logo
Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Law Banning Care for Trans Kids

Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Law Banning Care for Trans Kids

Yahoo9 hours ago

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors. The ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti dictates that state laws prohibiting gender-affirming hormone therapies and puberty-pausing medications for transgender youth are constitutional. Notably, the Tennessee law doesn't allow best-practice transition-related medical care for children under the age of 18, while permitting minors who are not transgener to access treatments like hormone therapies and puberty blockers.
Three Tennessee trans youths and their families challenged the state's law, which passed in 2023, arguing that it violates the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment. 'Rather than leave the state of Tennessee, these young people, their families, [and] healthcare providers tried to challenge that contradiction in best practices and frankly, the totally confusing discrimination on the basis of their sex assigned at birth,' says Kara Ingelhart, clinical assistant professor of law and director of the LGBTQI+ Rights Clinic at Northwestern University. This is the first time the Supreme Court has directly ruled on how the Equal Protection Clause applies to gender-affirming care for minors, according to UCLA's Williams Institute.
'The Equal Protection Clause is designed to protect historically marginalized groups, like trans folks, people of color, women — those who don't have the political power to move legislators in their favor all the time,' Ingelhart explains. 'When we leave questions of minority rights to majoritarian rule, there can be people left behind.'
The Tennessee law, SB1, stipulates that gender-affirming care cannot be used to treat youth with gender dysphoria, prohibiting medical practitioners from providing hormones, puberty blockers, or surgery for the purposes of 'enabling the minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex; or treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity.'
'This is an incredibly painful day for transgender young people and their families who love and support them,' Andy Marra, executive director of Advocates for Trans Equality tells Rolling Stone in an emailed statement. 'The U.S. Supreme Court has failed in its most basic duty — to protect the rights and freedoms of vulnerable people from political overreach. By allowing this cruel and unnecessary ban to stand, the Court has abandoned Tennessee's minors and families in favor of extremist politicians.'
The decision has the potential to impact similar state laws across the country. Currently, Tennessee is one of 25 states with total bans on gender-affirming care for those under 18 — all of which have been enacted since 2018. Tennessee is home to more than 3,000 transgender youth and approximately 28,000 transgender adults, according to estimates from the Williams Institute.
According to Ingelhart, the Skrmetti ruling makes it so that states like Tennessee, that have discriminated against children on the basis of gender identity, can continue having healthcare bans. 'That doesn't mean that there won't continue to be fights in those states, because there are other questions at the lower court right now that other litigation that could succeed on, like the rights of parents — a constitutional right that this court didn't address,' she explains.
Other experts stress that the fight isn't over. 'This ruling is a setback, but it is not the end of the road,' says Heron Greenesmith, deputy director of policy at the Transgender Law Center (TLC). 'We remain steadfast in our belief that access to affirming care and the right to bodily autonomy are constitutional rights. This ruling underscores the urgent need for safe, evidence-based policies that prioritize the health, dignity, and autonomy of all people.'
The decision also impacts doctors who provide gender-affirming care to minors. 'Now, by federal law, it's possible to discriminate on the basis of sex, age, gender, identity, and sexual orientation in the delivery of health care,' says Morissa Ladinsky, MD, a pediatrician providing gender-affirming care and clinical professor at Stanford Medicine. 'It doesn't mean we have to — it just means we can. So my hope is that my colleagues around the nation take the high road.'
All major medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, and World Health Organization, have issued statements in support of healthcare for transender youth.
For those who live in states where gender-affirming care for minors is banned, their only opportunity to access the treatments they need is to travel to a state where they're legal. 'It's already a state of crisis in America with regard to health care and socioeconomic status, but it will become a question of whether your family can travel for you to get the affirming care, and whether the state that you live in may want to threaten you for doing so,' Ingelhart says. 'This is life or death for people, [and] whether or not they can be affirmed and get the care they need can mean the difference between risk of suicidality and not. And none of this was ever being considered outside the careful administration and oversight of healthcare providers and parents' consent.'
