Latest news with #S.B.1
Yahoo
2 days 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
2 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Clarence Thomas urges courts to end deferring to ‘experts' on gender-affirming care
Justice Clarence Thomas said Wednesday that courts should not defer to 'self-described experts' on gender-affirming care, suggesting it is a matter of medical uncertainty. Thomas's concurring opinion came as the Supreme Court upheld in a 6-3 decision Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors, a ruling that could reverberate through several states that have similar laws. '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,' the justice wrote in a solo concurring opinion. Tennessee's law, S.B. 1, bars health care providers from prescribing puberty blocking and hormone therapy medications to minors when the intent is to help them transition. Signed in 2023, it also bans gender-transition surgeries for minors, though the justices did not consider that provision. Medical providers could face $25,000 civil fines for violating the law. Thomas claimed that 'many prominent medical professionals' have said there is a consensus around how to treat child gender dysphoria, but there is 'mounting evidence to the contrary.' Those experts have dismissed 'grave problems' that undercut the assumption that young children can consent to 'irreversible treatments,' he said. 'They have built their medical recommendations to achieve political ends,' the justice wrote, joining the majority in saying that the court's decision hands power back to Americans and their elected representatives. The court's decision rejects a challenge brought by former President Biden's administration. It found that Tennessee's law does not amount to sex discrimination requiring a higher level of constitutional scrutiny, dealing a blow to LGBTQ-rights advocates who have claimed as much to try and take down similar laws. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back against Thomas's perspective in a footnote of her dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson in full and Elena Kagan in part. 'Far from signaling that 'self-proclaimed experts' can determine 'the meaning of the Constitution' ante, this reference to the positions of major medical organizations is simply one piece of factual context relevant to the Court's assessment of whether SB1 is substantially related to the achievement of an important government interest,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Indeed, even Justice Thomas seems to recognize that some scientific and medical evidence (at least that which is consistent with his view of the merits) is relevant to the questions this case presents,' she added, citing points where Thomas referenced various peer-reviewed medical journals throughout his opinion. President Trump's Justice Department walked away from the Biden administration's challenge when he returned to the White House. The new administration urged the Supreme Court to decide the case, nonetheless, given its importance. Major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, have said gender-affirming care for transgender adults and minors is medically necessary and often lifesaving, though not every trans person will choose to transition medically or have access to care. In May, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) broke with major professional medical groups in an unsigned report that declared gender-affirming treatments lack scientific evidence. Susan J. Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said her organization was 'deeply alarmed' by the report, which she said 'misrepresents the current medical consensus and fails to reflect the realities of pediatric care.' During oral arguments in December, Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly referenced European countries that have recently moved to restrict some gender-affirming care for youth. 'If it's evolving like that and changing, and England is pulling back and Sweden is pulling back, it strikes me as a pretty heavy yellow light, if not red light, for this court to come in, the nine of us, and constitutionalize the whole area,' Kavanaugh said at the time. But opponents of U.S. laws banning transition-related care for trans minors have said prohibitions imposed by Republican-led states go much further than European policies, which limit but do not categorically ban care. 'This is no ordinary medical regulation,' Pratik Shah, head of Supreme Court and appellate practice at Akin Gump, said of Tennessee's law on a call with reporters in December. Brooke Migdon contributed to this report. Updated at 11:46 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
2 days ago
- Health
- The Hill
Clarence Thomas urges courts to end deferring to ‘experts' on gender affirming care
Justice Clarence Thomas on Wednesday said that courts should not defer to 'self-described experts' on gender-affirming care, suggesting it is a matter of medical uncertainty. Thomas's concurring opinion came as the Supreme Court upheld in a 6-3 decision Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors, a ruling that could reverberate through several states that have similar laws. '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,' the justice wrote in a solo concurring opinion. Tennessee's law, S.B. 1, bars health care providers from prescribing puberty blocking and hormone therapy medications to minors when the intent is to help them transition. Signed in 2023, it also bans gender-transition surgeries for minors, though the justices did not consider that provision. Medical providers could face $25,000 civil fines for violating the law. Thomas claimed that 'many prominent medical professionals' have said there is a consensus around how to treat child gender dysphoria but there is 'mounting evidence to the contrary.' Those experts have dismissed 'grave problems' that undercut the assumption that young children can consent to 'irreversible treatments,' he said. 'They have built their medical recommendations to achieve political ends,' the justice wrote, joining the majority in saying that the court's decision hands power back to Americans and their elected representatives. The court's decision rejects a challenge brought by former President Biden's administration. It found that Tennessee's law does not amount to sex discrimination requiring a higher level of constitutional scrutiny, dealing a blow to LGBTQ rights advocates who have claimed as much to try and take down similar laws. Justice Sotomayor pushed back against Thomas's perspective in a footnote of her dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson in full and Elena Kagan in part. 