Supreme Court's Skrmetti decision bolsters legacy of protecting children's health

The Hill

6 hours ago

News cycles don't have a very long shelf life. Who remembers Chinese spy balloons or toxic train spills in Ohio? Though events like these typically occupy just a short time in the national spotlight, there are some stories that have measurable results we're still seeing today.
One example is a story from three years ago when conservative commentator Matt Walsh uncovered that Vanderbilt University Medical Center was performing so-called gender procedures on children. Through a chain of events set off by that controversy, the school shut down its gender clinic. Tennessee lawmakers then passed a law that protects children from those dangerous procedures. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has just upheld that law's constitutionality in a decision released today in U.S. v. Skrmetti.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion that Tennessee's law is 'plainly rationally related' to 'the state's objective of protecting minors' health and welfare.' He continued: 'After Tennessee enacted SB1, a report commissioned by England's National Health Service characterized the evidence concerning the use of puberty blockers and hormones to treat transgender minors as 'remarkably weak,' concluding that there is 'no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.''
It's important to appreciate what a monumental win this is. So many children have been rushed into injecting cross-sex hormones that are not meant for their developing bodies. And some have had otherwise healthy body parts removed. As a result of these procedures, they are subjected to deeper health complications and lifetimes as medical patients.
Those who change course and accept their biological sex (known as 'detransitioners') all too often explain that the doctors who pushed them down this path did little to no looking into their underlying issues, such as mental health struggles or unresolved childhood trauma. To protect these children, Tennessee passed its law. With the Supreme Court's ruling in Skrmetti, more children are likely to get the treatment they deserve instead of being rushed down a destructive road by adults who should know better.
It hasn't been a smooth journey getting to this point. Gender ideologues have aggressively advanced their vision for their next generation. One of the earliest experts sounding the alarm was Dr. Allan Josephson, who headed up the University of Louisville's Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and turned it into one of the nation's most respected programs. In 2017, Dr. Josephson spoke in his personal capacity at a Heritage Foundation event, warning that treating children as the opposite sex is ineffective.
University officials received complaints about his presentation, harassed him for it, and ultimately refused to renew his contract. Alliance Defending Freedom, where I serve as chief legal counsel, represented Dr. Josephson in a lawsuit against the university. After many years of litigation, the school decided to settle the case to the tune of $1.6 million just a few months ago.
There have been other signs that gender ideology is losing steam. The seemingly daily headlines of males displacing women in their own sports has resulted in two-thirds of Americans saying that males who identify as women should not be allowed to compete in women's sports. A lawsuit in England brought by a young woman against the National Health System led to the closure of the Tavistock Gender Clinic, which then resulted in the study by Dr. Cass mentioned by Roberts in his opinion in Skrmetti.
States have an interest in seeing that children are not subject to risky and unproven medical procedures. That's why laws like Tennessee's law is constitutional and why the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's effort to protect kids.
States also have an interest in upholding the constitutional right to speak freely on the issue of gender ideology. This freedom extends to licensed professionals who work with children struggling with gender dysphoria and desiring to grow comfortable with their sex. Colorado, however, has a law that does just the opposite. If a youth walks into a counselor's office and says she has begun to identify as the opposite sex but she's worried about the path of 'transition,' the counselor has only one option — to encourage the child to embrace the new identity. The law prohibits counselors from helping that young person achieve her goal of being comfortable with her own body.
The Supreme Court will soon consider Chiles v. Salazar, a case that will be argued in the fall and in which ADF represents licensed professional counselor Kaley Chiles in her challenge to Colorado's law. The obvious question is: If Tennessee's law is constitutional, why is Colorado's unconstitutional? The answer: The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Colorado's law violates free speech guarantees because it forbids counselors from engaging in counseling conversations that they and their young clients desire. In contrast, the Tennessee law regulates only the conduct of administering drugs and performing medical procedures, neither of which the First Amendment protects. That's why Tennessee's law was upheld, whereas Colorado's should fall.
Headlines come and go, but the courageous people who defend our children — and the politicians and professionals who offer them real care — leave a lifetime legacy worth applauding.
Jim Campbell is chief legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal).