Supreme Court ruling on transgender care for minors endorses ‘popular hostility,' undermines parental rights, advocates say

Strangio stressed that the Supreme Court left intact other rulings that 'discrimination against transgender people' is unlawful.
Advertisement
'We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve,' Strangio said.
Separately, two legal advocates for transgender rights said the majority decision intruded on parental rights and bowed to 'popular hostility' toward transgender people.
In a statement, Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights for GLAD Law, and Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, said the high court's 6-3 ruling will harm youth and the families who support them.
'
The Court today failed to do its job,' Levi said. 'When the political system breaks down and legislatures bow to popular hostility, the judiciary must be the Constitution's backbone.'
Advertisement
Levi added that the majority of justices '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.'
Minter said that the decision ran contrary to the court's own precedent and will cause teens and their families 'real harm' in the near future.
'The Court's ruling abandons transgender youth and their families to political attacks,' Minter said. 'It ignored clear discrimination and disregarded its own legal precedent by letting lawmakers target young people for being transgender. Healthcare decisions belong with families, not politicians.'
The legal specialists said that the
They
In a statement, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said the majority on the court had wrongly blocked appropriate medical care being provided to youth with gender dysphoria.
'This ruling denies trans youth access to medically necessary treatment and ignores overwhelming evidence of its life-saving benefits, as well as the medical judgment of doctors and parents,' Campbell said. 'In the face of this cruel setback, I stand with trans youth and their families and remain committed to defending their rights and well-being in Massachusetts and across the country.'
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Advertisement
John R. Ellement can be reached at

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Boston Globe

an hour ago

• Boston Globe

Democrats, and some Republicans, question Trump's unilateral attack

Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The foreign minister of Israel said Friday night that its own bombing campaign had set the Iranian nuclear program back 'at least two or three years,'' Kaine noted on 'Face the Nation' on Sunday. 'There was no urgency that suggested, while diplomatic talks were underway, that the U.S. should take this unilateral action by President Trump's orders yesterday.' Advertisement He disagreed with the assertions of Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who stressed on Sunday shows that the U.S. is not at war with Iran. 'Would we think it was war if Iran bombed a U.S. nuclear facility? Of course we would,' Kaine said. Advertisement A few Republicans are also breaking with the president on the issue. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), who this month introduced a resolution alongside Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California) to require congressional approval before any strike, said Sunday that there had been 'no imminent threat' to the U.S. to justify Trump's unilateral actions against Iran. The U.S. House, Massie noted, was on recess last week. If the situation in Iran was as urgent as the Trump administration has made it seem, the White House should have called lawmakers back to Washington. 'Frankly, we should've debated this,' Massie told CBS's 'Face the Nation.' 'Instead of staying on vacation and doing fundraisers and saying, 'Oh, well, the president's got this under control, we're going to cede our constitutional authority.'' Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) on Saturday also questioned the legality of Trump's attacks, saying on social media, 'it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' As news of the strikes broke Saturday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), who has also opposed U.S. intervention in Iran, posted on X that 'this is not our fight.' Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) called on the Senate to enforce the War Powers Act - the measure that would reaffirm Congress's right to declare war. Schumer urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) to bring the act to a vote on the floor 'immediately.' Schumer said Saturday that confronting Iran's 'ruthless campaign of terror' requires 'strategic clarity.' Trump, he said, must be held accountable by Congress. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' he said. Advertisement But Trump's defenders pointed to other authority in the Constitution, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) pointing to Article II, which allows the president some war powers. 'You can't have 535 commander in chiefs,' Graham said, referring to the number of lawmakers in the House and Senate. 'If you don't like what the president does in terms of war, you can cut off the funding.' Graham, in an interview on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday, argued that while Congress has declared war only a handful of times in U.S. history, and has not since World War II, other presidents have launched military operations without congressional authorization. In 2011, for example, President Barack Obama ordered a military intervention in Libya without lawmakers' approval. In other instances, Congress has given the president the power to order limited military attacks by passing an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AMUF. Some point out that the 2002 authorization, which gave the president the authority to use armed forces against 'the continuing threat posed by Iraq,' is still active, despite efforts by some lawmakers in recent years to rescind the authority. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday that congressional leaders were informed of the attack soon after the U.S. planes left Iranian airspace. Various lawmakers also argued that Trump should not have bombarded Iranian nuclear facilities because U.S. intelligence did not show that the country was at risk of an Iranian attack. 'You don't want to take an action like this without a strong basis - that is, that Iran was imminently pursuing a bomb, and we simply don't have the intelligence or, if we do, it hasn't been shared with the Congress,' Sen. Adam Schiff (D-California) said Sunday on CNN's 'State of the Union.' Advertisement The top two Republicans in Congress - House Speaker Mike Johnson (Louisiana) and Thune - were quick to praise what they said was Trump's decisiveness even though the president made the decision to attack Iran without Congress's input. Both Thune and Johnson were briefed ahead of the strike, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive military operation. Johnson said Trump's attack should serve as a 'clear reminder to our adversaries and allies' that Trump 'means what he says.' 'President Trump has been consistent and clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated. That posture has now been enforced with strength, precision and clarity,' Johnson said. Other lawmakers warned about the strikes snowballing into a prolonged conflict, as Iran has asserted that it reserved 'all options' to act in self-defense. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona), who served in the Marines, warned the nation should not be 'dragged into another endless war in the Middle East.' 'I would know. I saw close friends die next to me serving as a Marine in a high-combat unit in Iraq,' he said in a statement. 'Each of these deaths was needless.' A few House Democrats called for Trump's impeachment over the strikes. 'He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations,' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) wrote on X. 'It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' But Schiff - who served as impeachment manager during Trump's first impeachment trial - told CNN that congressional Republicans have made it clear that they have a 'high bar' for impeachment processes against Trump. Advertisement 'The better remedy, frankly, is - if Republicans will show any backbone whatsoever - to pass a war powers resolution to prevent any further military action,' he said. At least one Senate Democrat, however, openly applauded Trump's actions on Saturday night. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by [Trump],' Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania) said. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Marianna Sotomayor, Amy B Wang and Niha Masih contributed to this report.

