Supreme Court rightly allows states to hit brakes on gender meddling for kids
Show Caption
Hide Caption
US upholds ban on hormone blockers for transgender minors
The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, marking a significant blow to transgender rights in the United States.
unbranded - Newsworthy
The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law restricting gender-affirming care for minors, leaving the decision to states.
The court ruled that the law doesn't violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.
The decision allows states to regulate gender-affirming treatments for minors, reflecting the values of their residents.
The long-term effects of these treatments are still unknown, prompting caution from some health organizations.
While liberals in the news media are painting the U.S. Supreme Court's June 18 decision on transgender health care as a 'blow to transgender rights,' that's a simplistic view that overlooks what the court was asked to do.
The 6-3 ruling in United States v. Skrmetti – split along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority − upholds Tennessee's law restricting so-called 'gender-affirming' care for youth experiencing gender dysphoria.
In recent years, 27 states have passed laws or policies banning those procedures for minors, so the consequences of the court's decision will be felt nationwide.
The question before the court was whether Tennessee's law violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause by prohibiting cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers for minors. The Biden administration and the plaintiffs challenging the law claimed it was unconstitutional since a biological male teenager could be given testosterone to treat delayed puberty, while a biological female teenager would be denied the same hormone to treat gender dysphoria.
The court's majority didn't buy that argument, and Chief Justice John Roberts clearly laid out the court's rationale.
'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,' Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. 'The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best.'
Opinion: Supreme Court hears arguments in trans case. They should uphold Tennessee law.
Rather, in concluding the law doesn't violate the 14th Amendment, Roberts wrote 'we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.'
Supreme Court upholds Tennessee law. As with abortion, let states decide.
That's the right approach for now.
States are in the best position to grapple with these complicated issues and to reflect the values of those who live within their borders. That's been the case with abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Opinion: Democrats scream democracy is in peril ... while proving that it's absolutely fine
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti called the new ruling a win, saying the 'common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism.'
'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,' Skrmetti said in a statement.
It's important to note the Supreme Court didn't do anything to prevent states from offering hormones and puberty blockers to gender-confused youth. Rather, it gave states the green light to regulate those treatments.
More research is needed on long-term effects of 'gender-affirming care'
As Roberts wrote, the implications for all involved in these cases are profound. Parents of teens experiencing gender dysphoria obviously want to do what's best for their children. Yet, the long-term consequences of these life-altering treatments are unknown.
Trump is right: Transgender athletes turn girls' track meets into a farce | Opinion
A 2024 review from England's well-regarded National Health Service advised 'extreme caution' in the use of such drugs for minors, and the country will offer puberty-blocking drugs only for those in clinical trials.
Other European countries are backing off the use of these procedures, too.
Many federal and state laws are designed to protect youth, from the required use of car seats to the age when they may legally drive or buy alcohol.
Surely, states should also have the right to protect children from experimental procedures that could irrevocably change the rest of their lives.
And now they do.
Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@usatoday.com or on X, formerly Twitter: @Ingrid_Jacques
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Press
2 hours ago
- American Press
Jim Beam column:Checks, balances don't exist
Republican President Donald Trump is close to making American federal government a one-man operation, which the father of our constitution warned us about.(Photo courtesy of PBS). Today's Republican members of Congress and conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have apparently forgotten about the checks and balances provided for in the Constitution. Under President Donald Trump, it is abundantly clear that the executive branch has almost complete control of the federal government. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, defended the checks and balances in that document that don't exist at the moment. Madison said, 'The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.' We are awfully close to that point today. Trump has pretty much ignored the rulings of federal courts. Republicans in Congress are so frightened Trump will fight them at the next election they are either doing his bidding or deciding not to run for re-election. The civics text that I used years ago said the three branches of government are not completely independent of one another. While each branch has its own distinct field of powers, it is subject to a series of constitutional checks which the other branches may exercise against it. The president, for example, may veto acts of Congress, but Congress has the right to override those vetoes by a two-thirds majority vote. Or Congress may refuse to appropriate funds requested by the president, which the current GOP Congress doesn't have the courage to do. Congress can also impeach the president, judges and other civil officers. Its members had the courage to impeach Trump twice during his first term — on Dec. 18, 2019, and Jan. 13, 2021. The first impeachment stemmed from a call Trump had with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. Trump wanted him to investigate the Bidens and some in Ukraine who interfered in the 2016 election. The second impeachment followed the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump was impeached for 'incitement to insurrection.' In each case, he was acquitted on all counts by the Senate. Conviction requires a two-thirds vote of senators present. When all 100 are there, it requires 67 votes. The votes on the two articles at the first trial were 48-52 and 47-53. The vote at the second trial was 57-43. Federal courts have the power to pass on the constitutionality of acts of Congress or actions of the president (judicial review). President Harry Truman in 1952 seized the steel industry to prevent a strike. However, the Supreme Court said that was a job for Congress, and that Truman had exceeded his powers. My civics text said the check and balance system makes compromise necessary, and compromise is of the essence in a democratic system. Unfortunately, compromise has pretty much become a lost art in today's hostile political climate. Many political scientists are convinced Trump was elected based on his promise to get control of immigration. The unrestricted flow along the nation's borders during the President Joe Biden administration bothered many Americans (Democrats and Republicans). Trump continues to insist getting illegal immigrants out of this country is his No. 1 priority. In order to do that, some members of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have taken questionable actions when rounding up immigrants. Going back to that civics text, it says democracy cannot succeed except where all people are entitled to fair treatment under the law. It adds that both the national Constitution and constitutions of the various states contain numerous guarantees of fair treatment for those accused of crime. The 14th Amendment reinforces the guarantees against unfair treatment by the states. And the Writ of Habeas Corpus is a court order directing that a person being held be brought before the court so a judge can determine whether the prisoner is being illegally detained. That hasn't happened for many immigrants who have been rounded up and shipped to some country they have probably never heard of. The courts have tried to stop it, but the Trump administration throws up as many roadblocks as possible. Kristi Noem, secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under which ICE operates, during a Senate hearing in May said habeas corpus was 'a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their rights.' Anyone who thinks this country's democracy isn't in trouble hasn't been keeping up with the news. Jim Beam, the retired editor of the American Press, has covered people and politics for more than six decades. Contact him at 337-515-8871 or Reply Forward Add reaction
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Sparks Gun Group Lawsuit Within Hours
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Several gun rights groups filed a lawsuit to dismantle what is left of the National Firearms Act (NFA) shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump signed his package of tax breaks and spending cuts into law on Friday. The legislation reduced the NFA's excise tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and any other weapons to $0. Gun Owners of America (GOA) and other plaintiffs argue in the lawsuit—which they have dubbed the "One Big Beautiful Lawsuit"—that the Supreme Court had upheld the NFA as a tax statute and the constitutional justification for it no longer applies once the tax is eliminated. Newsweek has contacted the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—which are listed as defendants in the lawsuit—for comment via a contact form on the DOJ's website and email. File photo: Donald Trump signs the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law on the South Lawn of the White House on July 4, 2025 in Washington, D.C. File photo: Donald Trump signs the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law on the South Lawn of the White House on July 4, 2025 in Washington, Context The National Firearms Act was first enacted in 1934 to regulates firearms considered the most dangerous and crack down on gangland crime in the Prohibition era. The law had imposed a $200 tax on machine guns and shotguns and rifles with barrels shorter than 18 inches, and also required the federal registration of these types of firearms. Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminates the $200 fee that gun owners are charged when purchasing silencers and short-barreled rifles, but it remains in effect for machine guns and explosive devices. What To Know In a press release on Thursday, Gun Owners of America said its team had been "working behind the scenes" with lawmakers since the November election to repeal the NFA fully. The group said congressional Republicans had allowed "an unelected bureaucrat" to block the provision. GOA added that Congress ultimately "settled for reducing the NFA's $200 excise tax to $0 on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and any other weapons or AOWs—teeing up GOA's legal challenge." GOA also said it has also long argued that the NFA's registration mandates "violate the Second Amendment and are an unconstitutional overreach of federal power." The authors of the NFA "left no doubt that the NFA was an exercise of the taxing power, and the Supreme Court upheld it on that basis," says the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. "But the NFA no longer imposes any tax on the vast majority of firearms it purports to regulate. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Congress and the President enacted on July 4, 2025, zeros the manufacture and transfer tax on nearly all NFA-regulated firearms. That means the constitutional foundation on which the NFA rested has dissolved. And the NFA cannot be upheld under any other Article I power. With respect to the untaxed firearms, the Act is now unconstitutional." What People Are Saying Erich Pratt, senior vice president of GOA, said in a statement: "This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to dismantle one of the most abusive federal gun control laws on the books. With the tax struck down by Congress, the rest of the NFA is standing on air. We're ready to take this fight to the courts and finally end the federal registry once and for all." Sam Paredes said in a statement on behalf of the board for Gun Owners Foundation: "The Supreme Court has made clear that the NFA survives only as a tax law. Once the President signs this bill and the tax disappears, the registry becomes an unconstitutional relic. GOF is prepared to go to court and challenge every remaining provision that violates the Second Amendment." Representative Mike Thompson, a Democrat and chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday: "Congressional Republicans are giving a handout to the gun lobby by eliminating the $200 tax on silencers and easily concealable short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. We've regulated silencers and these guns for 90+ years for a reason: to keep people safe." Emma Brown, the executive director of GIFFORDS, an organization focused on preventing gun violence, said in a statement this week: "Almost 100 years of precedent has kept silencers and short-barreled firearms out of easy reach for criminals. But with this bill, Republicans are laying the groundwork to gut safeguards that stopped criminals from getting these deadly weapons. This vote is proof that the 'law and order' rhetoric Donald Trump has pushed for years rings hollow. In siding with the gun industry CEOs, he has handed criminals a win, and communities will suffer the deadly consequences." What Happens Next The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the NFA's registration and transfer requirements pertaining to untaxed firearms "exceed Congress's enumerated powers" and block the defendants from "implementing, enforcing, or otherwise acting under the authority of the NFA with respect to untaxed firearms."
