Justice Thomas delights conservatives in shunning gender-affirming care ‘experts'
Justice Clarence Thomas's shunning of 'experts' defending gender-affirming care is delighting conservatives in their assault on liberal influence in academics and medicine, a mission now reaching the courts.
The conservative justice argued in a solo opinion concurring with the court's 6-3 decision to uphold Tennessee's transgender youth care ban that so-called experts have jumped on the bandwagon to embrace such treatment while evidence to the contrary mounts.
'This case carries a simple lesson: In politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty, courts should not assume that self-described experts are correct,' Thomas wrote.
Thomas's opinion quickly garnered the attention of prominent Republicans, including Vice President Vance, who made his debut on liberal social media platform Bluesky by complimenting the opinion as 'quite illuminating.'
'I might add that many of those scientists are receiving substantial resources from big pharma to push these medicines on kids. What do you think?' Vance wrote Thursday, quickly sparking thousands of replies dripping with snark.
Since Trump has taken office, his administration has abandoned President Biden's defense of gender-affirming care. Trump's Justice Department dropped the legal challenge to Tennessee's ban, and in May, his Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declared there is a 'lack of robust evidence' for the treatments.
In a New York Times opinion piece following the Supreme Court ruling, the mother of the transgender teen who challenged Tennessee's law mourned the decision to block care for her daughter.
'I am deeply afraid for what this decision will unleash — politically and socially,' Samantha Williams wrote. 'Now that the Supreme Court has denied the rights of young people like my daughter and families like ours, what's next?'
Major American medical groups have said gender-affirming care for transgender youth and adults is medically necessary.
But Thomas in his opinion wrote that it's legally irrelevant, saying trusting those groups would otherwise allow 'elite sentiment' to 'distort and stifle democratic debate.'
'There are particularly good reasons to question the expert class here, as recent revelations suggest that leading voices in this area have relied on questionable evidence, and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance,' Thomas wrote.
The Supreme Court's decision instead looks to Europe, citing health authorities in Finland, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The justices particularly emphasized the Cass Review, an influential 2024 report from England questioning the treatments.
'Health authorities in a number of European countries have raised significant concerns regarding the potential harms associated with using puberty blockers and hormones to treat transgender minors,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
The increased prominence of conservatives' attacks come as public trust in health officials and agencies continues to plummet more broadly, a decline that began during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Trust in state and local public health officials dropped by 10 percentage points to 54 percent, while the share of those who say they trust the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has also slipped five percentage points, according to January polling from KFF, formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation.
'Justice Thomas soundly put to rest the persistent sham that we should quiet down and 'trust the science' when it comes to life-altering experimentation on minors,' Katherine Green Robertson, chief counsel of Alabama's attorney general's office, said in a statement following the decision.
The state filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case that urged the justices not to decide it on 'euphemisms about 'affirming care' and unsupported appeals to 'expert' organizations.'
'Alabama is proud to have armed the Court with a full rundown of the medical community's shameless political collusion on this matter, which should permanently discredit every organization involved,' she said.
The justices' reliance on outside research has come into question before.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson caught heat after a study she cited in her 2023 dissent in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which sharply limited the use of race as a factor in college admissions, was disputed.
In an impassioned dissent expounding on the benefits of diversity in education, Jackson pointed to a friend-of-the-court brief by the Association of American Medical Colleges, which referenced the 2020 study.
'It saves lives,' she wrote, pointing to the research which showed that having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that a high-risk Black baby will live.
In the following months, critics began to debunk the claim, suggesting at first that the justice misrepresented the statistic, and later, that the research itself was inaccurate.
'Even Supreme Court justices are known to be gullible,' lawyer Ted Frank wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed at the time.
It's not just studies that support left-leaning views that have come under scrutiny, either.
A month before the Supreme Court weighed a challenge to mifepristone access, one of the two common drugs used in medication abortion, a medical journal retracted two studies claiming to show the harms of the pill.
The studies, published in the Sage journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology and backed by an anti-abortion group, were retracted after a reader raised concerns about the study's accuracy and a review found the conclusions 'invalidated in whole or in part.'
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk had pointed to the studies in his decision siding with the conservative medical group Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which invalidated the Federal Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of mifepristone because it overlooked safety concerns.
The justices ultimately ruled unanimously last year that the anti-abortion doctors did not have standing to challenge access to mifepristone, declining to address the underlying regulatory or safety issues.
In the gender-affirming care case, the Supreme Court's decision aligned with the conservative voices that have called on the court to give credence to political forces over educational ones — and the shift did not go unnoticed.
'The vibe shift is real,' Roger Severino, a vice president at the Heritage Foundation who ran HHS's civil rights office during Trump's first term, told supporters after the decision.