Chase Strangio, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union representing the plaintiffs in U.S. v. Skrmetti — and first openly transgender individual to present oral arguments before the Supreme Court — released a statement on Instagram indicating that 'there will be more to say soon,' noting that 'the Court got it wrong, but they left many open avenues — both doctrinal and extra-legal — for us to fight.'
Other advocates, like Ben Greene, also worry that the Skrmetti decision will affect trans youth across the country. 'More than anything, the ruling attempts to send a hateful message to transgender young people and their families that says 'We don't see you. We don't protect you,'' says Greene, the author of the book My Child Is Trans, Now What?: A Joy-Centered Approach to Support.
Not only do laws like the one in Tennessee limit a person's bodily autonomy, they're also a major blow to their mental health. A 2024 Trevor Project study found that between 2018 and 2022 — during which time 48 anti-transgender laws were enacted in 19 different states — suicide attempts among transgender and nonbinary youth increased by as much as 72 percent.
In a recent report from Human Rights Watch on bans on gender-affirming care in the U.S., Kai, a 14-year-old trans boy in a state with a ban in effect, explains that he has experienced suicidal ideation almost all of his life as a result of gender dysphoria, and more recently, the anti-trans laws that are being enacted across the country. 'I don't even recognize the person I see in the mirror,' he told Human Rights Watch in the report. 'Why should I even live this life that isn't mine? And with the ramping up of anti-trans legislation… I felt more suicidal.'
The rights of trans youths have been under attack since Donald Trump took office, starting with his Jan. 28 executive order outlining his plans to eliminate gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender children. The Department of Health and Human Services followed that up in May with a 400-page report recommending that gender dysphoria be treated with 'exploratory therapy,' which experts say is simply a rebranding of conversion therapy.
'Since Trump was inaugurated, I've noticed more people being negative toward me,' Jenny, a 17-year-old trans girl in a state where gender-affirming care is banned, told Human Rights Watch in a recent report. 'People are more bold now. I've faced more harassment from my peers.'
Even with state bans on gender-affirming care for trans youths, Jenny said that under the Biden administration, she at least felt some protection from the federal government. 'Now it feels like every level of government is turning against us,' she says. 'It's hard to feel safe in your own country, in your own community and that's terrifying.'
In a 2023 declaration asking a federal judge to put the ban on hold, Ryan Roe, a 17-year-old trans boy and one of the plaintiffs in Skrmetti, said that gender-affirming care saved his life, and if he were to lose access to it, his mental health would suffer. 'Since the bill passed, my family and I have had a lot of hard conversations,' he wrote. 'We have to talk about regularly traveling out of state to get me care, or even moving away from our home. I feel terrible when I think about what that would mean, not just for me, but for my parents, too. I feel like in a sense I am losing my childhood because I have to spend so much time worrying and planning.'
But as discouraging as the decision may be, Ingelhart says that it isn't a doomsday scenario. 'It's important to know that trans folks aren't fighting this alone — that advocates across civil rights movements are there to support them,' she says.
Greene echoes this sentiment. 'This small handful of judges do not speak for the American people, and I hope that transgender young people, their families, their doctors, and those that love them know that they have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who are prepared to stand with them, protect them, and fight for them at every turn,' he says.
In fact, organizations like the ACLU, TLC, and Lamba Legal are 'planning actions across the country today and this weekend to stand in defiance of the ruling and in solidarity with one another,' Greenesmith says.
While the decision isn't what Dylan Thomas Cotter hoped for, he's not giving up. 'To be a transgender American at this point in history is to be a fighter,' says Cotter, a publicist, author, and transgender rights activist. 'We, as proud transgender Americans, know this will take time and are in it for the long haul. It's important to hold on to the fact that tomorrow is a new day and there are many transgender people and allies that remain on the frontlines of fighting the good fight for all.
June 18, 3:25 p.m.: This story has been updated to include comment from Heron Greenesmith of the Transgender Law Center.
More from Rolling Stone
Trump Administration Cuts LGBTQ-Specific Care From Suicide Hotline
Mumia Abu-Jamal on Trump's America: 'All Is Not Well in Babylon'
Trump 'Doesn't Speak With Precision,' Justice Department Tells Judge
Best of Rolling Stone
The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign
Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal
The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

