Supreme Court upholds state ban on transgender minors using puberty blockers, hormone therapy

USA Today

18-06-2025

Supreme Court upholds state ban on transgender minors using puberty blockers, hormone therapy In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor said the Supreme Court 'abandons transgender children and their families to political whims."
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Families speak out for transgender youth at Supreme Court
Families of transgender youth tells how their lives could change if Supreme Court bans gender-affirming care.
WASHINGTON − An ideologically divided Supreme Court on June 18 upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, a major setback for transgender Americans who have increasingly become targets of conservative states and the Trump administration.
The court's six conservative justices upheld the ban and the three liberals dissented.
The decision − one of the court's biggest this year − came about five years after the court ruled that transgender people, as well as gay and lesbian people, are protected by a landmark civil rights law barring sex discrimination in the workplace.
But in this case, the court said that preventing minors from using puberty blockers and hormone therapy does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same.
"Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court retreated 'from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most,' and 'abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.'
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti called the decision a "landmark victory...in defense of America's children."
"A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee's elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand," he said in a statement.
Chase Strangio, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who represented the Tennessee families challenging the law, called the decision is a 'painful setback.'
But Strangio, who was the first openly transgender person to argue before the court, noted the opinion didn't revisit past decisions protecting transgender people from discrimination.
'We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person,' Strangio said in a statement.
The Biden administration and the Tennessee families that challenged the law argued it discriminated against transgender people because a teenager whose sex assigned at birth is male may be given testosterone to treat delayed puberty. But a teenager assigned female at birth who wants testosterone to treat gender dysphoria may not have it.
Tennessee countered that the treatments have different risks and benefits when used by transgender youth, who need to be protected from life-altering consequences.
The Supreme Court agreed, saying the law is removing one set of diagnoses − gender dysphoria − from the range of treatable conditions, not excluding people from treatment because they're transgender.
After the case was argued in December, the Justice Department under President Donald Trump told the court it was no longer challenging Tennessee's law.
Trump made opposition to transgender rights a central theme of his campaign.
The issue, a major flashpoint in the culture wars, gained prominence with startling speed, despite the tiny – though increasing – fraction of Americans who are transgender.
Since 2022, the number of states taking steps to limit access to gender-affirming care for minors grew from four to about half.
States have also taken steps to restrict the bathrooms transgender students can use, what sports teams they can join. and whether they can change the sex designation on their birth certificates.
When families with transgender children challenged bans on gender-affirming care, district courts largely sided with them and blocked enforcement. But three appeals courts upheld the laws, including the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Tennessee's law was the first to reach the Supreme Court.
More: Transgender lawyer makes history, takes case on puberty blockers and hormone therapy to Supreme Court
During the December oral arguments, several of the conservative justices voiced support for taking a similar approach to what the court did when it overturned Roe v. Wade, finding there's no constitutional barrier to the issue at hand and leaving it up to state and federal legislatures to decide.
'My understanding is the Constitution leaves that question to the people's representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor,' Chief Justice John Roberts said during December's debate.
The court's liberal justices had argued that the court can't ignore constitutional protections, particularly for the vulnerable.
'That's a question for the court,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said.
Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that the law 'plainly discriminates on the basis of sex,' tying it to the 2020 decision barring employment discrimination for transgender people.
Roberts responded that the court didn't decide in 2020 whether the reasoning could be applied outside of the civil rights law at issue in that case. And the court didn't need to now, he said, because neither the teen's sex nor transgender status is the reason he can't get puberty blockers under Tennessee's law.
Gender-affirming care for minors is supported by every major medical organization, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association.
But the court's conservative justices focused more on the fact that some European countries have tightened restrictions on the treatments. England's National Health Service, for example, stopped prescribing the drugs outside of clinical trials after a review concluded more data is needed to help doctors and their patients make informed decisions.
Tennessee concluded that there's an ongoing debate among medical experts about the risks and benefits of the treatments, Roberts wrote.
"Recent developments," he said, "only underscore the need for legislative flexibility in this area."
The case is U.S. v. Skrmetti.