Rules of the Supreme Court on the prohibition of transgender treatment of Tennessee for minors

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday according to which a law of Tennessee prohibiting specific transgender medical treatments for state adolescents is not discriminatory, decision 6-3 to confirm the law.

In question in the case, United States v. Skrmetti, was whether the Tennesee Senate bill, which “prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow a minor to identify or live as an alleged forecast incompatible with the sex of the minor ‘or to deal with” a discomfort taken or a distress of the discète between the sex of the minor and the assertive identity “,” “violated the The minor.

This law prohibits states from authorizing medical suppliers To deliver blockers and puberty hormones to facilitate the transition from a minor to another sex.

He also targets health care providers in the state who continue to provide such procedures to dysphoric minors between the sexes – opening these providers to fines, prosecution and other responsibilities.

Writing for the majority, the chief judge John Roberts ruled that the question of the law is not subject to a meticulous examination “because he does not classify on the bases which justify an increased exam”.

“This case leads to the weight of ferocious scientific and political debates on the security, efficiency and convenience of medical treatments in an evolving field,” he said. “The voices of these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are deep.”

The Supreme Court seems divided on state prohibitions on gender transition “treatments” for minors

In question in the case, the United States c. Skrmetti are whether the protection clause equally prohibits states from allowing medical providers to deliver puberty blockers and hormones to facilitate the transition from a minor to another sex. (Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call, included via Getty Images)

United States c. Skrmetti was one of the most monitored cases of the duration of the Supreme Court, with potential training effects for current legal battles on transgender rights – including access to toilets and participation in school sports.

The decision could also serve as a legal pretext in future cases involving LGBTQ +protections, especially if sexual orientation is considered to be a “protected class” equally with race or national origin.

“The equal protection clause does not solve these disagreements. It also does not allow us to decide as we see the best,” he added. “Our role is not” to judge the wisdom, equity 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 that this does not leave, we leave questions concerning its policy with the population, their elected representatives and the democratic process.”

The three liberal judges are significantly dissident in the case.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has published a scathing dissent which cited a long history of laws discriminating by others, noting that transgender people in the United States represent less than 1% of the country’s population. There are about 1.3 million adults and 300,000 teenagers aged 13 to 17 who identify as transgender, according to the Williams Institute of the UCLA Law School.

She noted that SB1 “expressly classified on the basis of sex and transgender status, so that the Constitution and the previous settlement require the court to subject it to an intermediate examination”.

“The majority contortion of logic and the previous one to say the opposite, inexplicably declaring that he must maintain the categorical prohibition of Tennessee on vital medical treatments as long as” any reasonable state of fact could justify it, “said Sotomayor, adding:” by withdrawing from the significant, most important, the most important transgender courts and their families.

“In sadness, I dissipate myself,” she said.

The Supreme Court freezes the return order of the man of the prison of El Salvador

Head judge of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, and the associate judge of the American Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, launched before the state of the Union of the American president Joe Biden of the Chamber of the Chamber of the American Capitol in Washington, DC, on March 7, 2024. (Mandel Ngan / AFP via Getty Images)

The court’s decision comes after many other states have decided to ban or restrict medical treatment and procedures for transgender adolescents, drawing attention to the case.

During the oral arguments of December, the judges of the Supreme Court seemed reluctant to cancel Bill 1 of the Senate, with chief judge Roberts and judge Brett Kavanaugh suggesting that the legislatures of the States, rather than the courts, are better equipped to regulate medical procedures.

Roberts noted at the time that the Constitution leaves such questions “to the representatives of the people”, rather than to the judges of the Supreme Court, “none of whom are a doctor”.

The Supreme Court weighs the treatments of transgender young people in the historic case

The high court heard the oral arguments in the case in early December. At the time, judges seemed to be divided on the constitutionality of the law of the state after almost two and a half hours of tense arguments. (Olivier Douliery / AFP via Getty Images)

Judge Samuel Alito cited “highly disputed” medical studies on the alleged advantages of these medical treatments and told government lawyer that these studies “have found a complete lack of high -quality evidence showing that the advantages of the treatments in question prevail here on risks”.

“Do you challenge yourself?” Alito asked during the oral arguments.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, however, replied that with evidence of minor individuals who were refused treatment.

“Some children are incredibly suffering from gender dysphoria, isn’t it? I think some people try to commit suicide?” She asked.

“The state came here and, in a lively gap in the way he normally addresses this problem, he completely decided to prevail over the opinions of parents, patients, doctors who are caught with these decisions and try to make these compromises,” she said.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had asked the Supreme Court to hear the case on behalf of the parents of three transgender adolescents and a doctor based in Memphis who treats transgender patients.

The Biden administration had already joined the petitioners in the case via a federal law which allows the administration to intervene in certain cases certified by the Attorney General to be “of general public importance”.

LGBTQ + Advocates, Families Sue Trump Admin for the end of financing of transgender health care under 19

Some on the left called at the end of trans inclusion efforts (Mark Kerrison / In Pictures via Getty Images)

However, the Trump administration informed the Supreme Court in February that the government would modify its position on the constitutionality of the law, claiming that the law of Tennessee does not violate the equal protection clause.

The level of control that the courts should also be in question to assess the constitutionality of state prohibitions on transgender medical treatments for minors, such as SB1, and if these laws are considered discriminating on the basis of sex or against a “quasi-suspect class”, thus justifying a higher level of control under the equal protection clause of the equal protection clause ” constitution.

This was another objective of the oral arguments in December, because the petitioners and the respondents fought for more than two hours at the level of control that the court should apply to examine the laws involving transgender care for minors, including SB1.

Tennessee then argued that his law can still resist the test of an in -depth examination, affirming in justice in court that he has “imperative interests” to protect the health and safety of minors in the state and “to protect the integrity and ethics of the medical profession”.

The Supreme Court can take a massive step in the prevention of trans athletes in girls’ sports with a historic audience

President Donald Trump has signed a decree, entitled “Keeping men out of female sports”, on the national girls and women of the sports day. (Getty Images)

Addressing journalists after the oral arguments in December, the attorney general of Tennessee, Jonathan Skrmetti, said that the Constitution “allows states to protect children from unproven procedures and which change life based on an uncertain science”.

The High Court’s decision comes at a time when transgender rights are a highly contested subject.

President Donald Trump repressed the issue almost immediately after being sworn in in his second White House term in January. Only a few weeks after its inauguration, Trump signed an executive decree preventing organic men from participating in female sports.

The order, entitled “preventing female sports men”, was signed on national girls and women in the sports day. It prohibits Women’s sports teams And in the changing rooms and the toilets of women.

Click here to obtain the Fox News app

Trump administration policies on the rights of transgender people have inevitably become the target of legal challenges launched by plea groups, medical organizations and people who claim to be discriminatory.

The Attorney General Pam Bondi welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court on social networks on Wednesday. “This Ministry of Justice will continue its struggle to protect children and parental rights in America,” she said on X. “I encourage other states to follow the example of Tennessee and promulgate similar legislation to protect our children.”

Haley Chi-Sing of Fox News Digital contributed to this report.