The United States Supreme Court has decisively protected children from gender-affirming care and irreversible gender treatments in a landmark 6-3 ruling.
See the tweet below this post.
Conservative justices upheld Tennessee’s ban on all gender-affirming care for minors, including surgeries, puberty blockers, and hormone therapy.
This victory for parental rights and child safety will immediately strengthen similar laws in 26 other states across America.
In a ruling that falls along ideological lines, the Court’s conservative majority rejected arguments that Tennessee’s law violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that courts should not resolve complex scientific and policy debates about gender treatments for children.
Roberts wrote the majority opinion:
“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.”
⏰BREAKING
The Department of Justice has submitted a letter to the clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court notifying it of a change in position over "gender affirming care" for minors, which directly impacts the constitutional challenge to Tennessee's ban in U.S. v Skrmetti.
BUT the… pic.twitter.com/bgRYfCde2R
— Sarah Parshall Perry (@SarahPPerry) February 7, 2025
The Tennessee law at the center of the case prevents minors from accessing puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender transition surgeries.
The ban was designed to protect children from making life-altering medical decisions before reaching adulthood, a concern shared by many parents and medical experts worldwide.
State Senator Jack Johnson (R-TN), who championed the legislation, explained the reasoning behind the law:
“We regulate a number of different types of [medical] procedures, and we felt like this was the best public policy to prevent kids from suffering from irreversible consequences, things that cannot be undone.”
Johnson also pointed to growing international skepticism about these treatments.
He noted that several European countries have scaled back gender treatments for minors “because they’re seeing that the adverse effects of some of these medications far outweigh any benefit they have.”
The case originated when three transgender-identifying teenagers and their parents, backed by the ACLU and the Biden administration, challenged the Tennessee law.
They claimed the ban discriminated against transgender youth and violated their equal protection rights.
Still, the Court’s conservative majority rejected these arguments, applying a rational basis review that gives states wide latitude in protecting children.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti praised the ruling for allowing science rather than ideology to guide policy on children’s healthcare.
Moreover, the decision represents a significant win for the Trump administration’s efforts to reverse Biden-era transgender policies that many conservatives view as harmful to children and families.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s opinion emphasized that laws based on transgender status should not receive special court review, a position consistent with traditional constitutional interpretation.
Surprisingly, the three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor claiming the law discriminates based on sex and transgender status.
In a statement that many conservatives found overreaching, 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.”
The ruling preserves a key distinction in Tennessee’s law, which still allows puberty blockers and hormones for non-transgender medical conditions, focusing specifically on preventing their use for gender transition in minors.
This approach recognizes legitimate medical uses while protecting children from controversial gender ideology.
For conservatives and child advocates across America, the decision represents a crucial victory in the ongoing effort to protect minors from irreversible medical interventions and preserve parental rights in determining appropriate healthcare for their children.
