urbanisation, as hoped for by the prime minister? Eventually, those in the capital cities may also demand a voice, emboldened by an encirclement of the state capital—not Mao-like from the countryside, but by smaller cities. Not only is urban governance not representative, it is often also performative. Like anti-smog guns, they have limited effectiveness but look modern and give the appearance of action. Delhi has shifted this expenditure to the private sector, but public money, too, is often spent on ineffective infrastructure that has popular support because of its performative aspect. Consider the metro rails in many cities. While in some they are both necessary and effective, they do little to solve the transportation problem in others. But residents feel proud to live in a city with a metro rail, unaware that for that cost they could have mitigated their transport woes with an effective bus system. Finally, the identity crisis. Is the urban local body an artificial administrative construct and should one instead consider the 'metropolitan area' or 'economic region' determined by commuting, spread of contiguous night lights, or just fiat? How can such regions be governed? Indeed, for cities like Delhi, Bengaluru and Chennai, such a region will spill across even state boundaries and trigger a series of other questions. Are investments such as the Namo Bharat regional rapid transit system, which takes less time to reach Meerut from Delhi than it does to reach parts of Gurugram by road, to be seen as guideposts? Is the preferred expansion of Delhi to be along this corridor? If so, should one shift defence operations to Jewar instead, and develop Hindon as a civilian airport? Where will the existing private investments along the Gurugram-Jaipur route fit into such a plan? No such questions are raised. Urbanisation has been reduced to an assorted collection of schemes and projects, scattered pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that no one is interested in putting together. Maybe, each individual answer has become so lucrative that it's too troublesome to even remember there was a question. Partha Mukhopadhyay | Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, and former member, Technical Advisory Committee, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Views are personal)
