U.S. Supreme Court
DARCY BASS | Dallas Voice Intern
Editor@DallasVoice.com
WASHINGTON, DC. — The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a seismic ruling Wednesday, June 18, that will block access to gender-affirming hormone therapies for transgender youth in Tennessee, upholding a state law that families and civil rights attorneys say places politics over medical science and leaves vulnerable children without critical care.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with Tennessee officials, allowing state law SB1 to take effect. This law prohibits healthcare providers from administering gender-affirming health care to transgender minors. The ruling found that the law does not discriminate based on sex or transgender status and therefore does not require heightened judicial scrutiny.
Texas is one of 26 other states that have similar laws in place.
Lambda Legal’s Southwestern Regional Office in Dallas and regional Director Shelly Skeen held a gathering Wednesday evening for those impacted by the decision and their allies, providing a chance for them to be together, get the most up-to-date information on the ruling and what it means and to find resources moving forward. There will be a second such gathering Saturday, June 21, from 11 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at Cathedral of Hope’s Interfaith Peace Chapel, 5910 Cedar Springs Road.
The case, L.W. v. Skrmetti, was brought by three families of transgender youth and a Memphis-based physician, Dr. Susan Lacy, with support from the ACLU, Lambda Legal and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. Plaintiffs argued that SB1 violates the Equal Protection Clause set out in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
LGBTQ advocates and legal groups condemned this week’s decision, describing it as a rollback of basic civil rights protections. Leaders from Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD all issued urgent warnings that the ruling could embolden states across the country to restrict or eliminate access to gender-affirming care.
“We think that this is fundamentally wrong and inconsistent, both with the plain language and the stature of the court’s longstanding precedent,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ+ and HIV Project. “The most immediate effect is on our clients and other young transgender people in Tennessee, and across the country, who need medical care.”
The ACLU described the ruling as a “devastating loss” that will impact not only transgender youth but any American who relies on constitutional protections for equal treatment under the law. The organization also emphasized that the decision applies specifically to the Tennessee statute and does not override broader court precedents that protect transgender people from other forms of discrimination.
In an address Wednesday, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said the ruling was a win, “due to the common sense of Tennessee voters.”
Lambda Legal expressed alarm that the court allowed a politically motivated ban to supersede longstanding medical standards, emphasizing that gender-affirming care is widely supported by every major U.S. medical association and is often considered essential to the mental health and wellbeing of trans youth.
Jonathan Skrmetti
The Trevor Project, which focuses on LGBTQ youth mental health, recently reported that anti-trans legislation has contributed to a significant rise in suicide attempts among transgender and nonbinary adolescents. Advocates worry that Wednesday’s ruling could make a dire situation worse.
“With the court allowing Tennessee’s ban to remain in place, there’s no question that it makes it harder for them [transgender youth] to escape the danger and the trauma of being denied,” said Karen Loewy of Lambda Legal, Director of Constitutional Law Practice.
Medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association, continue to assert that gender-affirming care is safe, effective and medically necessary. A recent 1,000-page report commissioned by the Utah Legislature confirmed those findings.
“It is really important to reiterate that the Supreme Court did not endorse the entirety of the lower court’s ruling,” Loewy said. “It did not mandate or even green light other bans on gender affirming medical care, even for young people.”
LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, a political organization focused on increasing LGBTQ representation in government, said the ruling underscores the need for voters to elect leaders who understand and will protect LGBTQ rights. They pointed out that with the courts increasingly deferring to lawmakers, political action will be the most critical battleground going forward.
The ruling does not immediately affect states where gender-affirming care remains legal, but the implications are already reverberating through courts and state legislatures nationwide.
Many existing legal challenges to similar bans may now face an uphill battle.
Advocates say this decision will force painful choices for the families of transgender youth. Some families may move out of state, others may go without care altogether.
“This ruling is a direct attack on trans lives,” the Transgender Law Center wrote in a press release released Wednesday. “It gives states a green light to deny young people the care they need, ignoring medical and scientific expertise.”
Civil rights organizations insist they will continue fighting in court and in legislatures. For now, though, many in the LGBTQ community say the message from the nation’s highest court is clear: The rights and health of transgender youth are not protected equally under the law.