President Trump Announces Special Change To White House
President Trump Announces Special Change To White House

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

President Trump Announces Special Change To White House

President Trump Announces Special Change To White House originally appeared on The Spun. President Donald Trump has officially made changes to the White House grounds. Well before Trump assumed office in 2017, presidents always had their say on what type of decorations would be added to the White House. That being said, the 47th president of the United States has elected to install a pair of nearly 100-foot-tall flagpoles. Trump shared this news on Tuesday night with his social media followers. "It is my Great Honor to announce that I will be putting up two beautiful Flag Poles on both sides of the White House, North and South Lawns. It is a GIFT from me of something which was always missing from this magnificent place," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "The digging and placement of the poles will begin at 7:30 A.M. EST, tomorrow morning. Flags will be raised at approximately 11 A.M. EST. These are the most magnificent poles made – They are tall, tapered, rust proof, rope inside the pole, and of the highest quality. Hopefully, they will proudly stand at both sides of the White House for many years to come!" The first flag was raised on the South Lawn this Wednesday afternoon. Several members of Trump's family were in attendance for this ceremony. "They've needed flagpoles for 200 years," Trump said, via Fox News. "It was something I've often said." Trump said he paid for these two flagpoles. He told reporters that each one cost about $50,000 each to complete. Apparently, that's how important this cause was to him. It'll be interesting to see if these flagpoles stick around after Trump's term is Trump Announces Special Change To White House first appeared on The Spun on Jun 18, 2025 This story was originally reported by The Spun on Jun 18, 2025, where it first appeared.

Long Island's last duck farm is quacking again after losing its entire flock to the bird flu
Long Island's last duck farm is quacking again after losing its entire flock to the bird flu

Associated Press

time35 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Long Island's last duck farm is quacking again after losing its entire flock to the bird flu

AQUEBOGUE, N.Y. (AP) — Doug Corwin knew there was a problem at his family's commercial duck farm in Long Island when he spotted scores of dead or lethargic birds during a barn inspection in January. Within days, Crescent Duck Farm became a casualty of the global avian flu outbreak, one of many farms around the U.S. that had to cull their entire flock, sending the prices of eggs and other agricultural commodities soaring. Now the more than century-old farm — the last duck farm remaining in a New York region once synonymous with the culinary delicacy — is cautiously rebuilding. But for Corwin, a 66-year-old fourth-generation farmer, it's not enough to bring the farm back to its 100,000-bird capacity. With ducks hatched from eggs spared from slaughter, he's working to preserve the unique lineage of fowl that's allowed his family's farm to thrive even as others on Long Island fell by the wayside — all while worrying that another flu outbreak would finally wipe him out. 'All I know is I don't want to be hit again,' Corwin said. 'If I go through this twice, I'm done as a duck farmer.' Make way for ducklings For months, Corwin and his reduced staff have been thoroughly sanitizing the farm's dozens of barns, clearing out hay and debris, and replacing feeders, ventilation systems, wooden and metal structures and more. At the end of May, the first wave of roughly 900 young ducks arrived from a nearby farm where they had been carefully raised in quarantine these last few months. Another batch of 900 arrived last week and some 900 more will soon make their way to the roughly 140-acre (55-hectare) farm in Aquebogue, which is tucked among the vineyards and agricultural lands of Long Island's North Fork, about 80 miles (129 km) east of Manhattan. By the end of next summer, Corwin hopes the first ducks will be ready to be processed and brought to market. But he says he won't rush the reopening. It will be many more months — if ever — before the operation, which processed about 1 million ducks for consumption annually, returns to full capacity, he said. 'I keep telling people I'm running a high hurdle race,' Corwin said. 'I've got a lot a lot of steps to get back to where we were.' Bird flu pandemic still looms Since 2022, the H5N1 strain of bird flu has been detected in all 50 states, leading to more than 1,700 recorded outbreaks affecting nearly 175 million birds, according to the most recent tally from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The outbreak at Corwin's farm shows how this strain has inflicted more damage on a wider range of species than past variants, said Dr. Gavin Hitchener, director of Cornell University's Duck Research Laboratory, located a short drive away in Eastport. Ducks have generally been less prone to serious illness and death than chickens and turkeys, he said. H5N1 is also vexing American cattle farmers after the virus jumped from fowl to cattle last year. 'Something has changed in the virus' makeup that has made it more virulent,' Hitchener said. With no end to the bird flu pandemic in sight, Corwin worries he won't be able to weather another outbreak. The farm received federal compensation for its euthanized ducks, but it wasn't nearly close to the market value of the birds — never mind the expense of rebuilding in a high cost region that also includes the Hamptons, he said. Corwin hopes the federal government will, at long last, require poultry operators to vaccinate their livestock against bird flu. It's an uphill climb, given the Trump administration's deep skepticism of vaccines and the long-standing opposition of far larger, industrial poultry operations, he acknowledged. 'I would sleep an awful lot better at night. But right now I'm very nervous,' Corwin said. 'We're just playing with deck chairs on the Titanic.' Carrying on local heritage The ducks newly arrived to the farm are crucial to its revival. Fully grown and approaching breeding age, the cohort of white Pekin ducks were all that survived from the more than 15,000 eggs state officials allowed the farm to spare from the winter culling after they tested negative for bird flu. That means they and their progeny carry on the unique genetic makeup the farm has honed over generations of selective breeding to build its reputation. Established in 1908 by Corwin's great-grandfather, Crescent Duck Farms has been the island's lone commercial duck operation for the better part of a decade. But in the early 1960s, Long Island boasted more than 100 farms producing about two-thirds of the nation's duck output. 'I feel I owe it to the ancestors of farmers who've been here all these years and have come this far to just make a go of it,' Corwin said. 'I want to make Long Island proud.' ___ Follow Philip Marcelo at

