Supreme Court upholds red-state laws that ban hormones for transgender teens
In a 6-3 decision, the justices said states are generally free to decide on proper standards of medical care, particularly when health experts are divided.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, writing for the court, said the state decides on medical regulations. 'We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,' he said.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the law 'plainly discriminates on the basis of sex... By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.' Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.
The ruling upholds laws in Tennessee and 23 other Republican-led states, all of them adopted in the past four years.
Tennessee lawmakers said the number of minors being diagnosed with gender dysphoria had 'exploded' in recent years, leading to a 'surge in unproven and risky medical interventions for these underage patients.'
California and other Democratic-led states do not prohibit doctors from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones for those under age 18 who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
While the court's ruling in the Tennessee case should not directly affect California's law, the Trump administration seeks to prevent the use of federal funds to pay for gender affirming care.
This could affect patients who rely on Medicaid and also restrict hospitals and other medical clinics from providing hormones and other medical treatments for minors.
Wednesday's decision highlights the sharp turn in the past year on trans rights and 'gender affirming' care.
Solicitor Gen. Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, had appealed to the Supreme Court in November, 2023, and urged the justices to strike down the red state laws.
She spoke of a broad consensus in favor of gender affirming care. It was unconstitutional, she argued, for states to ban 'evidence-based treatments supported by the overwhelming consensus of the medical community.'
But Republican lawmakers voiced doubt about the long-term effect of these hormone treatments for adolescents.
Their skepticism was reinforced by the Cass Report from Britain, which concluded there were not long-term studies or reliable evidence in support of the treatments.
In his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order condemning 'gender ideology extremism.'
He said his administration would 'recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.'
His administration later said its ban on gender affirming care for minors would extend to medical facilities receiving federal funds.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
a few seconds ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
20 states and DC sue DOJ to stop immigration requirements on victim funds
A coalition of attorneys general from 20 states and Washington, D.C., is asking a federal judge to stop the U.S. Department of Justice from withholding federal funds earmarked for crime victims if states don't cooperate with the Trump administration's immigration enforcement efforts. The lawsuit filed Monday in Rhode Island federal court seeks to block the Justice Department from enforcing conditions that would cut funding to a state or subgrantee if it refuses to honor civil immigration enforcement requests, denies U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers access to facilities or fails to provide advance notice of release dates of individuals possibly wanted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement because of their immigration status. The lawsuit asks that the conditions be thrown out, arguing that the administration and the agency are overstepping their constitutional and administrative authority. The lawsuit also argues that the requirements are not permitted or outlined in the Victims of Crime Act, known as VOCA, and would interfere with policies created to ensure victims and witnesses report crimes without fear of deportation. 'These people did not ask for this status as a crime victim. They don't breakdown neatly across partisan lines, but they share one common trait, which is that they've suffered an unimaginable trauma,' New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said during a video news conference Monday, calling the administration's threat to withhold funds 'the most heinous act' he's seen in politics. The federal conditions were placed on VOCA funding, which provides more than a billion dollars annually to states for victims compensation programs and grants that fund victims assistance organizations. VOCA funding comes entirely from fines and penalties in federal court cases, not from tax dollars. Every state and territory has a victims compensation program that follows federal guidelines, but largely is set up under state law to provide financial help to crime victims, including medical expense reimbursement, paying for crime scene cleanup, counseling or helping with funeral costs for homicide victims. VOCA covers the cost of about 75% of state compensation program awards. Advocates and others argue that the system needs to protect victims regardless of their immigration status and ensure that reporting a crime does not lead to deportation threats. They also say that marginalized communities, such as newly arrived immigrants, are more likely to be crime targets. 'The federal government is attempting to use crime victim funds as a bargaining chip to force states into doing its bidding on immigration enforcement,' New York Attorney General Letitia James, who also joined the lawsuit, said in a statement Monday. 'These grants were created to help survivors heal and recover, and we will fight to ensure they continue to serve that purpose … We will not be bullied into abandoning any of our residents.' The Associated Press left a message seeking comment from a DOJ spokesperson Monday afternoon. President Donald Trump's administration has sought to withhold or pull back other federal funding or grant funding midstream, saying awardees and programs no longer agree with its priorities. In April, it canceled about $800 million in DOJ grants, some of which were awarded to victims service and survivor organizations. And in June, states filed a lawsuit over added requirements in Violence Against Women Act funding that mandated applicants agree not to promote 'gender ideology,' or run diversity, equity and inclusion programs or prioritize people in the country illegally. Several attorneys general said the VOCA conditions appear to be another way the administration is targeting so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, though there is no clear definition of what a sanctuary state or city is. The Trump administration earlier this month released an updated list of states, cities and counties it considers sanctuary jurisdictions. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in the August announcement that the department would 'continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.' As of Monday afternoon attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin — all Democrats — had signed on to the lawsuit.
