Latest news with #Skrmetti
New York Times
a day ago
- Politics
- New York Times
The Supreme Court Fails to See Transgender Teens
Imagine you are a transgender teenager. Don't ask me how you know that you are transgender: That question is no more appropriate or relevant than asking people how they know that they are gay or Jewish or Black. Maybe you've always known. Maybe a classmate or a stranger said something that alerted you to it. Maybe you know the way teenagers often know things: As the world came into focus, this thing about yourself became clear as could be. In any case, you know. Like many teenagers, you spend an inordinate amount of time in front of the mirror. You regularly become obsessed with what you perceive as imperfections or, less often, advantages in your appearance. You adopt and abandon hairstyles, items of clothing and affectations. You will shed much of what you are experimenting with now, but some elements will stick. They will form the core of the person you are in the world. Speaking of the world: Moving through it is awkward, because you are a teenager. Being trans can make it more awkward still. Like when you are in a public place — including your school — and you need to use the bathroom. If you want to consider transitioning medically, you have to discuss the most intimate details of your life with doctors and involve your parents. I am asking you to imagine what it's like to be a transgender teenager because that is exactly what the majority of the Supreme Court justices refused to do when they ruled in United States v. Skrmetti on Wednesday, upholding a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for minors. The plaintiffs in the case are three trans teenagers from Tennessee, their parents and a doctor, but there is scarcely a reference to them in the majority or concurring opinions. It's often the case that 'courts enact discrimination through abstraction,' Chase Strangio, a director of the American Civil Liberties Union's L.G.B.T.Q. and H.I.V. Rights Project, who argued the case before the Supreme Court, told me. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 case that upheld the legality of racial segregation; in Korematsu v. United States, which in 1944 affirmed the internment of Japanese Americans; in Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 case that upheld Georgia's sodomy laws; and in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which three years ago took away the constitutional guarantee of abortion rights, the Supreme Court seemed blind to the existence of the people who would suffer most from the consequences of its decisions. In Skrmetti, the plaintiffs and the Biden administration said that the Tennessee law should be held to a higher level of scrutiny because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. If a state law creates conditions for treating people differently on the basis of sex, the state must prove that the law serves an important purpose that justifies such discrimination. If the differential treatment is based on race, the level of scrutiny is even higher. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
American Military News
a day ago
- Health
- American Military News
Supreme Court upholds child sex change ban in Tennessee
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law on Wednesday that bans sex changes for minors in the state, ruling that the prohibition on 'certain medical treatments for transgender minors' is not discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said, 'Tennessee's law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.' According to Fox News, the case, 'United States v. Skrmetti,' was originally brought against Tennessee's Senate Bill 1, which bans 'all medical treatments intended to allow 'a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex' or to treat 'purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity.'' Tennessee's Senate Bill 1 prevents healthcare providers from performing sex change procedures for minors with gender dysphoria and from using hormone and puberty blocker treatments to allow minors to transition to a different sex. READ MORE: Supreme Court allows AR-15, high-capacity magazine bans to continue In the Supreme Court's majority opinion on Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, '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,' Roberts added. 'Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, Beach Communications, 508 U. S., at 313, 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.' Following the Supreme Court's ruling on Wednesday, conservative political commentator Matt Walsh released a statement saying that he was 'grateful' to be a part of a 'truly historic victory' after years of fighting against child sex change procedures. 'Three years ago, we launched our investigation into Vanderbilt's child mutilation practices. We rallied in the state capital. Our lawmakers responded with a law banning child mutilation in the state,' Walsh tweeted. 'Today the Supreme Court upheld our law, which means child mutilation can be banned anywhere and everywhere in the country. And should be.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Health
- Yahoo
US supreme court upholds Tennessee ban on youth gender-affirming care
A Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming care for minors can stand, the US supreme court has ruled, a devastating loss for trans rights supporters in a case that could set a precedent for dozens of other lawsuits involving the rights of transgender children. The case, United States v Skrmetti, was filed last year by three families of trans children and a provider of gender-affirming care. In oral arguments, 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. Under Tennessee's law, someone assigned female at birth could not be prescribed testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could receive those drugs. Tennessee, meanwhile, has argued that the ban is necessary to protect children from what it termed 'experimental' medical treatment. During arguments, the conservative justices seemed sympathetic to that concern, although every major medical and mental health organization in the US has found that gender-affirming care can be evidence-based and medically necessary. These groups also oppose political bans on such care. All six of the supreme court's conservative justices joined in at least part of the decision to uphold the law, although several also wrote their own concurring opinions. In his majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the ruling primarily rested 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. He added: 'We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' In recent years, the question of transgender children and their rights has consumed an outsized amount of rightwing political discourse. Since 2021, 26 states have passed bans on gender-affirming care for minors, affecting nearly 40% of trans youth in the US. Twenty-six states have also outlawed trans kids from playing on sports teams that correspond with their gender identity. Many of these restrictions have been paused by court challenges, but the supreme court's decision could have vast implications for those lawsuits' futures. A study by the Trevor Project, a mental health non-profit that aims to help LGBTQ+ kids, found that anti-trans laws are linked to a 72% increase of suicide attempts among trans and nonbinary youth. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion, alongside Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. Because the law discriminates on the basis of sex, Sotomayor argued in her dissent, it should face higher legal scrutiny than the majority decided to give it. 'Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls,' Sotomayor wrote. '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.'
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@
&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.
