Sotomayor voices ‘sadness' in reading gender-affirming care dissent
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court's most senior liberal justice, read her dissent aloud from the bench Wednesday to stress her forceful disagreement with the court effectively greenlighting gender-affirming care bans across the country.
The justices reserve reading their dissents aloud for only a handful of cases, and Sotomayor was the first this term to do so. She spoke for nearly 15 minutes.
'The majority subjects a law that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere rational-basis review,' Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
'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.
The Supreme Court's six conservative justices all voted Wednesday to uphold Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors, rejecting the Biden administration's challenge that it amounted to unconstitutional sex discrimination.
The decision stands to impact similar laws passed in roughly half the country, which have also come under legal challenges.
The court's three Democratic-appointed justices all said the law's sex-based lines compelled a more exacting standard, known as heightened scrutiny, to determine whether the statute can survive.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, applied a more lenient test that only asks whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
'That marks the first time in 50 years that this Court has applied such deferential review, normally employed to assess run-of-the-mill economic regulations, to legislation that explicitly differentiates on the basis of sex,' Sotomayor wrote. 'As a result, the Court never even asks whether Tennessee's sex-based classification imposes the sort of invidious discrimination that The Equal Protection Clause prohibits.'
The three justices also agreed the law must face the heightened test because it discriminates against transgender people. Sotomayor wrote that transgender Americans lack the political power to vindicate their interests before the legislatures passing the care bans.
'In refusing to say as much, the Court today renders transgender Americans doubly vulnerable to state-sanctioned discrimination,' Sotomayor wrote.
But while Sotomayor and Jackson went on to question whether Tennessee's law would survive under their standard, Kagan didn't join that part of the dissent. She said she would've left it for the lower courts to figure out.
'The record evidence here is extensive, complex, and disputed, and the Court of Appeals (because it applied only rational-basis review) never addressed the relevant issues,' Kagan wrote.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
29 minutes ago
- Politico
The gerontocracy gets a big test
SENIOR MOMENT — Keep an eye on the internal election in the House Democratic Caucus next week — it will have far bigger stakes than it might seem. The race to be the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has important near-term political ramifications since the victor will serve as the foil to Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) on a panel that has seemed as interested in investigating former President Joe Biden's age as current President Donald Trump. But there are also significant institutional implications. The contest will be a test of the future of the seniority system which has been a key feature of how Congress has governed itself for centuries. There are four Democratic contenders, two congressional veterans in their 70s and two congressional newcomers in their 40s. The old guard are 70-year-old Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) was first elected to Congress in 2001 and 76-year-old Rep Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.) who has spent 15 years on Capitol Hill in two stints nearly 25 years apart. The upstarts are 47-year-old Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and 44-year-old Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), both of whom were first elected in 2023. The candidates will first try to make their case Monday to the House Democrats' Steering Committee, which will make a recommendation for the full caucus to ratify on Tuesday. At a time when, particularly among Democrats, there is a circular firing squad over issues surrounding age in the aftermath of Biden's presidency and failed reelection campaign, the idea of a system that benefits the old over the young, has drawn scorn in some quarters. After all, some progressives are still embittered over the fact that 74-year-old Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) beat out 35-year-old Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) for this position at the end of the last Congress, shortly after Connolly was diagnosed with cancer. Connolly, who was first elected in 2008, had a positive prognosis at the time. However, within months the cancer proved untreatable and he stepped down as the top Democrat on the committee in March. The Virginia Democrat died in May. Seniority, the concept that the longest tenured member of a committee should be its chair, is not written in any formal congressional rules. It's as much a custom whose strength has ebbed and flowed. It only rigidly determined who became a committee chair for a little over half a century —- the period from the overthrow of the iron fisted Speaker Joe Cannon in 1911 to the post Watergate era in 1974, when rebellious House Democrats ousted three veteran committee chairmen, the youngest of whom was 73. Since then, the seniority system has held increasingly less sway on Capitol Hill. Republicans have imposed term limits for committee chairman whereas Democrats have proved increasingly willing to oust older chairmen who are viewed as enfeebled or simply inadequate. Yet the notion of seniority still has a certain persuasive power in internal debates. As former Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-N.Y.) argued in an essay 60 years ago (written when he had served a mere 38 years in the House and was in his sixth year as chair of the House Judiciary Committee) argued 'the seniority criterion for selecting committee chairmen has the added virtue of being objective. It automatically eliminates the intrigues, deals, and compromises that characterize election campaigns.' It does, though, inherently favor those members in safe seats who face little opposition in primaries or general elections. In the mid 20th century, this made seniority a bugaboo among those reformers in the Democratic Party who wanted to push progressive legislation, particularly on civil rights. After all, the Democrats most likely to be easily reelected year after year were conservative white southerners. Now though, in the third decade of the 21st century, those members of the caucus who most benefit from it are members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who are often in safe districts, many of which are protected from gerrymandering as well by the Voting Rights Act. The question is whether seniority's appeal will continue to dwindle on Capitol Hill next week in the vote. It wouldn't be the first time that Democrats have rejected the committee's most senior member to lead it —- Lynch has already been passed over twice and is considered likely to be rejected yet again. But, of the two top contenders, the difference between passing over Lynch for a veteran like Mfume or newcomers like Garcia and Crockett is significant. House Democrats have elected a number of less tenured members of their conference to top committee slots in recent years but going with Garcia or Crockett, who are only in their second terms in Congress, would set a new benchmark for doing it and further mark the transformation in how congressional power is accumulated and held. After all, for generations, the surest path to power on Capitol Hill was a slow and steady apprenticeship before finally wielding a gavel. More and more, that's not the case. Instead, as Congress has become an increasingly enervated legislative body, the value of playing 'the inside game' has diminished. Seniority's value was that it served as the most objective available proxy to determine legislative gravitas. It was never exact but it was better than the alternatives. No alternative has since emerged for the imperfect system of simply relying on length of tenure. In a social media age, legislative gravitas isn't the only thing that matters anymore — cable news hits and viral posts, both of which are valuable currencies today, can be measured far more precisely. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@ Or contact tonight's author at bjacobs@ or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @Bencjacobs. What'd I Miss? — Judge orders pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil released from jail: A federal judge today ordered pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil released from immigration detention, more than three months after the Trump administration jailed him while attempting to deport him on foreign policy grounds. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz determined that Khalil isn't a flight risk or a danger to the community, and lightly rebuked the government, calling its effort to continue seeking his detention 'highly, highly unusual.' — Parliamentarian nixes key pieces of Tim Scott's megabill proposal: The Senate parliamentarian ruled today that several key provisions in Banking Chair Tim Scott's proposed contribution to the GOP's 'big beautiful bill' violate the upper chamber's rules for the budget reconciliation process, according to Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley's office. Scott's proposals to zero out funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, slash some Federal Reserve employees' pay, cut Treasury's Office of Financial Research and dissolve the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board are all ineligible to be included in a simple-majority budget reconciliation bill. — Majority of staff axed at Voice of America: The Trump administration today sent out termination notices to hundreds of employees at Voice of America. Included in that group are employees working for the network's Persian-language service who were called back from administrative leave just last week in the wake of Israel's attack on Iran, according to two people familiar with the decision. The move — which makes official what has long been expected since hundreds of contract employees got termination notices in early May — is a part of the Trump administration's sweeping target to downsize the government and remake America's role in the global order. — Supreme Court revives lawsuits seeking to hold Palestine Liberation Organization liable for terrorist attacks: The Supreme Court has revived lawsuits against the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority over terrorist attacks that killed and injured Americans. The justices today unanimously overturned a ruling from a federal appeals court that Congress violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process by enacting a 2019 law that expanded the jurisdiction of U.S. courts to hear terrorism-related suits against the PLO and PA. AROUND THE WORLD IN BREACH — Israel's actions in Gaza may have violated the terms of the country's agreement with the EU, the bloc's diplomatic corps found. 