SCOTUS orders judges to revisit decisions on transgender health plans, birth certificates in wake of blockbuster ruling
The justices upended rulings that blocked state policies excluding coverage for gender-affirming care in state-sponsored health insurance plans. In a loss for the transgender Americans who sued, those decisions will now be reviewed again. The high court also upended an appeals court ruling that went against Oklahoma in a challenge to the state's effort to ban transgender residents from changing the sex designation on their birth certificates.
Lower courts must now review the trio of cases again in light of the Supreme Court's major decision on June 18 that upheld Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for trans minors. The 6-3 ruling in US v. Skrmetti steered clear of discussion about other laws involving transgender Americans, but it also did little to protect them in other cases. The court ruled that Tennessee had not discriminated on the basis of sex, which gave the state far more room to regulate medical care.
The court also held that the law did not discriminate on the basis of transgender status.
This story is breaking and will be updated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla stock sinks as Trump threatens to cut subsidies across Musk's sprawling empire
Tesla stock (TSLA) sank 5% Tuesday as the feud between CEO Elon Musk and President Trump reignited, with the president once again threatening to cut government subsidies across Elon Musk's businesses, including Tesla and SpaceX ( "Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa," Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, early Tuesday. "No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE," Trump added. "Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!" Read more about Tesla's stock moves and today's market action. The threats followed Musk's criticism of Trump's "big, beautiful" tax and spending bill over the weekend after the Senate advanced it with last-minute changes that would eliminate electric vehicle tax credits — which benefit Tesla customers — earlier than expected and add $1 trillion to the bill's original price tag. The megabill was passed by the Senate on Tuesday, bringing it one step closer to becoming law. Its provision ending the EV credit would cut an estimated $1.2 billion from Tesla's annual profit. Meanwhile, SpaceX has received more than $21 billion in federal contracts, according to US spending data. In one of his series of posts on his own platform, X, Musk called the bill "utterly insane and destructive [with] handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future." Musk's critiques continued into the trading week, with the tech mogul proposing the formation of a new political party for the second time last month. Tesla shares dropped 1.9% Monday as the Senate began voting on amendments to the bill in what's called a vote-a-rama, which dragged into Tuesday morning. Late Monday night, Musk posted an AI-generated image of Pinocchio with the word 'liar' stamped across it, writing: 'Anyone who campaigned on the PROMISE of REDUCING SPENDING , but continues to vote on the BIGGEST DEBT ceiling increase in HISTORY will see their face on this poster in the primary next year.' Trump's Truth Social post threatening subsidies on Musk's empire followed just a few hours later. 'Elon Musk knew, long before he so strongly Endorsed me for President, that I was strongly against the EV Mandate,' the president wrote. The barbs revived a feud between the world's two most powerful men in early June that erased more than $150 billion in value from Tesla in a single day. Those exchanges last month saw Trump and Musk trade a wide array of insults on social media, exposing the risk of the electric vehicle stock's "Musk premium." Musk has been highly critical of Trump's "big, beautiful" bill since he left his role in D.C. running the newly created federal agency DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, which aimed but ultimately failed to eliminate government debt with highly controversial spending cuts. 'The jabs between Musk and Trump will continue as the Budget rolls through Congress but Tesla investors want Musk to focus on driving Tesla and stop this political angle ... which has turned into a life of its own in a roller coaster ride since the November elections,' Wedbush analyst Dan Ives wrote in a note to clients Tuesday morning. 'At the end of the day being on Trump's bad side will not turn out well ... and Musk knows this and Tesla investors want this back and forth to end,' Ives wrote. Also driving Tesla shares down Tuesday, fresh data showed Tesla's sales dropped for the sixth straight month in Sweden and Denmark in June. The company is set to report overall global deliveries on Wednesday. Wall Street expects deliveries to slide 11% from the prior year. Laura Bratton is a reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Bluesky @ Email her at
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ascletis begins dosing in Phase IIa trial of ASC30 for obesity treatment
