On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that a Tennessee law prohibiting harmful transgender procedures on minors is constitutional.
“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. Questions regarding the law’s policy are thus appropriately left to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,” the Court ruled.
The final vote came along ideological lines, with the six Republican appointees voting to uphold the law and the three Democrat appointees siding against the Volunteer State. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion.
Known as United States v. Skrmetti, the case centers around a 2023 lawsuit filed by the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union against Tennessee. Joined by the Biden Justice Department, the left-wing group claimed that a law passed by the Volunteer State (and Kentucky) prohibiting health care providers from conducting harmful “trans” procedures on minors violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. (The Trump DOJ recently withdrew the challenge).
While a district court judge partially blocked the law’s enforcement in June 2023, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the statute later that year.
Writing for the majority, Roberts noted how the Court found that the Tennessee statute “does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review” under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
“The plaintiffs argue that SB1 warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications. We disagree,” Roberts wrote. “Neither of the above classifications [age and medical use] turns on sex. Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers and hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor’s sex.”
The chief justice continued, “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. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best.”
In addition to signing onto the majority opinion, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion “to address some additional arguments made in defense of Tennessee’s law.”
The high court’s most senior justice notably referenced the case’s discussion of Bostock v. Clayton County in the majority opinion. That 2019 SCOTUS decision unilaterally declared that so-called “gender identity” is covered under the Civil Rights Act’s Title VII protections.
Referencing Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent in Bostock, Thomas noted that “[w]hile [he] continue[s] to think that the Bostock majority’s logic ‘fails on its own terms,’ [he] see[s] in any event no reason to import Bostock’s Title VII analysis into the Equal Protection Clause.”
“The Bostock Court recognized that ‘other federal . . . laws that prohibit sex discrimination’ were not before it, … and thus rested its analysis on what it took to be the ordinary meaning of the relevant statutory terms — “‘because of,’” “‘otherwise . . . discriminate against,’” and ‘individual’ — within the context of Title VII … The Equal Protection Clause includes none of this language,” Thomas wrote. “Extending the Bostock framework here would depart dramatically from this Court’s Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence. … While the majority concludes that SB1 does not discriminate based on sex even under Bostock’s incorrect reasoning … I would make clear that, in constitutional challenges, courts need not engage Bostock at all.”
Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a separate concurring opinion, in which Thomas joined. The Trump appointee noted that while SCOTUS’s ruling “does not resolve whether transgender status constitutes a suspect class,” “in [her] view, it does not.”
Meanwhile, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, which Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full and in part, respectively.
The Democrat appointees claimed that “the Constitution and settled precedent require the Court to subject [the Tennessee law] to intermediate scrutiny.” They further accused the majority of “contort[ing] logic and precedent to say otherwise, inexplicably declaring it must uphold Tennessee’s categorical ban” on what they argue is “lifesaving medical treatment so long as “‘any reasonably conceivable state of facts’” might justify it.”
“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,” Sotomayor wrote.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
