SCOTUS' trans ruling: Letters to the Editor — June 23, 2025
On the day of the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Tennessee ban on transitions for minors, the mainstream media (especially PBS) was quick to cry out what a 'setback' this ruling was for 'trans' rights ('Trans sense,' June 19).
The agonies brought on by impulsive decisions made by addled youngsters were not discussed.
Advertisement
This ruling is a victory, not a 'setback,' for biological common sense.
Twenty seven states now have similar bans as Tennessee. One might ask why the remaining 23 states are so far behind the curve toward sanity?
Anthony Parks
Advertisement
Garden City
The only disappointing thing about the SCOTUS gender decision is that it wasn't unanimous. It means that six Justices have common sense, and three don't.
Nevertheless, a generation of young boys and girls have been saved from the 'gender-affirming' cultists.
By the way, when did the far left change its mind on childhood genital mutilation? It seems like only yesterday the left was firmly against the practice for young girls in certain African countries.
Advertisement
Dennis Rhodes
Naples, Fla.
Since minors are considered to be too young to vote or serve in the military, then they are also too young to make these kinds of life-changing decisions.
By the time they become adults, they may have changed their minds about all of these choices.
Advertisement
Ray Starman
Albany
Thanks to the Supreme Court for ruling against this idiotic ideology of 'gender affirmation.'
It reaffirms what scripture tells us: Namely that the creator made two sexes, male and female, and no one should desecrate this.
Frank Brady
Yonkers
The high court ruling to allow banning transgender care for minors is simply common sense.
Sometimes kids go through phases. And life-changing decisions for minors could lead to regret and emotional and psychological struggles in later years.
Advertisement
My only hope is that other states will join the ban. Kids just need to be kids. They should not be allowed to make adult decisions.
The legal age to drink is 21. The age to vote is 18 and to drive is 16. Waiting until the age of 18 for trans treatment is not asking too much. In fact, it's smart.
Joann Lee Frank
Clearwater, Fla.
Advertisement
The Issue: City Hall's plan to spend $929.1 million to house the homeless and migrants in hotels.
Mayor Adams needs to go ('A Fetid $1B Hotel Deal,' Editorial, June 20).
He cannot justify spending nearly $1 billion for this cause. How many of the 86,000 who need housing are actually homeless citizens, the ones he should have been taking care of from Day 1?
That money could have been divided for other vital services that need to be addressed, such as cleaner streets, an overhaul of the Administration for Children's Services, more cops — because we really don't need more commuters to be stabbed during a Grand Central morning rush hour — or a number of other issues needing urgent attention and upgrades.
Advertisement
Susan Cienfuegos
New Rochelle
I really think that New York taxpayers and citizens have had enough of Eric Adams' nonsense. Along with the corruption allegations, he has continued to destroy New Yorkers' quality of life.
Now he's planning to spend nearly $1 billion in taxpayer money on shelters for immigrants and homeless.
Advertisement
When is this gonna stop? Enough already, Adams.
Gene O'Brien
Whitestone
Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@nypost.com. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
31 minutes ago
- Newsweek
White House Responds After Judge Blocks Trump Birthright Citizenship Order
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. The White House issued a defiant statement on Friday after a judge blocked President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, marking the third time a court has done so since a critical Supreme Court ruling in June. Why It Matters Trump's executive action seeks to prevent children born on U.S. soil from automatically receiving citizenship if neither parent was an American citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth. The Supreme Court in June blocked judges from issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump's order, though it left an exception for class-action lawsuits, which multiple plaintiffs subsequently filed. President Donald Trump faces the media after arriving at Prestwick Airport in Ayrshire, Scotland, on July 25. President Donald Trump faces the media after arriving at Prestwick Airport in Ayrshire, Scotland, on July 25. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled on Friday that the nationwide injunction he granted to more than a dozen states who sued over the order is still in effect because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told the Associated Press that the administration expects to be "vindicated on appeal." "These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment," Jackson told the news outlet. Lawyers representing the Trump administration argued in the case that Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. But Sorokin pushed back, taking aim at the Trump administration for failing to explain how a narrower injunction would work in practice. "That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes," Sorokin wrote. "In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic." The New Jersey federal judge also wrote that he has "no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question" of whether Trump's order is constitutional. "But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional." Sorokin's is the third court to block or uphold a block on Trump's order since last month's Supreme Court ruling that carved out an exception for the class-action challenges. Earlier this week, a U.S. appeals court ruled that Trump's executive order was unconstitutional and upheld a lower-court decision that blocked its nationwide enforcement. A federal judge in New Hampshire also blocked the order from going into effect nationwide in a ruling earlier this month. The judge in that case, Joseph LaPlante, paused his decision to give the administration a chance to appeal. But it did not do so, meaning his order went into effect last week. What People Are Saying Sorokin said in his 23-page ruling on Friday: "Despite the defendants' chosen path, the Court — aided substantially by the plaintiffs' meticulous factual and legal submissions — undertook the review required of it by [June's Supreme Court ruling] and considered anew whether its original order swept too broadly." He added: "After careful consideration of the law and the facts, the Court answers that question in the negative." New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who led the case before Sorokin, said in a statement: "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history. The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen." What Happens Next The case will almost certainly make its way back up to the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority and has handed the Trump administration more than a dozen critical victories so far this year.
Wall Street Journal
3 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
California's Cage-Free Regulatory Scramble
Regarding your editorial 'California's Chickens Go to Court' (July 20): California has prohibited the sale of cruelly produced eggs since 2010. Its current standard, Proposition 12, was enacted by voters and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal Egg Products Inspection Act regulates packaging and labeling—not animal welfare directly. It doesn't pre-empt state laws like Prop 12, which address humane treatment on farms. That's why several other states—such as Colorado, Michigan and Utah—have passed similar laws without legal conflict.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Big Trade Deal With Japan Is Already Falling Apart
'I just signed the largest trade deal in history, I think maybe the largest deal in history, with Japan,' Trump boasted Tuesday. But a new report from The Financial Times demonstrates that U.S. and Japanese officials don't see eye to eye on what exactly the countries agreed upon. According to Trump and his administration, in return for a reduction in tariffs, Japan would invest $550 billion in certain U.S. sectors and give the United States 90 percent of the profits. But Japanese officials say profit sharing under the agreement isn't so set in stone: A Friday slideshow presentation in Japan's Cabinet Office, contra the White House, said profit distribution would be 'based on the degree of contribution and risk taken by each party,' per The Financial Times. The FT also reports conflicting messages between Washington and Tokyo as to whether that $550 billion commitment is, as team Trump sees it, a guarantee or, as Japan's negotiator Ryosei Akazawa sees it, an upper limit and not 'a target or commitment.' Mireya Solís, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told The Financial Times that the deal contains 'nothing inspiring,' as 'both sides made promises that we can't be sure will be kept' and 'there are no guarantees on what the actual level of investments from Japan will be.' The inconsistent interpretations of the deal could possibly be owing to the fact that it was hastily pulled together over the course of an hour and 10 minutes between Trump and Akazawa on Tuesday, according to the FT, which cited 'officials familiar with the U.S.-Japan talks.' And, moreover, 'Japanese officials said there was no written agreement with Washington—and no legally binding one would be drawn up.' Some are thus beginning to wonder whether Trump's avowed 'largest deal in history' even technically counts as a deal at all. Brad Setser, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote on X: 'If something like this is not 'papered' it isn't really a deal.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
