Get a free copy of Parental Rights & Education when you subscribe to our newsletter!
In a massive victory for common sense, the Court found that transgenders aren’t a protected class under the 14th Amendment, setting a precedent that could have major implications for other gender-related laws and executive orders that have been challenged or ignored for being “discriminatory.”
Yesterday, in the case of the United States v. Skrmetti, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Tennessee’s ban on the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for the purpose of trying to achieve gender transitions in minors does not discriminate against transgender youth due to their sex or gender identity.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti praised the decision, saying, “In today’s historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters 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.”
Although the case specifically addressed Tennessee’s law and the issue of medical transitions in teens and children, legal observers say that the ruling sets a precedent that has major implications for other pending court cases involving even adult transgenders and their contention that gender identity is a “protected class” under the Constitution, like sex or ethnicity.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that
“transgender status is not marked by the same sort of ‘obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics’ as race or sex…Nor is the transgender population a ‘discrete group,’ as our cases require.”
The road to the Supreme Court began after Daily Wire journalist Matt Walsh released the results of an investigation into Vanderbilt University Medical Center Hospital that found that officials and doctors within its gender clinic had performed gender reassignment surgeries on minors and were pushing the medical and surgical procedures as “big moneymakers” for the institution.
Tennessee, after its own investigation and much debate, then passed its law, SB1, banning child gender transitions.
Three minors and their parents and one doctor quickly filed suit challenging the law, and a district court initially ruled in their favor, blocking the implementation of the law on the basis that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The Biden administration joined the lawsuit in April 2023 after it was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, arguing that the law discriminated against transgender minors based on their sex and on their transgender status because the law does allow doctors to prescribe puberty blockers for certain medical issues, such as precocious puberty.
The Food and Drug Administration has not approved puberty blockers for the treatment of gender dysphoria and has stated that there are hazardous side effects such as brain swelling in those taking puberty blockers.
Six months later, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court decision.
The Biden administration then appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which in June 2024 agreed to hear the case in order to rectify a split on the issue among the U.S. Circuits.
Since then, the Trump administration filed and declared it was no longer the position of the United States that the law discriminates against transgender youth.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court finally ruled, with Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the majority opinion.
The Court found that Tennessee has the right to restrict the use of puberty blockers for the purposes of gender transitions and refuted arguments that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and should trigger strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review. Roberts wrote,
“On its face, SB1 incorporates two classifications: one based on age (allowing certain medical treatments for adults but not minors) and another based on medical use (permitting puberty blockers and hormones for minors to treat certain conditions but not to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence). Classifications based on age or medical use are subject to only rational basis review.”
He added,
“The application of SB1, moreover, does not turn on sex. The law does not prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing those same treatments for minors of the opposite sex.”
The Court also denied the argument that the law discriminates based on transgender status.
Instrumental in the Court’s ruling was its ruling in Geduldig v. Aiello, in which it ruled that a California insurance program that didn’t cover certain disabilities related to pregnancy was not a form of discrimination based on sex.
In Geduldig the Court ruled that although only women can become pregnant, the insurance program didn’t discriminate against women as a group, but “remove[d] one physical condition—pregnancy—from the list of compensable disabilities” and divided potential recipients into two groups, pregnant women and nonpregnant persons.
Because women were included in both groups, the program did not discriminate against women as a group.
“By the same token, SB1 does not exclude any individual from medical treatments on the basis of transgender status. Rather, it removes one set of diagnoses—gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence—from the range of treatable conditions,” the Court ruled.
“SB1 divides minors into two groups: those seeking puberty blockers or hormones to treat the excluded diagnoses, and those seeking puberty blockers or hormones to treat other conditions. While the first group includes only transgender individuals, the second encompasses both transgender and nontransgender individuals. Thus, although only transgender individuals seek treatment for gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence—just as only biological women can become pregnant—there is a ‘lack of identity’ between transgender status and the excluded diagnoses. Absent a showing that SB1’s prohibitions are pretexts designed to effect invidious discrimination against transgender individuals, the law does not classify on the basis of transgender status.”
