logo
Supreme Court opens door for ‘untold harm' by upholding ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth, liberal justices warn

Supreme Court opens door for ‘untold harm' by upholding ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth, liberal justices warn

Independent4 hours ago

The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming healthcare for transgender minors, delivering a major blow to access to care for trans people as the Trump administration seeks to end federal recognition of trans people entirely.
The high court's 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts is expected to have nationwide impacts, after more than two dozen states enact similar bans on access to hormone therapy and other gender-affirming healthcare for trans people under 18.
All three liberal justices dissented.
'This case presents an easy question,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion.
At issue is whether Tennessee 's law banning certain healthcare constitutes a form of sex discrimination that violates the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
'Because sex determines access to the covered medications, it clearly does. Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a spade,' she wrote.
'Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down [the law], or categorical healthcare bans like it,' she added. 'The Court's willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight.
The conservative majority's ruling 'also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them,' she added.
Justices were asked to decide whether states that ban transgender children from medically recommended healthcare qualifies as unconstitutional sex discrimination under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.
During December's oral arguments in United States v Skrmetti, several conservative justices suggested they would leave a decision on standards for trans healthcare up to individual states, echoing similar arguments from the landmark ruling that revoked a constitutional right to abortion care.
The justices heard more than two hours of wide-ranging arguments and questions on whether trans people can be constitutionally protected from discrimination during oral arguments last year.
Justice Samuel Alito grilled ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, the first-ever openly trans attorney to present at the high court, to repeatedly cast doubt on whether being transgender is 'immutable' and thus protected by anti-discrimination laws.
'I think that the record shows that the discordance between a person's birth, sex and gender identity has a strong biological basis and would satisfy an immutability test,' Strangio replied.
In 2020, medically necessary gender-affirming healthcare was available to transgender young people in every state. Within the years that followed, that same healthcare was outlawed in nearly half of states, after hundreds of bills targeting LGBT+ young people flooded statehouses on a wave of anti-trans rhetoric that dominated campaign messaging into the 2024 presidential election.
South Dakota was the first state to introduce an outright ban. Arkansas was the first to make one law. By the end of 2024, 26 states made affirming care for trans minors illegal. Nearly 40 percent of trans youth aged 13 to 17 — roughly 119,000 children — are living in those states, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
One week after his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to rescind policies that support or acknowledge gender-affirming healthcare for transgender Americans.
He also issued an executive order effectively ending federal recognition of trans people across the government, forming the basis for several other orders focused exclusively on trans people, their healthcare and whether they can serve in the U.S. military.
His sweeping order on gender-affirming care targets the prescription of puberty blockers, hormone therapies and affirming surgeries for anyone under 19 years old — an age group that includes adult Americans.
Major medical organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and American Counseling Association, among others, agree that such care is clinically appropriate for trans youth experiencing gender dysphoria. Medical guidelines generally say that affirming surgeries should only be approved for people ages 18 and older, and they are rarely, if ever, performed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Tougher sentences for criminals who abuse LGBT people ‘vital step forward'
Tougher sentences for criminals who abuse LGBT people ‘vital step forward'

Western Telegraph

time24 minutes ago

  • Western Telegraph

Tougher sentences for criminals who abuse LGBT people ‘vital step forward'

Jacob Collier called for new aggravated offences as part of the Government's Crime and Policing Bill, as he warned many LGBT+ people 'don't feel safe in reporting hate'. More than 100 cross-party MPs backed the proposed amendment, originally put forward by Rachel Taylor, which would create the new offences if violent crimes are motivated by hostility toward's a person's sexuality, transgender identity or disability. Mr Collier said: 'I know what it means to think twice how you walk down the street, to pause before holding somebody's hand, to wonder whether that shout from across the road is something you can ignore or something you can't afford to. I think it's also fitting that we are introducing this amendment in Pride Month, and in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling which has caused so much anguish amongst the trans community. Jacob Collier MP 'And I know that I'm not alone in that. 'I've spoken to my constituents and people from far beyond who tell me that they don't feel safe in reporting hate when it happens. They don't believe that they'll be taken seriously and there's a profound failure of trust, and one that we in this House have a duty to repair.' The Burton and Uttoxeter MP also told the Commons: 'I think it's also fitting that we are introducing this amendment in Pride Month, and in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling which has caused so much anguish amongst the trans community.' He said the move 'represents a vital step forward in the protection of some of the most marginalised people within our society' and added: 'Too many victims still believe that the system is not on their side and this new clause gives us the opportunity to change that. It gives police and prosecutors a clear route to charge and convict offenders in a way that truly reflects the nature of these crimes.' Mr Collier said the proposed change was 'about dignity, about recognising that whether you're a trans teenager being punched in the park, a gay couple being spat on on the Tube, or a disabled man being harassed on his way to work, all people deserve the full protection of the law'. Aggravated offences would also offer 'vital protection for disabled people, who often remain far too invisible in the public conversation around hate crime', he added. The law already provides for aggravated offences, if they are motivated by hostility towards a victim's race or religious group membership. 'That discrepancy cannot be right. We cannot as a society say that some forms of hatred are more evil than others,' Ms Taylor told the Commons. The Labour MP for North Warwickshire and Bedworth added she was 'at university when section 28 was introduced', part of the Local Government Act 1988 which banned town halls from promoting or teaching 'the acceptability of' homosexuality in schools. 'I remember it vividly, it was more than the law, it was an attack on the right of people like me to live openly,' she said. 'It stigmatised lesbians, gays and bisexual people, it pushed us out of public life. 'I got into politics to fight that cruel law and everything it represented.' Ms Taylor said her amendment would be 'an important step forward for equal rights'. Marie Tidball, the Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge who also backed the amendment, said the proposal 'would foster respect and equality for all by ensuring justice for disabled victims of hate crime'.

