Latest news with #14thAmendment
The Herald Scotland
12 hours ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Potential 2028 Democrats shy away from Supreme Court trans care ruling
But one group on the left has been quiet since the ruling sent shockwaves: Democratic leaders across the country eyed as potential 2028 White House picks. The lack of response to the 6-3 ruling underscores what some political observers have called the party's continued nervousness over how to address an issue that became pivotal in the 2024 election. It also shows how fraught the topic may remain heading into the 2026 midterms that will decide control of Congress. President Donald Trump campaigned heavily on a promise to ban gender-affirming care for youth and prevent transgender athletes from competing - and he's taken several executive actions impacting transgender Americans since the start of his second term. Here's what to know about how prominent Democrats responded to the Supreme Court's ruling. What happened? The decision, in which the court said preventing minors from using puberty blockers and hormone therapy does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, was immediately criticized by liberal and progressive groups, like Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group. The court's ruling comes after Trump and Republicans made transgender rights a key part of the final weeks of the 2024 campaign. "Kamala supports tax-payer funded sex changes for prisoners," one of Trump's campaign ads alleged about then-Vice President Kamala Harris. "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you." Some Democrats called the ads among the most effective of the campaign, according to multiple reports last year. And in recent months some Democrats have worked to separate their party from elements of transgender rights efforts. For example, California Gov. Gavin Newsom made headlines in March when he suggested transgender athletes' participation in women's sports was "deeply unfair" and acknowledged the campaign ad was "devastating." Since taking office in January, Trump has signed executive orders to ban transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports, end federal support for gender-affirming care and prevent transgender people from serving openly in the military. Trump also signed on his first day back in office an order declaring that the government recognizes only two sexes, male and female. Governors quiet Newsom of California, Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, and Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland, the three governors considered leading contenders to run for president in 2028, all kept quiet after the Supreme Court's decision this week. Most forthcoming of the party's potential 2028 contenders was Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois, who has a transgender cousin, and who wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, that Illinois has protections to "meet this very moment." "In a time of increasing overreach and hateful rhetoric, it's more important than ever to reaffirm our commitment to the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community," he added. "You have a home here always." Rank and file Reaction among Democrats on Capitol Hill was largely quiet as well, though several members of Congress did make statements. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York denounced the decision on the Senate floor as part of a "cruel crusade against trans Americans." On social media he called it a distraction from issues impacting all people, regardless of gender identity. His counterpart in the House, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York did not mention it in a news release or on social media. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts, pointed out in a statement that 24 other states have similar laws blocking some gender-affirming care for transgender youths. "Today, hate won," he said, alleging the Supreme Court's conservative-leaning justices "endorsed hate and discrimination by delivering a win for Republicans who have relentlessly and cruelly attacked transgender Americans for years." "Once again, politicians and judges are inserting themselves in exam rooms," Rep. Sarah McBride, D-Delaware, the nation's first openly transgender member of Congress, said Wednesday on X, formerly called Twitter. "This ruling undermines doctors in delivering care to some of the most vulnerable patients in our country."
USA Today
19 hours ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Potential 2028 Dems quiet after Supreme Court upholds ban on care for some transgender minors
Potential 2028 Dems quiet after Supreme Court upholds ban on care for some transgender minors Show Caption Hide Caption Activists react to SCOTUS ruling gender-affirming care ban for minors Transgender activists are reacting to a new SCOTUS ruling upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The Supreme Court's conservative-leaning justices this week upheld a Tennessee ban on some gender-affirming care for youths, prompting immediate criticism from their liberal-leaning colleagues. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that 'the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.' But one group on the left has been quiet since the ruling sent shockwaves: Democratic leaders across the country eyed as potential 2028 White House picks. The lack of response to the 6-3 ruling underscores what some political observers have called the party's continued nervousness over how to address an issue that became pivotal in the 2024 election. It also shows how fraught the topic may remain heading into the 2026 midterms that will decide control of Congress. President Donald Trump campaigned heavily on a promise to ban gender-affirming care for youth and prevent transgender athletes from competing – and he's taken several executive actions impacting transgender Americans since the start of his second term. Here's what to know about how prominent Democrats responded to the Supreme Court's ruling. What happened? The decision, in which the court said preventing minors from using puberty blockers and hormone therapy does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, was immediately criticized by liberal and progressive groups, like Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group. The court's ruling comes after Trump and Republicans made transgender rights a key part of the final weeks of the 2024 campaign. "Kamala supports tax-payer funded sex changes for prisoners," one of Trump's campaign ads alleged about then-Vice President Kamala Harris. "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you." Some Democrats called the ads among the most effective of the campaign, according to multiple reports last year. And in recent months some Democrats have worked to separate their party from elements of transgender rights efforts. For example, California Gov. Gavin Newsom made headlines in March when he suggested transgender athletes' participation in women's sports was 'deeply unfair' and acknowledged the campaign ad was "devastating." Since taking office in January, Trump has signed executive orders to ban transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports, end federal support for gender-affirming care and prevent transgender people from serving openly in the military. Trump also signed on his first day back in office an order declaring that the government recognizes only two sexes, male and female. Governors quiet Newsom of California, Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, and Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland, the three governors considered leading contenders to run for president in 2028, all kept quiet after the Supreme Court's decision this week. Most forthcoming of the party's potential 2028 contenders was Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois, who has a transgender cousin, and who wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, that Illinois has protections to "meet this very moment.' 'In a time of increasing overreach and hateful rhetoric, it's more important than ever to reaffirm our commitment to the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community,' he added. 'You have a home here always.' Rank and file Reaction among Democrats on Capitol Hill was largely quiet as well, though several members of Congress did make statements. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York denounced the decision on the Senate floor as part of a 'cruel crusade against trans Americans.' On social media he called it a distraction from issues impacting all people, regardless of gender identity. His counterpart in the House, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York did not mention it in a news release or on social media. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts, pointed out in a statement that 24 other states have similar laws blocking some gender-affirming care for transgender youths. "Today, hate won," he said, alleging the Supreme Court's conservative-leaning justices "endorsed hate and discrimination by delivering a win for Republicans who have relentlessly and cruelly attacked transgender Americans for years." 'Once again, politicians and judges are inserting themselves in exam rooms,' Rep. Sarah McBride, D-Delaware, the nation's first openly transgender member of Congress, said Wednesday on X, formerly called Twitter. 'This ruling undermines doctors in delivering care to some of the most vulnerable patients in our country.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court upholds Tennessee's youth transgender care ban
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines that stands to impact similar laws passed in roughly half the country. Rejecting a challenge mounted by the Biden administration, the high court ruled Tennessee's law does not amount to sex discrimination that requires a higher level of constitutional scrutiny, removing a key line of attack that LGBTQ rights advocates have used to try to topple similar laws. 'Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,' Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the court's six Republican-appointed justices. The court's three Democratic-appointed justices dissented, saying they would've held the law to heightened scrutiny. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the more exacting standard raises questions about whether Tennessee's law would survive. She read her dissent aloud from the bench, which the justices reserve for emphasizing their strong disagreements with a case. '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 Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Tennessee's law, S.B. 1, prohibits health care providers from administering puberty blockers or hormone therapy to transgender minors when the medications are prescribed to help them transition. The law, which Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) signed in 2023, also bans gender-transition surgeries for minors, though that provision was not at issue before the high court. Providers who violate the law can face $25,000 civil fines for violations. Three Tennessee families and a doctor originally sued, and the Biden administration joined them, asserting the law discriminated based on sex in violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The high court rejected that notion, instead siding with Tennessee. The state insisted the law distinguishes based on a treatment's medical purpose, not sex, and the court should defer to the Legislature's judgment about regulating medicine for children. '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,' Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the court's leading conservatives, wrote in a separate, concurring opinion. Tennessee's Republican Attorney General, Jonathan Skrmetti celebrated the court's ruling Wednesday, saying voters' 'common sense' prevailed over 'judicial activism.' 'A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee's elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand,' Skrmetti wrote in a statement following the ruling. 'The rapid and unexplained rise in the number of kids seeking these life-altering interventions, despite the lack of supporting evidence, calls for careful scrutiny from our elected leaders,' he continued later. 'This victory transcends politics. It's about real Tennessee kids facing real struggles. Families across our state and our nation deserve solutions based on science, not ideology.' He added, 'Today's landmark decision recognizes that the Constitution lets us fulfill society's highest calling—protecting our kids.' Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, said Tuesday's ruling 'is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution.' 'Though this is a painful setback, it does not mean that transgender people and our allies are left with no options to defend our freedom, our health care, or our lives,' said Strangio, who, during oral arguments in December, became the first openly transgender person to argue before the Supreme Court. 'The Court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful. 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.' The Biden administration was backed by various medical organizations and LGBTQ rights groups, Democratic attorneys general from 19 states and Washington, D.C., actor Elliot Page, roughly 160 Democratic members of Congress and the American Bar Association. Tennessee's defense was supported by 24 Republican state attorneys general, various Republican governors, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a group of 'detransitioners' — individuals who once, but no longer, identified as transgender — and conservative organizations like Advancing American Freedom, founded by former Vice President Mike Pence. Trump's Justice Department abandoned the Biden administration's challenge to the state's law upon taking office. But the new administration urged the Supreme Court to still decide the case, warning the weighty issue would otherwise quickly return to the justices. Wednesday's decision comes as the White House seeks to restrict access to gender-affirming treatments more broadly. Trump, who signed an executive order in February to end federal support for transition-related care for minors, has also called for federal legislation to that effect, instructing Congress at a joint address in March to pass a bill 'permanently banning and criminalizing sex changes on children and forever ending the lie that any child is trapped in the wrong body.' In May, the Department of Health and Human Services broke with major professional medical organizations, which have said gender-affirming care for trans youths and adults is medically necessary, in an unsigned report that declared such interventions lack scientific evidence. Updated at 11:38 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Transgender rights advocates gird for more fights after US Supreme Court loss
By Andrew Chung WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to transgender rights by upholding a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for adolescents, but legal experts said the ruling was narrower than it could have been and left open the door for challenges to the rising number of government restrictions aimed at transgender people. The court decided that Tennessee's Republican-backed law, which prohibits medical treatments such as puberty blockers and hormones for people under age 18 experiencing gender dysphoria, did not violate the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment promise of equal protection, as challengers to the measure had argued. The court's six conservative justices powered the ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, with its three liberal members dissenting. Transgender rights advocates called the decision a major setback while the law's backers welcomed the Supreme Court's endorsement and urged other states to adopt similar restrictions. Gender dysphoria is the clinical diagnosis for significant distress that can result from an incongruence between a person's gender identity and sex assigned at birth. The ruling rejected the assertion made by the law's challengers that the measure was a form of discrimination - based on sex or transgender status - that should trigger tougher judicial review and make it harder to defend in court under 14th Amendment protections. Instead, the ruling concluded that the ban classified people based on age and medical diagnosis, and the court applied what is called a rational-basis review, a deferential analysis that merely requires a rational connection between a law and a legitimate state interest. Application of rational basis review by courts generally would make it easier to defend a broader array of measures curbing transgender rights, from bathroom use to sports participation. But Wednesday's ruling did not foreclose the possibility of courts in the future applying tougher scrutiny and finding unlawful discrimination in certain measures targeting transgender people. 'PLENTY OF TOOLS' Karen Loewy, a lawyer with the LGBT rights group Lambda Legal, called the ruling heartbreaking for transgender youths and their families but saw some hope. "I think the court here went out of its way to confine what it was doing here to a restriction on care for minors," Loewy said, adding that it "left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on healthcare and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people." The court concluded that Tennessee did not create a sex-based category or specifically draw a line between transgender people and others, said Georgetown University law professor Paul Smith, who has argued many cases at the Supreme Court including a landmark gay rights victory in 2003. "Other statutes may not be viewed the same," Smith said. Roberts wrote that the "fierce scientific and policy debates" concerning the medical treatments at issue justified the court's deferential review of Tennessee's ban. Roberts added that questions about these treatments should be left "to the people, their elected representatives and the democratic process." Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a written dissent disagreed with that view. Judicial scrutiny, Sotomayor said, "has long played an essential role in guarding against legislative efforts to impose upon individuals the state's views about how people of a particular sex (or race) should live or look or act." The ban's proponents welcomed the ruling and the court's reasoning. "Voters, through their elected representatives, should have the power to decide what they believe on serious issues like this one," said Tennessee Governor Bill Lee, a Republican who signed the ban into law. Lee added that the measure protects young people from "irreversible, life-altering medical decisions." "This ruling sends a strong message to the country that states have a clear right and path forward to protect children from irreversible body mutilation," added Republican state legislator Jack Johnson, one of the lead sponsors of the Tennessee measure. The issue of transgender rights is a flashpoint in the U.S. culture wars. Tennessee's law is one of 25 such policies enacted by conservative state lawmakers around the United States, and various states have adopted other restrictions on transgender people. Donald Trump in particular has taken a hard line against transgender rights since returning to the presidency in January. TRANSGENDER STATUS 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." In litigation brought by plaintiffs including transgender individuals and former President Joe Biden's administration, a federal judge blocked the law as likely violating the 14th Amendment. The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the judge's decision. Lawyers for the challengers noted that the Supreme Court did not go as far as the 6th Circuit to decline to recognize transgender people as a class of people whose status requires courts to apply tougher judicial review to laws targeting them. The Supreme Court left that question unresolved. Future legal challenges may hinge on whether a law draws a line between transgender people and others, Smith said. "If a state refused to hire transgender people or excluded them from juries, for example, that might well lead the court to apply heightened scrutiny under a sex discrimination theory or under the theory that such a line itself warrants heightened scrutiny," Smith said. "Targeting transgender people out of animus, as other more-recent restrictions have done, still violates equal protection," said Pratik Shah, an attorney who also helped represent the plaintiffs. However, three conservative justices who wrote or joined opinions concurring in Wednesday's outcome - Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - agreed with the 6th Circuit that laws based on transgender status do not merit tougher legal scrutiny like laws that divide people based on race or sex. Such a ruling "would require courts to oversee all manner of policy choices normally committed to legislative discretion," Barrett wrote. Though some transgender advocates had expressed concern that a ruling favoring Tennessee could bolster restrictions on transgender adults as well, Jennifer Levi of the LGBT rights legal group GLAD Law said Wednesday's decision was explicitly limited to care for minors and that challenges to restrictions on adults remain viable under existing precedent. The Supreme Court also did not rule on a separate argument made by the plaintiffs that laws like Tennessee's violate the right of parents to make decisions concerning the medical care of their children. Competent adults could similarly claim a right to make medical decisions about their own bodies, Smith said. In a previous major case involving transgender rights, the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that a landmark federal law forbidding workplace discrimination protects gay and transgender employees. Chase Strangio, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the Tennessee case, made history in the case in December as the first openly transgender attorney to argue before the Supreme Court. Strangio emphasized the narrowness of Wednesday's ruling, but acknowledged its practical impact. "Of course the most immediate effect is on our clients, other young transgender people in Tennessee and across the country who need medical care that the government has stepped in to ban," Strangio said. "And for them we are devastated."
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
a day ago
- Politics
- First Post
As Maga camp rejoices, 10 things that transgenders lost in US court against Trump
US Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming care for minors. While Maga rejoices in the ruling here are 10 ways the judgment affects trans people in the United States read more The US Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming care for minors, which activists argued was a devastating loss for transgener rights in the country. The apex American court gave its ruling in the United States v Skrmetti, which was filed last year by three families of trans children and a provider of gender-affirming care.. During the oral arguments last year, the plaintiffs, as well as the US government, then helmed by Joe Biden, argued that Tennessee's law constituted sex-based discrimination and thus violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. As per the state law, someone assigned female at birth could not be prescribed testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could receive those drugs. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Meanwhile, Tennessee stated that the ban is necessary to protect children from what it termed 'experimental' medical treatment. During the Wednesday arguments, Conservative judges at the Supreme Court sided with Tennessee law. All six of the Supreme Court's conservative justices went on to uphold the law, although several also wrote their own concurring opinions. Amid the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasised that the ruling was primarily based on the justices' finding that the law did not violate the equal protection clause, rather than on an ideological opposition to trans rights. '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,' Roberts wrote in his opinion. 'We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process," he added. Activists argued that the ruling can turn out to be a major blow to trangender rights in the United States. What transgender people lost against Trump Expert and medical advice ignored: The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care (puberty blockers, hormones, surgeries) despite overwhelming evidence from major medical groups such as the American Academy of Paediatrics, which cites decades of research showing these treatments reduce gender dysphoria and suicide risks. Health crisis for trans youth: Denying access to medically recommended care risks worsening mental health outcomes, including higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts. Delayed treatments may also lead to irreversible physical changes (e.g., puberty progression) that exacerbate psychological distress. Societal stigma amplified: The ruling reinforces systemic discrimination, emboldening anti-trans policies in education, sports, and public spaces. Families may face social ostracisation, while advocacy groups warn of rising hate crimes and eroded community trust. Economic burden on families: Families in ban states may incur relocation costs to access care elsewhere. Health systems in supportive states could face strain, while bans may deter businesses and skilled workers from operating in restrictive regions, impacting local economies. Legal patchwork creates inequality: Over 20 states can now enforce bans, creating a fragmented system where care access depends on geography. This exacerbates socioeconomic disparities, as low-income families lack the resources to travel for treatments. Workforce and productivity loss: Untreated mental health issues among trans youth could reduce future workforce participation and productivity. States may face higher long-term healthcare costs from emergency mental health interventions. Trump's broader anti-trans agenda gets a boost: The ruling aligns with Trump-era policies restricting transgender military service, sports participation, and federal healthcare funding, framing trans rights as a cultural wedge issue despite scientific consensus. Medical community backlash: Doctors and hospitals in ban-states risk legal penalties for providing care, leading to clinician shortages in gender-affirming fields and reduced quality of care for all patients. Global repercussions: The decision may inspire similar bans worldwide, undermining global human rights efforts and international LGBTQ+ health collaborations. Youth autonomy undermined: The ruling dismisses trans youths' agency over their bodies, perpetuating societal narratives that marginalise their identities and limit their future opportunities in education and employment.