GOP senators back up Trump on Israel-Iran conflict as MAGA base splits on issue
GOP senators back up Trump on Israel-Iran conflict as MAGA base splits on issue

Yahoo

time39 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

GOP senators back up Trump on Israel-Iran conflict as MAGA base splits on issue

Senate Republicans largely lined up behind President Donald Trump's handling of the conflict between Iran and Israel and said they trusted Trump's judgment on whether the United States ought to involve itself. Trump said again Wednesday that he has not decided whether the U.S. should get more involved in the He signaled to reporters that he would decide at the last moment, stating he'd make the decision 'one second before.' The issue of getting more involved in the conflict has divided Trump's MAGA base, with some pointing to his campaign promise to keep America out of foreign wars. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a defense hawk who said he spoke to Trump last night, endorsed the use of force if diplomatic efforts fail. "Either you want them to have a nuclear weapon, or you don't," Graham said. "And if you don't, if diplomacy fails, you use force." MORE: Israel and Iran are waging an existential battle. What does it mean for the US?: ANALYSIS Most Republicans said that they agreed with Trump that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. "I think this is something on which the entire world can agree: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, or the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead, period," Sen. John Kennedy said. "American foreign policy is always a balance between ... between values and interests. The value here is obvious to everyone. Iran cannot have a bomb. It's just unthinkable, and I support the president unconditionally on that," Kennedy said. Sen. Mike Rounds said there is evidence that Iran was getting closer to building a nuclear weapon. "If Israel has a plan which is appropriate to take care of the problem, then we don't need to be there, but we should never take or eliminate options that are available to the president in exercising his authority as the commander-in-chief," Rounds said. Sen. Kevin Cramer said he would support Trump's decision if he decided to enter the conflict, but would also support a decision to instead "assist Israel in getting the job done." "Iran's made that really crystal clear. They pledged to wipe out the United States of America. I prefer not to let them get here," Cramer said. "I prefer preemptive prevention of war rather than having to end one after it gets to our soil, right?" MORE: Israel-Iran live updates Cramer said Trump has been handling the crisis "brilliantly"and applauded Trump's suggestion that he may or may not get involved. "I think that's pretty honest, right? I may or I may not. I think that that the element of of surprise, if you will, is maintained by an answer that doesn't tell you what he's going to do," he said. "It'd be crazy for the president to give a warning, if you will, of what he may do." Both Republicans and Democrats said they would like Congress to have a role in determining whether the U.S. gets involved in the conflict, but Republicans were much less forceful. "I would love to see Congress have a role, but we certainly don't have time in the midst of what we all see going on for Congress to sit and cogitate for six or eight months," Kennedy said. Democrats, on the other hand, said Trump should get Congress' approval before taking any military action. MORE: Trump on his 'unconditional surrender' demand to Iran: 'I've had it' "At some point, the president must come to Congress if there is to be active, kinetic military involvement that constitutes war. That's the Constitution, Sen. Richard Blumenthal said. "And I believe that the president has to face accountability at some point, for the use of military force in combat, in a war. And the question is, when that point is." Other Democrats said the U.S. should be trying to de-escalate the conflict rather than inflame it. "We don't need to escalate in Iran. That doesn't make anyone in the Middle East safer, and it certainly doesn't make the United States any safer right now, Sen. Elizabeth Warren said. "The role of the United States should be to help de-escalate, to push for negotiations, not to try to set more things afire."

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