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
We have filed the case that could overturn Wickard and limit Commerce Clause powers
Roscoe Filburn owned a wheat farm in rural Montgomery County, Ohio. When he used his own farm to feed his own family, he fell under the hammer of the federal government. It was 1938, and America was in the throes of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. Agricultural commodity prices—and specifically, wheat prices—fluctuated wildly, costing farmers their fortunes, farms, and families. In an effort to stabilize wheat prices, the federal government intervened and artificially capped the amount of wheat each farmer could grow. It sought to shrink the wheat supply while demand remained the same, and thereby increase the wheat price. Under this federal policy, the government eventually fined Filburn. Justifiably skeptical that this was within the federal power, Filburn challenged the fine in court. The case was Wickard v. Filburn — one that lives in infamy and whose effects are felt strongly to this day. Unlike the state governments, the federal government is one of limited and enumerated power: It possesses only the powers specifically granted in the Constitution, and no others. As such, it based its wheat scheme on Congress's power 'to regulate Commerce … among the several States.' Widely known as the 'Interstate Commerce Clause,' as its text indicates, this federal power is restricted to commerce that takes place between states. Wheat and similar commodities are often bought, shipped, and sold across state lines, and their availability within one state can affect markets in others. On its face, then, intervention into the wheat market could seem a reasonable expression of the power to regulate interstate commerce. But the federal government went much further than that. Filburn's case began in 1940, when the federal government had imposed a wheat cap for Filburn's farm. He abided by that cap for wheat he sold on the market, but he retained some additional wheat to feed his family and his animals. Despite this wholly local, non-commercial use of his own wheat, the federal government fined him for exceeding his quota. After two years of proceedings, the Supreme Court notoriously sided with the government. The court's reasoning? By eating wheat he grew himself, Filburn was failing to buy wheat on the national market, and by not buying wheat on the national market, he was engaging in an activity which, if others were to follow suit, could affect that national market. The federal government could therefore regulate even Filburn's family activity on his own farm in Ohio because it could hypothetically affect interstate commerce. Congress and federal agencies have taken that reasoning and run with it ever since. Under the logic of this precedent and ensuing cases, the federal commerce power has stretched to reach virtually every activity under the sun. To this day, the federal government uses these cases to assert a nearly limitless sweep of power. The Commerce Clause has become a catch-all justification for thousands of federal laws and regulations. Agricultural production? Interstate commerce. Public health? Interstate commerce. Obscure spider species? Interstate commerce. Real estate disclosures? Also, somehow, interstate commerce. For decades, public-interest lawyers like ourselves have sought to rework this line of jurisprudence. In April, our firm, the Center for the American Future, filed Corley v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, with the aim of restoring the Constitution's proper balance of power in this space. The plaintiffs in that case, a real estate attorney and a property owner in Lubbock, Texas, want to transfer residential real estate into a legal entity. This should be as simple as filling out the deed, handling the closing details, and signing the paperwork — that is how it has always worked. And real estate is about the most 'local' activity there is. It does not cross state lines, and each property is intrinsically unique. It is a stretch to say that such an activity, especially when no financing has been secured and no money has changed hands, falls within interstate commerce. But, predictably, the federal government has argues otherwise. The Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, known as 'FinCEN,' has put in place roadblocks, rules, penalties, and paperwork for this simple intrastate activity. These extra steps require the disclosure of sensitive information, such as social security numbers, birthdates, closing costs, financing, and other data. FinCEN's claimed purpose is to combat money laundering, but its restrictions apply to every single person making a covered real estate transfer, regardless of whether he or she is suspected of a crime. Most importantly, the regulations apply with no regard to interstate commerce. Even if the property is next-door and is transferred for free, according to FinCEN, the agency can reach it under the Commerce Clause. Our Constitution is clear in restricting federal power. Whether Congress legislates or an executive agency regulates, no part of the federal government may expand beyond the powers set forth in the Constitution. For more than 80 years, those restrictions have been ignored as the federal commerce power has been pushed beyond the bounds of reason. But the Center for the American Future, through carefully crafted legal arguments, hopes to restore the Constitution's careful balance of power. Clayton Calvin is an attorney with the Texas Public Policy Foundation's litigation arm, the Center for the American Future. Matt Miller is a senior attorney in the Center for the American Future.
