On Wednesday, the Supreme Court dealt a significant setback to transgender equality by upholding a controversial Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The court's ruling in the case of U.S. v. Skrmetti effectively paves the way for similar bans already enacted in nearly half of the states, cutting off crucial access to medical treatment for thousands of minors across the nation.
The conservative supermajority of the court stood united in supporting these bans, justifying their position through questionable logic and disputed factual claims. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, while all three liberal justices dissented. Within the conservative bloc, however, there was notable tension as at least three justices sought to extend the ruling to further legitimize discrimination against transgender Americans.
Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the implications of the court’s decision during a special episode of Amicus on Slate Plus. Lithwick prompted a discussion about how Chief Justice Roberts framed the majority opinion, particularly regarding the constitutional scrutiny applied to the Tennessee law.
Stern highlighted a critical observation: the Tennessee law seemingly targets individuals based on their sex and transgender status, which should invoke a higher level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. He pointed out that while a child assigned male at birth can receive puberty blockers and testosterone, a child assigned female at birth is barred from similar treatments. The Tennessee legislature explicitly stated that one of its primary goals was to encourage minors to embrace the sex they were assigned at birth, raising questions about the law’s discriminatory nature.
Roberts' opinion sidesteps this issue of sex discrimination by categorizing the law as age-based and focused on the medical regulation of specific treatments for gender dysphoria. He argued that since the law only applies to minors and restricts certain medical interventions, it does not target individuals based on sex, thus invoking only the lowest standard of judicial review—rational basis review.
The ruling included 118 pages of opinions, with significant flag-planting evident, particularly in the concurrence by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Often labeled as a centrist figure, Barrett’s opinion raises alarms regarding her stance on transgender rights. She asserted that even if a law discriminates against transgender individuals, it would not necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, arguing that transgender status does not qualify as a "suspect class." This assertion indicates a troubling perspective on the historical discrimination faced by transgender individuals.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered Barrett's arguments directly in her dissent, emphasizing the substantial record of anti-transgender discrimination. She noted longstanding laws that enforced conformity to assigned genders, highlighting a historical context that Barrett seemed to overlook. Additionally, Sotomayor pointed to recent executive actions under the Trump administration that discriminated against transgender individuals, further underscoring the ongoing bias faced by this community.
The recent ruling has sparked a broader conversation about the future of transgender rights in the United States. With justices like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito expressing support for increased discrimination against transgender individuals, there is a palpable concern about the direction of the court. Alito's concurrence reiterated that discrimination based on transgender status should not be considered suspect under the Equal Protection Clause, while Thomas suggested that such laws might not face significant judicial scrutiny.
This case, while a 6-3 decision on its surface, reveals deeper divisions among the justices regarding the treatment of transgender individuals under the law. Roberts' opinion tactically avoids answering whether more explicit transgender discrimination laws would warrant heightened scrutiny, leaving critical questions regarding the protection of transgender rights unanswered.
The implications of this ruling are profound, not just for transgender youth but for the overall landscape of LGBTQ+ rights in America. As the Supreme Court navigates such contentious issues, the future remains uncertain for many who seek equality and protection under the law.
