Supreme Court’s Skrmetti Ruling Threatens Transgender Rights

The Supreme court’s recent ruling in United States v.Skrmetti, decided on June 18, 2024, is poised to significantly impact transgender rights and the broader scope of equal protection under the law. the case, which challenges a Tennessee law restricting gender-affirming care for transgender minors, has ignited concerns about the future of transgender healthcare access and civil rights.

Background of United States v. Skrmetti

Skrmetti originated from a lawsuit filed by parents of three transgender children against the state of Tennessee, contesting a law that took effect on July 1, 2023. This law prohibits treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy specifically for transgender minors, effectively creating distinct legal classifications based on gender identity.

The lawsuit argued that the Tennessee law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by unfairly discriminating against transgender individuals. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),similar laws have been introduced in numerous states,reflecting a nationwide trend of legislative efforts targeting transgender rights ^[1].

The Court’s Decision and Diverging opinions

Justice Samuel Alito suggested that “transgender status is not immutable,” and that individuals can move in and out of the class, seemingly downplaying the meaning and consistency of transgender identity ^[2]. Alito’s opinion also implied that transgender individuals have not faced a history of discrimination,a claim widely disputed by LGBTQ+ advocates and historians.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett argued that there was no basis to treat transgender people as a class subjected to discrimination, while simultaneously acknowledging the very reasons such protections are necessary: historical discrimination and political powerlessness.

Did You Know? A 2023 study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of law found that transgender people are more likely to experience discrimination in employment,housing,and healthcare compared to their cisgender counterparts ^[3].

Dissenting Voices and Historical Parallels

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized the critical importance of access to gender-affirming care, stating that it “is not a matter of mere cosmetic preference” but a question of life or death. She argued that the court failed to apply intermediate scrutiny, a legal standard requiring the government to demonstrate a considerable relationship between the law and an critically important government interest.

Sotomayor warned that the court’s decision “does irrevocable damage to the equal Protection Clause” and invites discriminatory legislation. Her dissent draws parallels to the 1986 Supreme Court case Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld a Georgia law criminalizing sodomy. That decision was later overturned in 2003 by Lawrence v. Texas, which recognized the Hardwick ruling as “wrong the day it was decided.”

Pro Tip: understanding the legal concept of “intermediate scrutiny” is crucial for analyzing cases involving potential discrimination. It requires the government to show that a law serves an important interest and is substantially related to achieving that interest.

Potential Consequences and Future Implications

The Skrmetti ruling could potentially open the door to further restrictions on transgender rights, placing transgender children in states with restrictive laws at increased risk. While transgender adults retain more autonomy, the decision may embolden states to attempt broader bans on gender-affirming care for all ages.

Critics argue that Skrmetti further weakens rights to privacy and liberty, building upon the precedent set by the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The decision is seen as part of a trend that diminishes the Constitution’s protections and invites exploitation of ambiguous language.

During its next term, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case concerning the legality of conversion therapy bans for LGBTQ+ youth, potentially impacting the safety and well-being of queer individuals nationwide ^[4].

The Broader Context of LGBTQ+ Rights

The Supreme Court’s decision arrives amidst a backdrop of increasing legislative activity targeting LGBTQ+ rights across the United States. According to the Human Rights Campaign, 2023 saw a record number of anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced in state legislatures, many of which focus on restricting access to gender-affirming care and limiting LGBTQ+ representation in schools ^[5].

Queer individuals should not be denied constitutional protections based on their identity. The Supreme Court has left queer people at risk and on guard.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information and should not be considered legal advice. Consult with a qualified attorney for advice regarding specific legal issues.

What are your thoughts on the Supreme court’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti? How do you think this ruling will impact the future of transgender rights in the United States?

Share your thoughts and join the conversation!