New York Post
a few seconds ago
- New York Post
Putin claims Ukraine should give up Donetsk because Russia will conquer region by October —despite a decade of failing to do so
Russian leader Vladimir Putin reportedly told President Trump his forces could conquer the long-sought-after Donetsk region by October if Ukraine didn't give up the land as part of a peace deal — but Kyiv and US observers point out that the Kremlin has failed to take it for more than a decade. While intelligence varies on Russia's advancements along the frontlines, one US assessment agrees that Putin could succeed in conquering the remaining 30% of Donetsk that he does not control by October, Axios reported. Experts at the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a Washington-based think tank that has tracked the granular progress of the war since its start, however, point out that Russia has been unable to seize the region through three and a half years of bloody war — and 11 years of Kremlin-backed rebellion before that. 6 Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly told President Trump at the Alaska summit last week that he will be able to capture Ukraine's Donetsk region by October. POOL/AFP via Getty Images And there's no reason Moscow will suddenly break through Ukraine's most heavily fortified frontline. 'Even if we're being generous to the Russians and say they can maintain their current advance, which we know they can't keep up and have been pushed back from… It would take about 475 days for Russia to take the entirety of Donetsk, that's December 2026,' George Barros, the head of the ISW's Russia team, told the Post. 'And I think that's putting it generously. To say Moscow can take it by October seems hyperbolic.' Ukrainian sources who also spoke with The Post were incredulous about the alleged intelligence assessment that Kyiv could lose Donetsk. 'Donetsk by October? They've been saying that since February of '22,' an American serving in the Ukrainian Armed Services said. 6 A Ukrainian soldier giving an order to a captured Russian troop in the Donetsk region on Aug. 17, 2025. Getty Images Speaking with Trump in Alaska on Friday, Putin demanded Donetsk be handed to him as a condition for ending his full-scale invasion of Ukraine, along with demanding the Luhansk, Crimea, Zaporizhia and Kherson regions. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has scoffed at the proposal to give up land where his forces have fended off Russian soldiers who have outgunned and outnumbered the defenders. A source familiar with the talks described negotiations over the fate of Donetsk as 'the ball game.' 'Every issue is an ancillary issue, except Donetsk,' the source previously told The Post. 6 Ukrainians firing an anti-aircraft gun at Russian drones in the Donetsk region on Aug. 15, 2025. Getty Images Moscow has launched four notable campaigns over the last year to take the remainder of Donetsk, with each major operation failing and resulting in Russia's advancement of just over six miles, according to the ISW. The quagmire is emblematic in the Russian operation to take the town of Toretsk, which finally fell under Moscow's control on Aug. 1 after 14 months of fighting, with the Kremlin currently struggling to keep the 6.4 miles of land. 'Russia's big push is happening in the summer, which has always been the case, but come fall, with the muddy season, things are going to slow down again,' Barros noted. 'Russia won't be able to sustain this push.' 6 Putin demanded that Ukraine give up Donetsk as a condition for ending the invasion. Vyacheslav Prokofyev, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP Moscow faced a similar struggle in taking the city of Avdiivka, with a US military veteran, known by the callsign 'Jackie,' noting that Ukraine's defenses continue to defy the odds. 'It took the Russians from 2017 to 2024 to take Avdiivka,' Jakie, a spokesman with the 3rd Assault Battalion said. 'I fought in the Battle of Bahkmut where I counted eight Russian shells fired for every one Ukrainian response. 'And that was during the lulls, during enemy pushes they were shooting 15-to-1 and it still took them 10 months,' he added. 