Latest news with #SB1
Yahoo
a day 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.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Health
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court upholds Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors
Demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court in December, when justices heard arguments in a case about Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The court upheld the law Wednesday. (Photo by) The U.S. Supreme Court, in a potential landmark decision, upheld Tennessee's law prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors, saying children who seek the treatment don't qualify as a protected class. In United States v. Skrmetti, the high court ruled 6-3 Wednesday to overturn a lower court's finding that the restrictions violate the constitutional rights of children seeking puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria. The U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the district court's decision and sent it to the high court. The court's three liberal justices dissented, writing that the court had abandoned transgender children and their families to 'political whims.' Tennessee lawmakers passed the legislation in 2023, leading to a lawsuit argued before the Supreme Court last December. The federal government, under the Biden administration, took up the case for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and three transgender teens, their families and a Memphis doctor who challenged the law, but the Department of Justice under President Donald Trump dropped its opposition. In its ruling, the court said that the plaintiffs argued that Senate Bill 1 'warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications.' But the court found that neither of the classifications considered, those based on age and medical use, are determined on sex. 'Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor's sex,' the ruling states. The ruling says the application of the law 'does not turn on sex,' either, because it doesn't prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing it for minors of the opposite sex. In Pride month, transgender Marylanders reflect on strengths, weaknesses, of state protections Tennessee's House Republican Caucus issued a statement calling it 'a proud day for the Volunteer State and for all who believe in protecting the innocence and well-being of America's children.' Tennessee Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, who sponsored the bill, said he is grateful the court ruled that states hold the authority to protect children from 'irreversible medical procedures.' 'The simple message the Supreme Court has sent the world is 'enough is enough,'' Johnson said in a statement. The Tennessee Equality Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group, expressed dismay at the decision. 'We are profoundly disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to side with the Tennessee legislature's anti-transgender ideology and further erode the rights of transgender children and their families and doctors,' the group said in a statement. 'We are grateful to the plaintiffs, families, and the ACLU for fighting on behalf of more than 1.3 million transgender adults and 300,000 youth across the nation.' The group said gender-affirming care saves lives and is supported by medical groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association. The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that the law enforces 'a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex.' The court found that laws that classify people on the basis of sex require closer scrutiny if they involve 'impermissible stereotypes.' But if the law's classifications aren't covertly or overtly based on sex, heightened review by the court isn't required unless the law is motivated by 'invidious discriminatory purpose.' 'And regardless, the statutory findings on which SB1 is premised do not themselves evince sex-based stereotyping,' the ruling says. In response to the outcome, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said Tennessee voters' common sense won over 'judicial activism' on a law spurred by an increase in treatment for transgender children. 'I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor [Bill] Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood,' Skrmetti said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., criticized the ruling just moments after it came out when asked about it during a press conference. 'This Supreme Court seems to have forgotten that one of their jobs is to protect individual rights and protect individuals from being discriminated against,' Schumer said. 'It's an awful decision.' Democrats, he said, are 'going to explore every solution,' though he didn't elaborate. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion that the 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. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best,' Roberts wrote. 'Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,' he wrote. The ACLU said in a statement the decision is based on the record and context of the Tennessee case and doesn't extend to other cases involving transgender status and discrimination. Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, called the ruling 'devastating,' but despite the setback said transgender people still have healthcare options. 'The court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful,' Strangio said in a statement. – This article first appeared in the Tennessee Lookout, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court upholds Tennessee prohibition on gender affirming care for minors
Demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court as justices hear arguments in a case about Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming care for minors on Dec. 4, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by) The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law prohibiting gender affirming care for minors, saying children who seek the treatment don't qualify as a protected class. In United States v. Skrmetti, the high court issued a 6-3 ruling Wednesday overturning a lower court's finding that the restrictions violate the constitutional rights of children seeking puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria. The U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the district court's decision and sent it to the high court. The court's three liberal justices dissented, writing that the court had abandoned transgender children and their families to 'political whims.' Tennessee lawmakers passed the legislation in 2023, leading to a lawsuit argued before the Supreme Court last December. The federal government, under the Biden administration, took up the case for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and three transgender teens, their families and a Memphis doctor who challenged the law, but the U.S. Department of Justice under President Donald Trump dropped its opposition. In its ruling, the court said that the plaintiffs argued that Senate Bill 1 'warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications.' But the court found that neither of the classifications considered, those based on age and medical use, are determined on sex. 'Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor's sex,' the ruling states. The ruling says the application of the law 'does not turn on sex,' either, because it doesn't prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing it for minors of the opposite sex. The House Republican Caucus issued a statement saying, 'This is a proud day for the Volunteer State and for all who believe in protecting the innocence and well-being of America's children.' Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, who sponsored the bill, said he is grateful the court ruled that states hold the authority to protect children from 'irreversible medical procedures.' 'The simple message the Supreme Court has sent the world is 'enough is enough,'' Johnson said in a statement. The Tennessee Equality Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group, expressed dismay at the decision: 'We are profoundly disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to side with the Tennessee legislature's anti-transgender ideology and further erode the rights of transgender children and their families and doctors. We are grateful to the plaintiffs, families, and the ACLU for fighting on behalf of more than 1.3 million transgender adults and 300,000 youth across the nation.' The group said gender-affirming care saves lives and is supported by medical groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association. The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that the law enforces 'a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex.' The court found that laws that classify people on the basis of sex require closer scrutiny if they involve 'impermissible stereotypes.' But if the law's classifications aren't covertly or overtly based on sex, heightened review by the court isn't required unless the law is motivated by 'invidious discriminatory purpose.' 'And regardless, the statutory findings on which SB1 is premised do not themselves evince sex-based stereotyping,' the ruling says. In response to the outcome, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said Tennessee voters' common sense won over 'judicial activism' on a law spurred by an increase in treatment for transgender children. 'I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood,' Skrmetti said. U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., criticized the ruling just moments after it came out after being asked about it during a press conference. 'This Supreme Court seems to have forgotten that one of their jobs is to protect individual rights and protect individuals from being discriminated against,' Schumer said. 'It's an awful decision.' Democrats, he said, are 'going to explore every solution,' though he didn't elaborate. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion: '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. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' The ACLU said in a statement the decision is based on the record and context of the Tennessee case and doesn't extend to other cases involving transgender status and discrimination. Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, called the ruling 'devastating,' but despite the setback said transgender people still have healthcare options. 'The court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful,' Strangio said in a statement. Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@ SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Wall Street Journal
2 days ago
- Health
- Wall Street Journal
Good Supreme Court Sense on Trans Hormones
It shouldn't be news that the 14th Amendment doesn't give adolescents an effective right to access transgender hormone treatments, but it's still reassuring to see the Supreme Court say so. In a 6-3 decision Wednesday, the Justices upheld a Tennessee statute, called SB1, that bans giving such prescriptions to minors. Many other states have done the same. The 14th Amendment guarantees 'equal protection of the laws,' and the Biden Administration claimed that SB1 discriminates by sex and transgender status. 'A teenager whose sex assigned at birth is male can be prescribed testosterone to conform to a male gender identity,' it argued, 'but a teenager assigned female at birth cannot.' Yet the Supreme Court now holds that the law turns on age and diagnosis, neither of which demands heightened judicial scrutiny.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Clarence Thomas Knocks Landmark Supreme Court LGBTQ+ Ruling—'Incorrect'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas criticized a landmark LGBTQ+ rights case as being decided based on "incorrect" reasoning in a new ruling issued on Wednesday. Newsweek reached out to the court for comment via its public information office email on Wednesday. Why It Matters The Supreme Court has considerable authority to interpret the laws of the United States, and its recent rulings had extensive impact on key policies around LGBTQ+ rights. Thomas, viewed as among the court's most conservative justices, has been critical of these rulings, such as in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the court ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. What To Know The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued their latest case on LGBTQ+ rights in U.S. v. Skrmetti, upholding a Tennessee law that bars gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Plaintiffs in the case argued the law benefits the Equal Protection Clause because it prohibits transgender minors from receiving hormones based on their biological sex; a transgender boy would not be able to receive testosterone, but the law does not apply to cisgender boys, those who identify with their birth gender. The court wrote in the majority opinion that the reasoning from the Bostock case does not back up their view. Thomas, in a concurring opinion, went further and took aim at the court's ruling in the 2020 Bostock ruling. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits during a group photo of the jurists on April 23, 2021, in Washington, D.C. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits during a group photo of the jurists on April 23, 2021, in Washington, D.C. Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images Thomas wrote that he believes the "Bostock majority's logic 'fails on its own terms.'" "While the majority concludes that SB1 does not discriminate based on sex, even under Bostock's incorrect reasoning, I would make clear that, in constitutional challenges, courts need not engage Bostock at all," he wrote. Thomas dissented from the majority in the original Bostock ruling, joining an opinion penned by Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote, "There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive." Alito wrote at the time that while a bill extending those protections passed the House of Representatives, it had stalled in the Senate. "Title VII's prohibition of discrimination because of 'sex; still means what it has always meant. But the Court is not deterred by these constitutional niceties. Usurping the constitutional authority of the other branches, the Court has essentially taken H.R. 5's provision on employment discrimination and issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation," the dissent reads. Thomas has also expressed interest in revisiting the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which said same-sex couples have marriage rights under the Equal Protection Clause. He wrote in June 2022—after the High Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade—the case that guaranteed reproductive rights across the country—that he wanted to see the court revisit Obergefell. "We have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents," Thomas wrote. What People Are Saying In the Skrmetti ruling, the High Court wrote: "We have not yet considered whether Bostock's reasoning reaches beyond the Title VII context, and we need not do so here. For reasons we have already explained, changing a minor's sex or transgender status does not alter the application of SB1." Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in Wednesday's ruling: "Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a spade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it." What Happens Next It is unclear if the Supreme Court will revisit the precedents set in the 2015 Obergefell ruling.