'On the basis of the assessments made by the independent international institutions … there are indications that Israel would be in breach of its human rights obligations under Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement,' the European External Action Service (EEAS) concluded, according to a leaked document seen by POLITICO. The EU's top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, was asked to lead a review after more than a dozen countries requested the European Commission look into the potential political and legal ramifications of the conflict. The EU-Israel Association Agreement establishes close relations between the bloc and the Middle Eastern nation, governing cooperation in key industries and bilateral trade. While tearing up the pact entirely would require unanimous support from all 27 EU member countries, four officials confirmed to POLITICO that interim measures, such as paring back trade ties, are being considered and could be passed by a qualified majority of countries. CRISIS MANAGEMENT — Ursula von der Leyen is facing the biggest challenge yet to her authority as European Commission president after political groups threatened to withdraw support over her decision to cancel climate-friendly legislation. 'We are on the brink of an institutional crisis,' Valérie Hayer, chair of the liberal Renew Europe group, told POLITICO. Von der Leyen is from the center-right European People's Party. Although it's the biggest group in the European Parliament, it relies on votes from the Socialists and liberals to get its way. The Commission's ability to introduce EU laws risks being blocked if the groups refuse to play ball. The Commission announced today that it was pulling the Green Claims directive ― a landmark law that would hold companies accountable for unfounded environmental claims ― even though it has already passed through many stages of the legislative process. That move, which the EPP group in Parliament requested the Commission make on Wednesday, was applauded by the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists and the far-right Patriots for Europe, the group of France's Marine Le Pen and Hungary's Victor Orbán. Nightly Number RADAR SWEEP TRASH OR TREASURE — For centuries, Londoners have combed the banks of the River Thames in search of ancient ceramics and medieval accessories. Known as mudlarkers, they are now documenting their hunts on TikTok. The activity, once done by just a few hobbyists, gained popularity during the pandemic as new enthusiasts began sharing their finds on social media. Now, longtime mudlarkers say they feel pushed out. The permit waitlist now sits at over 10,000 people for just 4,000 spots. Elizabeth Anne Brown reports on the hobby and its future for National Geographic. Parting Image Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.
The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge says it's too late to order recovery of Trump officials' Signal messages
A federal judge on Friday said it's too late to order the recovery of already-deleted Signal messages from key members of President Trump's Cabinet, largely rejecting a request from an oversight group to get involved. But U.S. District Judge James Boasberg did order acting National Archivist and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to ask Attorney General Pam Bondi to take steps to preserve Signal chats across the government at risk of being deleted. 'At this juncture, the Court largely denies American Oversight's slew of requests and will instead grant only narrower relief,' the judge wrote. American Oversight, a group that regularly files records lawsuits against the federal government, sued five top Trump officials following revelations that they discussed a military strike in a group chat on the encrypted messaging app — and unintentionally included a journalist. They had asked the judge to order the officials to preserve all Signal communications and recover chats that had been deleted. However, Boasberg noted, American Oversight's own 'emphatically stated' representation to the court was that destroyed Signal messages cannot be recovered and to issue the directive would be fruitless. The challengers' 'hardline stance' that deleted Signal messages are gone for good overshadows their later efforts to suggest recovering the messages might be possible, especially if the nation's intelligence agencies were to try. 'Although Plaintiff tries to walk that stance back — claiming in its Reply that recovery is feasible '[r]egardless of Signal's statement of policy,' — that belated assertion wilts in the face of its repeated claims to the contrary in both its Amended Complaint and Motion,' Boasberg said. Though Boasberg ordered Rubio to ask Bondi to act on the messages 'not yet gone with the wind,' he also noted that the attorney general has the discretion to ignore that request. Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic's editor-in-chief, revealed the Signal group chat after he was unintentionally added to it by now-former national security adviser Michael Waltz. The Trump officials used the encrypted chat to discuss a strike on the Houthis in Yemen. More than a dozen top officials, like Vice President Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, were part of the chat. However, only five were sued: Hegseth, Rubio, CIA director John Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. The Hill requested comment from American Oversight.
