The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Wednesday that Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming care in cases of gender dysphoria does not trigger heightened legal protections. At the same time, it allowed that the same exact care for minors going through other conditions like precocious puberty could.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, claimed that the law turns on the age of the patient and its medical uses, and that is has nothing to do with sex. This wobbly argument lets him avoid the 14th Amendment and its higher standards for laws that target sex.
The decision was fractured among the justices, though all three liberals dissented.
In contorted reasoning, Roberts wrote that while the group forbidden from getting gender affirming care is comprised entirely of trans individuals, the group allowed to get the same care for other diagnoses may include trans individuals, so it’s not discrimination.
“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,” he wrote.
He added, unbelievably, that minors may “regret” getting getting puberty blockers or hormones, that they lack the “maturity” to make the choice to get such medical treatment — while in the same breath saying it’s fine for minors to get the exact same treatment for non-trans related diagnoses.
Sotomayor wrote that the law is a clear-cut case of sex discrimination, which should trigger heightened scrutiny.
“By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims,” she wrote. “In sadness, I dissent.”
This story is breaking and will be updated.
Read the ruling here:
