What to know about the impacts of the Supreme Court's ruling on transgender care for youth
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming surgery for transgender youth in a ruling that's likely to reverberate across the country.
Most Republican-controlled states already have similar bans.
In his
majority opinion Wednesday
, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Tennessee's ban does not violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same.
Since President Donald Trump returned to office this year, the federal government has been trying to restrict access.
Here are some things to know about gender-affirming care and the court's ruling:
What is gender-affirming care?
Gender-affirming care includes a range of medical and mental health services to support a person's gender identity, or their sense of feeling male, female, neither or some combination of both. Sometimes that's different from the sex they were assigned at birth.
The services are offered to treat gender dysphoria, the unease a person may have because their assigned gender and gender identity don't match. Studies, including one from 2023 by researchers at institutions including London Children's Hospital and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, have found the condition is linked to depression and suicidal thoughts.
Gender-affirming care encompasses counseling and treatment with medications that block puberty and hormone therapy to produce physical changes. Hormone therapy for transgender men causes periods to stop, increases facial and body hair and deepens voices. The hormones used by transgender women can have effects such as slowing growth of body and facial hair and increasing breast growth. Fewer than
1 in 1,000 U.S. adolescents
receive gender-affirming medications, a study released this year found.
Gender-affirming care can also include surgery, including operations to transform genitals and chests. These surgeries are
rarely offered to minors
.
There are documented uses of genital surgery for adults dating back to the 1920s. But for youth, gender-affirming care has been more common since the 1990s.
What is the controversy?
As a medical consensus emerged in support of gender-affirming care for youth, the issue also became politically divisive in other ways. Some states approved measures to protect transgender people, who make up around 1% of the nation's population.
Many critics dismiss the idea that gender is changeable and lies along a spectrum.
About two-thirds of U.S. adults
believe that whether a person is a man or woman is determined by biological characteristics at birth, an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in May found.
In the last five years, most GOP-controlled states have passed laws to block transgender girls from sports competitions for girls. About half the Republican-controlled states have now banned transgender people from using school bathrooms that align with their gender identity.
Opponents of gender-affirming care sometimes refer to it as 'mutilation' and say people who transition when they're young
could later regret it.
What could the ruling mean for bans in states besides Tennessee?
In addition to Tennessee, 26 other states have passed bans or restrictions on gender-affirming care for youth. Judges have struck down the bans in
Arkansas
and
Montana
, though the legal fights there aren't over.
All of the laws have been adopted in the past five years and nearly all have been challenged in court.
The Supreme Court's decision means that federal challenges to those laws aren't likely to prevail. However, some of the lawsuits against them are based on arguments rooted in state constitutions, and it's still possible that judges could find more protections in those state constitutions than are in the U.S. Constitution.
What will the ruling mean for states without bans on gender-affirming care?
It probably won't make any difference immediately.
Several of those states have laws or executive orders intended to protect access to gender-affirming care for transgender minors.
But the question about whether the care will continue isn't only about what's legal. It's also about funding.
That's where Trump comes in.
Trump
campaigned last year
pledging to rein in rights of transgender people. He's followed through on many fronts, though court challenges have resulted in some of his efforts being blocked, at least for now.
What has Trump done on transgender issues?
He has ordered that no federal taxpayer money be used to pay for the care for those under 19. Enforcement of that
order is on hold
.
Trump has also tried to
block federal funding
from institutions — including hospitals and the universities that run some of them — that provide gender-affirming care for youth. A judge has blocked that effort while challenges to it proceed.
His administration
published recommendations
that therapy alone – and not medication – be used to treat transgender youth. The position contradicts guidance from major medical organizations. But it could impact practices.
Other actions Trump has taken including initiating the removal of
transgender troops
from military service; ordering that transgender women and girls be kept out of
sports competitions for females
;
erasing the word 'transgender'
from some government websites; and saying the government would recognize people only by their sex at conception.
That's resulted in efforts to
move transgender women inmates to men's prisons
and change how
passports are issued
to transgender and nonbinary people. A judge this week
blocked the Trump administration
from limiting passport sex markers for many transgender and nonbinary Americans.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘Indiana needs a HIP replacement', social services secretary says about insurance program
Mitch Roob, secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, presents to the State Budget Committee on June 18, 2025. (Whitney Downard/Indiana Capital Chronicle) In his second tenure leading Indiana's most expensive state agency, Family and Social Services Administration Secretary Mitch Roob wants to significantly change Indiana's insurance program for low- to middle-income Hoosiers. But ongoing negotiations in Washington D.C. could undermine or fundamentally alter the third iteration of the Healthy Indiana Plan, otherwise known as HIP. Some congressional changes could be prohibitively expensive for the state, coming on the heels of a bleak revenue forecast projecting $2 billion less in Indiana's coffers over the next two years. 'This is a five-alarm fire for us,' said Roob, who introduced the first version of HIP while he was the FSSA secretary under former Gov. Mitch Daniels. In a sit-down with the Indiana Capital Chronicle, Roob previewed a Wednesday presentation before the State Budget Committee introducing HIP 3.0, including work requirements, provider taxes and wellness incentives. But the final details can't be determined until Congress agrees on President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' which could be approved in the coming weeks. GOP senators warn mega-bill's new Medicaid cuts will hurt rural hospitals Work requirements for able-bodied adults on HIP were fiercely debated in the legislative session earlier this year, ultimately advancing with the support of the Republican supermajority. But the process would take months, requiring Indiana to submit a modified waiver for federal approval before it could be enacted. That timeline could be shortened under the latest version of the bill, which would force all states to adopt such regulations. 'Once the big, beautiful bill passes, we will move forward as quickly as we can with that,' Roob said about work requirements. Other states have stumbled in their rollout of such conditions, including Arkansas and Georgia. Roob said details of Indiana's plan would largely hinge on Congress' actions and pointed to support from Indiana Gov. Mike Braun. 'He believes in work requirements; he doesn't believe in work requirements to kick people off of the program,' said Roob. 'He believes that Medicaid ought to be a program that incentivizes individuals to work — not disincentivizes them to do so.' While Indiana's work requirements would have allowed an exception for parents in general, Congress now proposes limiting that exemption to parents of children who aren't teens. More than 712,000 Hoosiers rely on HIP for their health coverage, according to a May enrollment report. Other portions of the bill threaten to undo Indiana's program, particularly its cap on state provider taxes, according to Roob. The Senate has proposed a cap of 3.5% on the levy, which applies to hospitals and managed care entities. A higher tax means the state can leverage more federal dollars. But Indiana uses the maximum allowed tax of 6% on hospitals, known as a hospital assessment fee, to fund its obligation for HIP. Those taxes — along with a portion of the cigarette tax — pay for the entire program, meaning that no general fund dollars need to be dedicated to HIP. 'That's how we pay for the Healthy Indiana Plan,' Roob said. 'If (Congress' proposal is) signed into law, this would require the state of Indiana to significantly roll back eligibility in the Healthy Indiana Plan. 'Not because we want to — because we have no match.' Indiana is responsible for 10% of the costs while the federal government picks up the tab for the remainder. However, under its current waiver, Indiana could be on the hook if the hospital assessment fee is cut and would need to come up with the difference. Roob said he was working with Indiana's congressional delegation to provide states explicit authority to change their plans in a later version of the bill. This rate cap would also apply to any provider tax levies on managed care entities, which oversee several of Indiana's Medicaid programs, including services offered under the divisive PathWays for Aging waiver. Indiana submitted a plan to tax managed care entities earlier this month based on the plans of other states, such as Ohio and Illinois, which could net the state $865.8 million. But Congress could invalidate that proposal by prohibiting that type of tax, which isn't uniform and varies by provider type, in favor of something more equal across the board. 'It is not law yet, so we are racing to try to get this approved,' said Roob. 'I view our prospects of getting this done as not quite as good as the Pacers winning the series.' Portions of the proposal in Congress would require copays and premiums for certain Medicaid enrollees, something that was halted in Indiana by a federal judge last year. If allowed, Roob said the state would 'likely' bring that back — though he said the state was seeking more 'explicit authority' to implement cost-sharing requirements in the final version of the bill. Undoubtedly, such a move would be challenged in the courts. But Roob said Hoosiers on HIP could reduce such charges by meeting certain wellness guidelines, such as preventative care check-ups. Women getting regular pap smears, for example, would lower their cost-sharing obligations. 'And while we recognize that that won't save Indiana much money in that particular year, it may save that woman from having cervical cancer,' Roob said. 'So it is the governor's desire to 'Make Indiana Healthy Again,' and part of that is to incentivize changes in behavior.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court backs ban on minors' gender-affirming care, upholding Kentucky law
KENTUCKY (FOX 56) — The United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in a controversial case concerning minors' access to gender-affirming medical care, such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, on Wednesday morning. U.S. v. Skrmetti began when a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of three families and a physician. The plaintiffs argued that the Tennessee law banning access to this type of care violated the equal protection rights of transgender adolescents. Report alleges nongenital transgender surgeries performed on 'small number' of Kentucky youth prior to ban On Wednesday morning, the court ruled the law could remain in effect. 'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field,' U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. 'The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' The ruling, in turn, upheld state laws like Kentucky's Senate Bill 150, which banned gender transition surgeries and puberty blockers for patients under the age of 18. SB 150, sponsored by Senate Majority Floor Leader Max Wise, R-Campbellsville, was passed in 2023 and vetoed by Gov. Andy Beshear. His veto was ultimately overturned. 'Today's decision is a victory for common sense and the safety of our children,' said Wise. 'From day one, the Kentucky General Assembly was focused on one thing: protecting minors from making irreversible decisions before they are old enough to fully understand the consequences. The court's ruling affirms what most Kentuckians believe — that parents matter, science matters, and our kids deserve their childhood and innocence. I'm proud of Kentucky's leadership, grateful to Attorney General Russell Coleman for defending the law, and thankful that our nation's highest court recognized the legitimate and compelling interests at stake. Common sense has triumphed.' According to Coleman's office, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld SB 150 in September 2023 in a combined decision also upholding Tennessee's law. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review in only Tennessee's case, but its reasoning applies fully to Kentucky's SB 150. $25K a year for life lottery ticket sold at Louisville Kroger, 3rd Kentucky ticket in 2025 Supreme Court backs ban on minors' gender-affirming care, upholding Kentucky law Fayette County seeks community input on budget amid state auditor examination Coleman also led a 22-state coalition to file a brief in support of Tennessee in the case. 'As parents and public officials, we have a responsibility to protect our children from harm. That's exactly what Kentucky's General Assembly did with the passage of SB 150, creating a commonsense measure to safeguard minors from life-altering medical procedures,' Coleman wrote on Wednesday. 'Our Office has fulfilled its duty to defend statutes passed by the General Assembly. Along with our colleague, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, and other attorneys general across the country, we have finally upheld the law that will protect our young people from irreparable damage.' FOX 56 has reached out to ACLU Kentucky. In a Wednesday morning briefing, ACLU-KY Legal Director Corey Shapiro called the loss a painful setback. The Supreme Court has failed to protect families' freedoms and allowed politicians to target transgender youth. This is a painful setback, and it is clear the Court will not protect these children. But it will not stop us from using all available legal tools to fight back against the political extremists targeting transgender people's safety and dignity. What's important to remember is that no matter what the Court or politicians say, transgender young people and their families are not alone in this fight. ACLU-KY Legal Director, Corey Shapiro The Kentucky state director of Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates argued that the ruling isn't about safety or medicine; it's about politics. ''This decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is heartbreaking. Every person, no matter who they are, deserves access to the essential health care they need to thrive. Just like the Dobbs decision, this ruling is not about medicine or safety—it's about politics. It's about stripping patients, providers, and families of the power to make personal decisions about their own health care. This is the first step in a broader, deeply misguided campaign by ideologically motivated politicians to dismantle gender affirming care nationwide. We won't back down. We will fight this every step of the way,' Tamarra Wieder, Kentucky state director, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, said. According to the ACLU, 25 states have enacted similar laws banning gender-affirming medical care since 2021. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court's Skrmetti decision bolsters legacy of protecting children's health
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).