6 A man carrying his belongings out of a building hit by a Russian strike in Bilozerske in Ukraine's Donetsk region on Aug. 12, 2025. Photo by GENYA SAVILOV/AFP via Getty Images After claiming Avdiivka, Moscow set its sights on Pokrovsk, a logistical hub in eastern Ukraine that Russia claimed to be making advancements in last week along with Dobropillia. The city, however, continues to repel Russia's soldiers, with more than 400 Moscow troops killed after last week's push, according to Kyiv. Zelensky and his top commanders also noted that Kyiv still holds the strategic cities of Sloviansk and Kramators, which have served as a 'fortress belt' protecting Donbas, the land comprised of the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. 6 A house destroyed by Russian shelling in Donetsk seen on Aug. 18, 2025. REUTERS/Alexander Ermochenko 'They remain Ukraine's main strongholds in Donbas, and the enemy does not have sufficient forces to storm them,' Kyiv said in a statement. 'Russia's capture of the entire Donetsk region — including the cities of Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka, Dobropillia, and others — by October is impossible given the scale of losses and the inability of Russian forces to advance at the required pace,' the officials added. Kyiv claims that Russia is suffering 1,200 casualties per day, matching estimates from western officials and think tanks, with the US veteran Jackie saying that Ukrainian soldiers will continue to fight to the last man to keep the invaders out of Donbas. 'If you think Ukrainians are going to give up Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, I suggest asking a Texan if Davy Crockett should have given up the Alamo,' the American said. Despite the Trump administration's latest suggestion that Ukraine will have to concede land to end the war, Kyiv maintains that territory not currently occupied by Russian soldiers is off the table. 'It's not acceptable, but we don't want to be the person who said 'no,' because for us, it's important to go forward [with the US],' a Kyiv official exclusively told The Post. 'We definitely, honestly, believe that just Trump can end this war.'
Fast Company
a few seconds ago
- Fast Company
Trump wants to change voting. The Constitution was designed to protect it from people like him
President Donald Trump has big plans for redesigning the way states hold elections ahead of the 2026 midterms, calling for a nationwide end to mail-in ballots and voting machines on Monday. The U.S. Constitution stands in his way. In a new post on his social network Truth Social, Trump wrote that he was 'going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS' as well as voting machines, which he called 'Highly 'Inaccurate'' and 'Seriously Controversial.' 'ELECTIONS CAN NEVER BE HONEST WITH MAIL IN BALLOTS/VOTING, and everybody, IN PARTICULAR THE DEMOCRATS, KNOWS THIS,' Trump wrote without providing evidence supporting his claims. Presidents aren't given power over state election law. The 'Elections Clause' in Article I Section 4, leaves 'the times, places, and manner of holding elections' for the U.S. House and Senate up to the states, and only Congress is given power 'make or alter' these rules. Subscribe to the Design newsletter. The latest innovations in design brought to you every weekday Privacy Policy | Fast Company Newsletters Trump falsely claimed in his social media post on Monday that the U.S. is the only country with mail-in voting (at least 40 countries allow people to vote by mail), and he said he would sign an executive order ahead of next year's midterm election to make the changes. Eight states and Washington, D.C., allow for all-mail-in elections, and an additional 15 states allow for mail-in elections in some circumstances and jurisdictions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Hollow legal ground Trump's apparent legal argument for having the power to end mail-in voting as president, as laid out in his post, is that states are 'merely an 'agent'' for the federal government in counting and tabulating votes, and the president is the ultimate authority of the federal government. 'They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them,' Trump wrote. Like his push for Texas to adopt new congressional districts that are gerrymandered to help Republicans, Trump's latest election proposals are about letting the president decide policy that's actually left up to the states, and giving the executive branch power to shape the legislative branch that was designed to act as one of its checks. Rather than a separation of powers, it's a consolidation.