'Not only was it political in the last election, President Trump's closing argument is that 'she is for they/them, and he is for you,'' he continued. 'And here, the court — not that they're political animals — at least they're consistent with where the American people are.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
14 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Support for renewables shrinks as fossil fuel interest grows
Support for renewables shrinks as fossil fuel interest grows Republicans and Democrats alike are less likely to support renewable energy than they were five years ago, according to a survey released June 5 by the Pew Research Center. Floodlight examines the survey results, which mirror growing pockets of opposition to solar farms, reignited political support for coal plants and moves by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans to kill federally funded clean energy projects. This shift in opinion dates back to when Democratic President Joe Biden took office, said Brian Kennedy, Pew senior researcher and one of the study's authors. "This isn't a new trend," he said. Still, Kenneth Gillingham, professor of environmental and energy economics at the Yale School of the Environment, was surprised. "I see this shift … as a successful effort to link climate change and renewable energy to broader culture war issues," Gillingham said. He added that in the past, "prominent" Republicans supported renewables and sought solutions to climate change, but those stances could now be seen as "disloyal" to Trump. The survey of 5,085 U.S. adults taken April 28 to May 4 revealed that while 79% of Americans favored expanding wind and solar production in 2020, that number has dropped to 60%. And 39% of Americans today support expansion of oil, coal and natural gas - almost double the 20% that supported it in 2020. Combustion of fossil fuels - in transportation, energy generation and industrial production - is the No. 1 cause of climate change. Much of the change in opinion is driven by Republicans, whose support of oil and gas grew from 35% in 2020 to 67% today. But Democrats also indicated less support for renewable energy and more for fossil fuels than five years ago. While many results reflect Trump's policies opposing most renewables and boosting fossil fuels, Pew found a few notable exceptions: 69% of all respondents favor offshore wind - a technology Trump has specifically targeted. Both Democrats and Republicans indicated stronger support for nuclear power, with Republicans' favorable opinions increasing from 53% in 2020 to 69% in 2025. Democrats' support rose from 37% to 52%. The Trump administration has signaled support for a nuclear renaissance, despite its high cost. There were wide partisan splits on several topics. In March, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it would scale back environmental regulations. Pew asked whether it was possible to do that and still protect air and water quality: 77% of Republicans said yes and 67% of Democrats said no. Pew didn't ask the respondents why their attitudes have shifted. But Kennedy said in Pew's past surveys, Republicans have expressed concern about the economic impacts of climate change policies and transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Mike Murphy, a Republican consultant and electric vehicle backer, said when the environmental benefits of clean technologies are touted, it polarizes Republicans. Instead, Murphy said messages should be about pocketbook issues - like lower fuel costs - and jobs. "It's hard for pro-climate people to understand," said Murphy, who has advised dozens of state and national GOP campaigns including John McCain's 2008 presidential bid. "(They think) we just need to shout louder and hit people over the head about climate, climate, climate. The key is you want to talk about jobs and national security and other events that naturally resonate a lot more with right-of-center people." That's what Murphy's groups, the EV Politics Project and the American EV Jobs Alliance, are trying to do to depoliticize electric vehicles. "Whenever electric cars are seen through a climate lens," Murphy said, "their appeal narrows." It's a strategy also being used by the Electrification Coalition, a left-of-center pro-EV group. Ben Prochazka, the coalition's executive director, echoed Murphy's strategy, adding that EVs have "become overly politicized and caught in the culture wars, impacting markets and ultimately hurting our ability to realize their many benefits for all Americans." Prochazka noted that once introduced to EVs, consumers support them: "EV drivers love their vehicles, with more than eight out of ten reporting that their next car will also be electric." Perhaps those practical messages are getting through. In the Pew survey, electric vehicles were the one item that saw an uptick in support - 4 percentage points in the past year. But popular support might not be enough to stop Congress from killing a $7,500 electric vehicle credit, which Murphy said would be "policy disaster." Republicans, he said, are in a "real squeeze," because "they don't have enough money for the tax cuts the president has promised." Murphy said: "It's easier for Republicans to cut Biden electric cars … than it is for them to cut more Medicaid." Gillingham is still optimistic that solar, wind and other greenhouse gas-reducing technologies will move forward - because they are the cheapest. "The continued decline in the price of renewable energy and battery technologies, as well as other new technologies, is a reason to continue to have hope that the worst impacts of climate change can be addressed," he said. Published by Canary Media, Renewable Energy World Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powers stalling climate action. This story was produced by Floodlight and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. © Stacker Media, LLC.
San Francisco Chronicle
17 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump calls for special prosecutor to investigate 2020 election, reviving longstanding grievance
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald 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 Attorney General 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, Florida. A Trump-appointed judge agreed, ruling that then-Attorney General 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. ___
Hamilton Spectator
20 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump calls for special prosecutor to investigate 2020 election, reviving longstanding grievance
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald 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 Attorney General 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, Florida. A Trump-appointed judge agreed, ruling that then-Attorney General 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. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of President Donald Trump at . Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