Trump shuts down reporter who asked whether he'll nuke Iran
Trump shuts down reporter who asked whether he'll nuke Iran

Daily Mail​

time25 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Trump shuts down reporter who asked whether he'll nuke Iran

By President Donald Trump hilariously shut down a reporter who asked a pointed question about a potential US strike on Iran - before mocking her right outside of the White House . The reporter, CNN 's Alayna Treene, asked Trump 'whether you are moving closer, or whether you believe the US is moving closer, to striking Iranian nuclear facilities.' 'Well, obviously I can't say that, right? You don't seriously think I am going to answer that question?' he said with a smirk. The president proceeded to laugh it off before offering up an impression of the reporter's question. "'Will you strike the Iranian nuclear component and what time, exactly, sir? Sir, would you strike it?'" Trump said. '"Would you please inform us so we can be there and watch?"' 'I mean, you don't even know if I may do it. I may do it. I may not do it,' he said of entering the conflict to side with Israel. 'Nobody knows what I'm going to do.' Treene, a White House reporter who made the Forbes 30 Under 30 media list in 2021, then took to both X and Instagram to talk up the exchange. 'Nothing's finished until it's finished.' As he spoke, missiles launched from Iran continued to target Israel, where the U.S. is currently coordinating planes and cruise ships to evacuate American citizen. Trump engaged in his remarks at a press conference meant to ring in the installation of two new White House flagpoles, where he clashed with Treene at another point as well. He went on to wax poetic about his supporter before bringing up how he 'won all seven swing states' over Kamala Harris. 'Report that,' he told Treene, who joined CNN in January 2023.

US Supreme Court sets test for which courts can hear EPA cases
US Supreme Court sets test for which courts can hear EPA cases

Reuters

time31 minutes ago

  • Reuters

US Supreme Court sets test for which courts can hear EPA cases

June 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court established rules of the road on Wednesday to determine when lawsuits challenging actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency related to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions should be heard by regional appeals courts or an appeals court in Washington that often hears regulatory cases. The 7-2 ruling, opens new tab held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and not the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is the proper court to hear a lawsuit by small oil refiners challenging the EPA's denial of waivers exempting them from national biofuel mandates. That meant that the 5th Circuit had no business ruling in 2023 that the EPA during President Joe Biden's administration had unlawfully denied the oil refineries waivers from a renewable fuels requirement that they blend ethanol and other biofuels into their fuel. Yet under the same test to assess venue that the justices announced in the refineries cases, they ruled, opens new tab 8-0 that a different set of lawsuits by the Republican-led states of Oklahoma and Utah and several energy companies including PacifiCorp challenging the EPA's "Good Neighbor" smog control plan were wrongly transferred to the D.C. Circuit. Both sets of cases turned on a provision of the Clean Air Act anti-pollution law that designates the D.C. Circuit as the exclusive venue for cases over "nationally applicable" EPA actions and rules but leaves cases concerning only local agency actions to regional federal appeals courts. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Supreme Court's majority in the refineries' case, used his opinion to map out a test for how to interpret that provision and determine the proper venue for lawsuits challenging EPA actions. Thomas said that while the law presumptively routes cases concerning local agency actions to a regional appeals court, they still must be heard by the D.C. Circuit "if a justification of nationwide breadth is the primary explanation for and driver of EPA's action." That justification must supply a "core justification" for the EPA's action, Thomas said, as it did in the case of the six refineries, whose requests for biofuel mandate exemptions were denied based on an interpretation of the Clean Air Act that the agency applied to all refineries regardless of their geographic location. The ruling reversed a 5th Circuit decision in favor of the refineries on the merits after concluding that the EPA's actions were local or regional in nature, not national. "Allowing 12 different circuit courts to adjudicate SREs (small refinery exemptions) would result in a fractured and inconsistent body of law, causing chaos and confusion in the marketplace," biofuel groups Growth Energy and the Renewable Fuels Association wrote in a joint statement. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a dissenting opinion joined by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, said the test that the majority laid out was "both mistaken and likely to render simple venue questions unnecessarily difficult and expensive to resolve." They nonetheless concurred with the court's decision to reverse the conclusion by the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the case by Oklahoma and Utah should be transferred to the D.C. Circuit. That case concerned a rule the EPA issued in March 2023 intended to target gases that form ozone, a key component of smog, from power plants and other industrial sources in 23 upwind states whose own plans did not satisfy the the Clean Air Act's "Good Neighbor" provision. Oklahoma and Utah were among 21 states whose air quality plans were rejected by the EPA under that policy. Numerous lawsuits followed, including by Oklahoma and Utah, who sought to challenge the decision in the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. While the 10th Circuit held the case belonged in the D.C. Circuit because it concerned a national policy, Thomas wrote that the 10th Circuit could hear the case because the EPA's action turned on state-specific factors. The Supreme Court last year blocked the Biden-era "Good Neighbor" rule from being enforced while litigation in the lower courts moved forward. The Trump administration has said it plans to repeal the rule.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store