San Francisco Chronicle
38 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
North Carolina Gov. Stein vetoes his first bills. They are on concealed carry and immigration
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein vetoed his first bills on Friday, blocking for now Republican legislation that would let adults carry concealed handguns without a permit and make state agencies and local sheriffs more active in Trump administration's immigration crackdown. Stein, who took office in January, issued his formal objections to three measures backed by the GOP-controlled General Assembly presented to him last week. The former attorney general also had the option to sign any of them into law, or let them become law if he hadn't acted on the legislation soon. The vetoed measures now return to the legislature, where Republicans are one House seat shy of holding a veto-proof majority. Its leaders will decide whether to attempt overrides as early as next week. Voting so far followed party lines for one of the immigration measures, which in part would direct heads of several state law enforcement agencies, like the State Highway Patrol and State Bureau of Investigation, to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But one House Democrat ended up voting for the other immigration bill that Stein vetoed. It toughens a 2024 law that required sheriffs to help federal agents seeking criminal defendants. GOP prospects for enacting the permitless concealed gun measure, a longtime aspiration for gun-rights advocates, appear dimmer, because two House Republicans voted against the bill and 10 others were absent. Gun bill would let 18-year-olds carry concealed handgun In one veto message, Stein said the gun legislation, which would allow eligible people at least 18 years old to carry a concealed handgun, "makes North Carolinians less safe and undermines responsible gun ownership." Democratic lawmakers argued the same during legislative debate. Current law requires a concealed weapons holder to be at least 21 to obtain a permit. The person must submit an application to the local sheriff, pass a firearms safety training course and cannot 'suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun" to obtain the permit. No safety training would be required if getting a permit is no longer necessary. 'Authorizing teenagers to carry a concealed weapon with no training whatsoever is dangerous,' Stein wrote. Gun-control groups praised the veto. Conservative advocates for the bill say removing the permit requirement would strengthen the safety of law-abiding citizens. 'Law-abiding North Carolinians shouldn't have to jump through hoops to effectively exercise their Second Amendment rights," Senate leader Phil Berger said in a press release criticizing the veto and planning for an override vote in his chamber. Permitless carry is already lawful in 29 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. North Carolina would also be one of the last states in the Southeast to implement that legislation. Immigration bills focus on state agencies, sheriffs One vetoed immigration bill would require four state law enforcement agencies to officially participate in the 287(g) program, which trains officers to interrogate defendants and determine their immigration status. An executive order by President Donald Trump urged his administration to maximize the use of 287(g) agreements. Stein wrote Friday the bill takes officers away from existing state duties at a time when law enforcement is already stretched thin. The measure also would direct state agencies to ensure noncitizens don't access certain state-funded benefits. But Stein said that people without lawful immigration status already can't receive them. The other vetoed bill attempts to expand a 2024 law — enacted over then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's veto — that directed jails to hold temporarily certain defendants whom ICE believe are in the country illegally, allowing time for immigration agents to pick them up. The vetoed bill would expand the list of crimes that a defendant is charged with that would require the jail administrator to attempt to determine the defendant's legal status. A jail also would have to tell ICE promptly that it is holding someone and essentially extends the time agents have to pick up the person. Stein said Friday while he supports sheriffs contacting federal immigration agents about defendants charged with dangerous crimes that they are holding, the law is unconstitutional because it directs sheriffs to keep defendants behind bars 48 hours beyond when they otherwise could be released for a suspected immigration violation. With the veto of this bill, House Speaker Destin Hall said, Stein sided with the 'most radical elements of his party's base over the safety and security of North Carolinians.' Latino advocates and other bill opponents had urged Stein to veto both immigration measures. They say the legislation would cause Hispanic residents to feel intimidated and fear law enforcement.
