Supreme Court Upholds States’ Right to Protect Children from Being Subjected to ‘Gender-Affirming’ Drugs and Surgeries
In a landmark decision the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that states have the right to pass laws that protect children from being subjected to the experimental medical interventions that have been propped up under the euphemism “gender-affirming” medical care.
In a 6-3 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on the medical interventions for minors, ruling the law does not constitute sex-based discrimination.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined with the Chief Justice, while Justice Samuel Alito was in agreement with much of the discussion, concurring in the “judgment,” but delivering his own analysis of parts of the opinion.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
In United States v. Skrmetti, the Court held that “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.”
In April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the state on behalf of parents of children who claim to be transgender. Subsequently, the Biden-Harris administration joined the lawsuit, arguing Tennessee’s law is unconstitutional.
The Court ruled the Tennessee law’s two classifications – one age-related and the other based on diagnosis – are subject only to rational basis review.
“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),” Roberts wrote, adding that “[c]lassifications based on age or medical use are subject to only rational basis review.”
While “[t]he plaintiffs argue that SB1 warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications … neither of the above classifications turns on sex,” the chief justice explained. “Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor’s sex.”
The Court also “rejects the plaintiffs’ argument that, by design, SB1 enforces a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex.”
“To start, any allegations of sex stereotyping are misplaced,” Roberts wrote, adding that “where a law’s classifications are neither covertly nor overtly based on sex, the law does not trigger heightened review unless it was motivated by an invidious discriminatory purpose.”
“No such argument has been raised here,” the chief justice observed. “And regardless, the statutory findings on which SB1 is premised do not themselves evince sex-based stereotyping.”
Roberts explained that Tennessee’s law “also does not classify on the basis of transgender status.”
“The Court has explained that a State does not trigger heightened constitutional scrutiny by regulating a medical procedure that only one sex can undergo unless the regulation is a mere pretext for invidious sex discrimination,” the ruling continued.
The chief justice underscored the intense debate surrounding the safety and efficacy of transgender medical interventions.
“The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements,” he asserted. “The Court’s role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of SB1 … but only to ensure that the law does not violate equal protection guarantees. It does not.”
Tennessee Attorney General Skrmetti reacted to the ruling by emphasizing that his state’s “victory transcends politics.”
"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 said. "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."