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

Republican lawmaker on US bombs against Iran: ‘This is not constitutional'

Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.), one of the most vocal Republicans pushing against American intervention in Iran, posted on the social platform X that President Trump's bombing of Iranian nuclear sites is unconstitutional. Trump announced that American forces struck three Iranian nuclear sites — Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — and that all planes are out of Iranian airspace. 'A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter,' he posted on Truth Social. Massie wanted to introduce a war powers resolution in the House on Tuesday that would prohibit American involvement in Iran. 'This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our constitution,' he posted on X on June 16. The Constitution's Article 1, Section 8 gives the power 'to declare war' to Congress. However, the president also has war powers dictated in Article 2 of the Constitution. Since the president is commander in chief of the armed forces, these two articles are a source of constitutional debate. Also, there has been no declaration of war. Republican Rep. Warren Davidson (Ohio) echoed a similar sentiment to Massie's in a post on X. 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional,' Davidson wrote. 'I look forward to his remarks tonight.' Many members of the GOP support the president's actions against Iran. Sen. John Cornyn (Texas) was one Republican who supported the president on X, saying, 'President Trump made the courageous and correct decision to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat. God Bless the USA. Thank you to our extraordinary military and our indomitable POTUS. This is what leadership on the world stage looks like.' Updated on June 22 at 10:47 a.m. EDT. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

Bipartisan lawmakers to introduce resolution to prohibit US involvement in Iran

A bipartisan group of House members on Tuesday introduced a war powers resolution to prohibit U.S. involvement in Iran as its conflict with Israel intensifies, signaling they may force a vote on the matter. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who is one of the most outspoken libertarian-leaning Republicans advocating against U.S. military intervention abroad, posted on the social media site X on Monday that he would introduce such a resolution on Tuesday. 'This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution,' Massie said. 'I'm introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution tomorrow to prohibit our involvement. I invite all members of Congress to cosponsor this resolution.' Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said he would co-lead the resolution with Massie and that the resolution would be privileged — a designation that can allow the members to circumvent leadership to force a full House vote. 'No war in Iran. It's time for every member to go on record. Are you with the neocons who led us into Iraq or do you stand with the American people?' Khanna said in a post on X. 'I am proud to co-lead this bipartisan War Powers Resolution with Rep. Massie that is privileged and must receive a vote.' The text of the resolution says 'Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran.' It clarifies, though, that the resolution should not be used to disrupt intelligence gathering or 'the sharing of intelligence between the United States and any coalition partner if the President determines such sharing is appropriate and in the national security interests of the United States.' The idea got swift support from some House Democrats. 'Signing on,' replied Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) also said he would sign on. No other Republicans have co-sponsored the resolution yet. President Trump has declined to rule out using the power of the U.S. military to help Israel strike Iran, even as he pushes Iran to negotiate and strike a deal to ensure it would never obtain a nuclear weapon. The U.S. has helped Israel in missile defense, but the Pentagon said Monday night that American forces are maintaining their defensive posture. On Air Force One on Monday night, Trump told reporters: 'We're looking for better than a ceasefire' and was looking for 'a real end,' with Iran 'giving up entirely.' This story was updated at 12:42 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.