'Far from signaling that 'self-proclaimed experts' can determine 'the meaning of the Constitution' ante, this reference to the positions of major medical organizations is simply one piece of factual context relevant to the Court's assessment of whether SB1 is substantially related to the achievement of an important government interest,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Indeed, even Justice Thomas seems to recognize that some scientific and medical evidence (at least that which is consistent with his view of the merits) is relevant to the questions this case presents,' she added, citing points where Thomas referenced various peer-reviewed medical journals throughout his opinion. President Trump's Justice Department walked away from the Biden administration's challenge when he returned to the White House. The new administration urged the Supreme Court to decide the case, nonetheless, given its importance. Major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, have said gender-affirming care for transgender adults and minors is medically necessary and often lifesaving, though not every trans person will choose to transition medically or have access to care. In May, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) broke with major professional medical groups in an unsigned report that declared gender-affirming treatments lack scientific evidence. Susan J. Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said her organization was 'deeply alarmed' by the report, which she said 'misrepresents the current medical consensus and fails to reflect the realities of pediatric care.' During oral arguments in December, Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly referenced European countries that have recently moved to restrict some gender-affirming care for youth. 'If it's evolving like that and changing, and England is pulling back and Sweden is pulling back, it strikes me as a pretty heavy yellow light, if not red light, for this court to come in, the nine of us, and constitutionalize the whole area,' Kavanaugh said at the time. But opponents of U.S. laws banning transition-related care for trans minors have said prohibitions imposed by Republican-led states go much further than European policies, which limit but do not categorically ban care. 'This is no ordinary medical regulation,' Pratik Shah, head of Supreme Court and appellate practice at Akin Gump, said of Tennessee's law on a call with reporters in December. Brooke Migdon contributed to this report, which was updated at 11:46 a.m. EDT
The Hill
2 days ago
- Health
- The Hill
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 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 majority. 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. Tennessee 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. Tennessee's Republican Attorney General, Jonathan Skrmetti, celebrated the court's ruling on social media. 'Landmark VICTORY for Tennessee at SCOTUS in defense of America's children,' he wrote in a post on the social platform X. 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.
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ohio private college presidents ask to get rid of proposed changes to Governor's Merit Scholarship
Getty Images. Ohio private college presidents slammed proposed requirements for participating in the Governor's Merit Scholarship that were added to the House's version of the two-year operating budget during testimony in the Senate Higher Education Committee. The committee had four hearings on the budget, which Senate lawmakers are currently working on. The Ohio House passed the budget last month and Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine must sign the budget by June 30. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Todd Jones, president and general counsel of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio (AICUO), spoke out against provisions the Ohio House added to the budget regarding new requirements for private colleges if they want to continue to participate in the Governor's Merit Scholarship, which gives the top 5% of each high school graduating class a $5,000 scholarship each year to go to an Ohio college or university. Under the new changes made in the House, private colleges would also have to accept the top 10% of Ohio's graduating class and comply with parts of Senate Bill 1 — Ohio's new higher education law that bans diversity and inclusion efforts and regulates classroom discussion, among other things. 'I want to be clear that our concerns are not about DEI and SB 1,' Jones said. 'Our concerns are about the very nature of our institutions and what it means to be a private, nonprofit institution. … When the state dictates our missions, board structures, curriculum, hiring practices, workloads, and public engagement, the autonomy that defines nonprofit institutions disappears.' Tiffin University President Lillian Schumacher said the S.B. 1 mandates would increase operational costs without improving educational outcomes. 'For many institutions, these new burdens could lead to closures, reduced financial aid, higher tuition, and a reduction in critical educational services for students,' she said in her testimony. Forcing private colleges and universities to accept the top 10% of Ohio's graduating class would create challenges for those institutions, Chancellor of the Ohio Department of Higher Education Mike Duffey said. 'Public universities have the infrastructure with branch campuses, large-scale facilities, and state funding to absorb enrollment increases,' Jones said. 'Independent institutions operate on much smaller scales.' Eight AICUO institutions function out of a single academic building, he said. 'Imposing this mandate without providing financial or logistical support places an impractical burden on private colleges,' Jones said. Being able to welcome an additional influx of students depends on various factors including the students' major, housing and financial needs, University of Findlay President Kathy Fell said. 'I know we all agree that students will not benefit from this opportunity if approbate supports and resources for success are not available,' she said in her testimony. Aultman College President Jean Paddock said the 10% acceptance mandate would not be possible in healthcare programs that are limited to a capped number of seats. 'With a nursing shortage well documented, sending our best and brightest who want to enter the healthcare field to other states is the opposite of what we want,' Paddock said in her testimony. The Governor's Merit Scholarship was enacted through the last state budget two years ago and 76% of the state's 6,250 eligible students from the class of 2024 accepted the scholarship. The acceptance rate was 100% in Hocking, Holmes, Putnam, Adams, Monroe, Noble, and Vinton counties, Duffey said. In the second year of the scholarship, 87% of Ohio students accepted the scholarship and 11 rural counties had a 100% acceptance rate, Duffey said. Ohio Sen. Jane Timken, R-Jackson Township, said she has received several inquiries from private colleges and universities with concerns about the Governor's Merit Scholarship requirements being linked to compliance with parts of S.B. 1. 'Clearly we would lose some students if they weren't able to access those funds,' Duffey said. The budget currently allocates $47 million for fiscal year 2026 and $70 million for fiscal year 2027 for the Governor's Merit Scholarship. Follow Capital Journal Reporter Megan Henry on Bluesky. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