Ascletis Pharma has dosed the first obese or overweight subjects in the 13-week, multi-centre US Phase IIa trial of ASC30. The dosing was performed in those identified with at least one weight-related comorbidity. The double-blind, randomised and placebo-controlled trial aims to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the oral treatment in individuals with a body mass index (BMI) of 30kg/m² or higher, or those overweight with a BMI of at least 27kg/m² but less than 30kg/m². Two oral formulations of the therapy, formulation one (ASC30 tablets) and formulation two (ASC30 tablets A1), both administered once a day, are under evaluation. The mean percentage change in body weight from baseline at week 13 is the trial's primary endpoint. The trial's design incorporates insights from previous Phase Ia and Ib studies, suggesting a lower starting dose and a slower titration strategy for the once-a-day administration of the oral therapy. Its protocol includes a lower starting dose of 1mg of both formulations, and will gradually increase the dosage to maintenance levels of 20mg and 40mg for formulation one, or 20mg, 40mg, and 60mg for formulation two, on a weekly basis. The Phase IIa trial's topline data are anticipated in the fourth quarter of this year. In earlier Phase Ia single ascending dose (SAD) studies, formulation two of ASC30 showed a flatter pharmacokinetic profile compared to formulation one. Ascletis Pharma CEO, chairman and founder Jinzi Jason Wu said: 'We are happy that we are ahead of the schedule of our US 13-week Phase IIa study since we have initiated screening of participants in June and recently completed dosing of the first participants. 'As a small molecule, ASC30 has the potential to offer both once-daily oral and once-monthly subcutaneous injection dosing options for obesity treatment, if approved.' ASC30, the in-house discovery of Ascletis, is a small-molecule glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R)-biased agonist. This new chemical entity has patent protection in the US and globally until 2044, with no patent extensions. In April 2025, Ascletis reported early weight loss results from a Phase Ib trial of ASC30. "Ascletis begins dosing in Phase IIa trial of ASC30 for obesity treatment" was originally created and published by Clinical Trials Arena, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump's rule barring migrants at US-Mexico border from claiming asylum
A federal judge blocked a Trump administration policy barring migrants who cross the US-Mexico border from seeking asylum, issuing a major blow to President Donald Trump, who has sought to seal off access to protections on the border. In a sharply worded decision issued Wednesday, US District Judge Randolph Moss found that the administration overstepped its authority by bypassing immigration law. 'The President cannot adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted,' Moss wrote. The ruling – targeting a signature element of Trump's agenda – comes as the administration touts low border crossings. Current and former Homeland Security officials have previously cited the clampdown on the US southern border as contributing to a sharp decline in unlawful crossings. In June, the US Border Patrol recorded just over 6,000 encounters, according to federal data. Earlier this year, immigrant rights advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, sued over a presidential proclamation that effectively shut down asylum at the southern border. The challengers argued that the proclamation endangered thousands of lives by preventing people from seeking refuge in the US. The lawsuit tested whether presidential power can override protections guaranteed by Congress for people fleeing persecution and marked one of the most sweeping efforts by the Trump administration to restrict immigration. 'This an enormous victory for those fleeing danger and the rule of law,' said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt. 'The court properly recognized that the president cannot simply ignore laws passed by Congress.' The judge said that neither immigration statutes nor the Constitution give the president power to unilaterally deny access to asylum for people who have already entered the US, no matter how they arrived. 'Nothing in the (Immigration and Nationality Act) or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance,' the ruling states. Moss stayed his decision for 14 days. The administration is expected to appeal. In a statement to CNN, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin cast Moss as a 'rogue district judge,' and said she expected the administration to be vindicated by a higher court. 'The President secured the border in historic fashion by using every available legal tool provided by Congress. Today, a rogue district judge took those tools away, threatening the safety and security of Americans and ignoring a Supreme Court decision issued only days earlier admonishing district courts for granting nationwide injunctions,' she said. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller also blasted the ruling. 'To try to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions a marxist judge has declared that all potential FUTURE illegal aliens on foreign soil (eg a large portion of planet earth) are part of a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States,' Miller said in a post on X. 'The West will not survive if our sovereignty is not restored,' Miller added in another post. The Trump administration argued that the president has broad authority under federal law to suspend the entry of people deemed detrimental to US interest – especially in what it described as a national security and public health emergency at the border. Tensions flared during oral arguments in April in a packed federal courtroom in Washington, DC. DOJ lawyers argued that the proclamation was unreviewable under the immigration statutes in question. Moss pressed that argument, at one point posing a hypothetical: Would a presidential order to shoot migrants at the border be legally immune from judicial review? DOJ attorney Drew Ensign acknowledged that such an order would raise constitutional issues, but hesitated to say what legal limits might apply—drawing a pointed rebuke from the bench. The plaintiffs had highlighted that at least two of their clients had already been deported under the policy. While those individuals had expressed a desire to seek asylum, government attorneys argued that they had not established an imminent intent to file claims – raising further questions about who the policy actually applied to and how it was enforced. This story has been updated with additional developments.