The Court ruled that because the law does not discriminate based on a protected class nor does it infringe on a fundamental right, it was only subject to rational basis review.
Tennessee had presented that it had a rational basis for the law, noting the lack of medical consensus on treating gender dysphoria, the evidence of harms from puberty blockers and other treatments, and the reality that many of those who undergo these treatments as children grow to regret it.
“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 Court ruled, adding,
“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.”
Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett both wrote concurring opinions in the decision.
Thomas rebuffed the plaintiffs’ arguments that “experts” completely agree that gender transitions are the correct treatment for gender dysphoria, as several European countries have instituted widespread restrictions and outright bans on gender transitions in minors and systemic reviews show the harms of these treatments.
He also disagreed that courts should defer to these so-called experts, writing,
“Taken together, this case serves as a useful reminder that the American people and their representatives are entitled to disagree with those who hold themselves out as experts, and that courts may not ‘sit as a super-legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation…. Thus, whether ‘major medical organizations’ agree with the result of Tennessee’s democratic process is irrelevant. To hold otherwise would permit elite sentiment to distort and stifle democratic debate under the guise of scientific judgment, and would reduce judges to mere ‘spectators’… in construing our Constitution.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan, and Kentanji Brown Jackson.
Those who had long criticized the normalizing of child mutilation in the name of civil rights celebrated the ruling.
Skrmetti stated,
“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. Today’s landmark decision recognizes that the Constitution lets us fulfill society’s highest calling — protecting our kids.”
Meanwhile, Walsh called on other states to pass laws banning minor gender transitions, saying,
“Today the Supreme Court upheld our law, which means child mutilation can be banned anywhere and everywhere in the country. And should be. This is a truly historic victory and I’m grateful to be a part of it, along with so many others who have fought relentlessly for years.”
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi agreed with Walsh’s suggestion in a statement,
“I applaud today’s Supreme Court decision that allows states to protect vulnerable children from genital mutilation and other so-called ‘gender-affirming care’ that leaves children permanently disfigured and scarred. This Department of Justice will continue its fight to protect America’s children and parental rights. I encourage other states to follow Tennessee’s lead and enact similar legislation to protect our kids.”
Currently, 26 states other than Tennessee have enacted bans or restrictions on the use of medications or surgeries to treat gender dysphoria in minors and 16 of those have been challenged in court — among them Missouri, Texas, Florida, Montana, Idaho, North Carolina, and Ohio.
According to Jonathan Turley, the Skrmetti precedent could have “major implications” for other gender-related laws and pending court cases, including a recent injunction that bars President Trump’s executive order mandating the designations of only “male” and “female” on U.S. passports.
Most immediately, though, the Supreme Court’s ruling means that all states can move forward with protecting children from predatory ideologues and those who seek to profit off their confusion and distress.
Though the Biden administration sought to cripple states’ ability to protect children from the transgender machine, its efforts have backfired and now the Supreme Court has delivered a decision affirming that states have the right to police the medical industry and protect its citizens, especially children, from suspect or unproven practices.
Far from discriminating against transgender children, the Tennessee law saves them from being allowed to make a decision in the throes of adolescent confusion, ideological brainwashing, and psychological trauma that will radically change their physical health and their future.
Many detransitioners have spoken out about their regret in being subjected to these treatments at a time when they were highly impressionable or dealing with other mental health issues, including autism, anxiety, depression, and the impact of sexual and physical abuse. Many will now suffer lifelong physical ailments and infertility, leaving them irreversibly marred and further traumatized by the decisions of adults who should have been looking out for their best interests.
Contrary to the claims of “experts,” such as those Sotomayor’s dissent caters to, gender transitions do not decrease the risk of suicide in those with gender dysphoria — they actually increase the risk.
Meanwhile evidence shows that less invasive approaches, such as psychotherapy or simply giving children time to grow up, are more effective in dealing with gender dysphoria.
Thanks to the Supreme Court and its embrace of common sense, states can now fully restrict these barbaric practices against children, and their legislatures should take steps to do so immediately.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
