Supreme Court turned its back on trans youth. Our community never will.
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 ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
Organizations are providing resources and travel grants to families seeking care in other states.
The decision intensifies worries for families about access to care and financial burdens.
Support groups and community fundraising efforts are helping families navigate these challenges.
With its decision in Skrmetti v. United States, the Supreme Court has delivered a heart-breaking blow to transgender youth and the families fighting to protect them. The court upheld Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming care for youth, allowing it to remain in effect.
To be clear, this decision does not require states to ban gender-affirming care. It does not change the fact that interstate travel remains a constitutional right. Above all, it does not mean that families of transgender youth are alone during this crisis.
I understand that moments like this can feel devastating. But right now, it's critical that we maintain hope – and that we do everything possible to support families who are facing hardships.
I work as the Family Resources Manager for the Trans Youth Emergency Project, a core program of the Campaign for Southern Equality. Since 2023, we've been connecting families with vital resources and support in the face of sweeping anti-trans legislation.
Opinion: Corporations won't save LGBTQ+ people. Take their money for Pride anyway.
SCOTUS upholding Tennessee's ban hurts. But we can't lose hope.
Every day, I speak directly with parents of transgender young people who are faced with the reality that their child's life-saving health care is not available in their home state. We offer these families up-to-date information, access to affirming providers who are not impacted by anti-transgender restrictions, and travel grants of $500, renewable every three months, to help them continue to access the care they need and deserve.
And we're not alone in this work: There is a robust network of organizations supporting transgender and queer youth in every single state – from deep red and rural communities in Mississippi to major cities across the South and Midwest. There are many amazing support groups for parents and young people, including chapters of PFLAG and TransParent in every state. We're honored to partner with many of these groups, and they're a powerful place to start for families who are feeling overwhelmed or don't know where to turn.
When it comes to direct logistical and financial support, we're here to help. Since launching two years ago, we have provided over $600,000 in direct travel grants for the families of transgender youth.
Opinion: A trans athlete won in California. Her peers cheered – and exposed the truth.
The families we connect with live with fear and exhaustion. Many families I talk to are worried about delaying or needing to stop care. They worry about the financial burden. They worry about potential prosecution from a rogue state actor or the federal government. There are worries upon worries upon worries.
This Supreme Court decision will only intensify these worries. Now, families living in states with bans are facing the reality of having to travel multiple times every year, or move out of state to get their child health care.
Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.
To families feeling despair, know you are not alone
No family should have to shoulder so much, but I am so inspired and heartened by these parents and families who are moving mountains to care for their children. The parents and caregivers I speak to have deep love for their youth.
Every few months, they are traveling hundreds of miles and spending thousands of dollars to secure care that should be available in their hometowns. Families have taken out second mortgages on their homes. Young people have adapted to switching providers multiple times as new bans and restrictions have come up. Parents have taken new jobs and uprooted their entire lives to protect their kids from anti-trans laws.
I recently spoke with a grandmother in Missouri who is raising her nonbinary grandchild after the child's parents rejected them. When Missouri implemented its care ban, this grandmother was already driving hours to get treatment in Kansas, only to have that option disappear, too. She told me, 'I can't afford another trip, but I'll do it anyway. I have to.'
In the face of this decision, it's important that we look for ways to tangibly and meaningfully support families. The legal system may have failed them, but I know that our community won't.
And we are honored to do our part. We will continue to reach out, to provide life-saving resources, and to affirm that transgender youth have a right to grow up safe, supported, and healthy. Transgender youth deserve to live long, full, authentic lives and to realize their full potential.
We're grateful to see the ways that our community has stepped up to support our program and these families. From craft sales to live performances to lemonade stands, people nationwide have hosted every fundraiser imaginable to support the families we serve. And as these health care bans remain in place, we know that help will be more critical than ever.
To the parents reading this who feel fear or despair, please know this: the Trans Youth Emergency Project and so many others are here, and there is a huge community behind you ready to help you through this turbulence.
We see your love. We understand the weight of your choices. And we will do everything in our power to make sure your child gets the care they need, no matter what politicians or courts say.
Dr. Van Bailey is the Family Resources Manager for the Trans Youth Emergency Project, a program of the Campaign for Southern Equality. Families can get support at transyouthemergencyproject.org.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump notches winning streak in Supreme Court emergency docket deluge
President Trump is on a winning streak at the Supreme Court with conservative-majority justices giving the green light for the president to resume his sweeping agenda. Their recent blessing of his firings of more independent agency leaders is the latest example of the court going the administration's way. This White House in six months has already brought more emergency appeals to the high court than former President Biden did during his four years in office, making it an increasingly dominant part of the Supreme Court's work. But as the court issues more and more emergency decisions, the practice has sometimes come under criticism — even by other justices. Trump prompts staggering activity Trump's Justice Department filed its 21 st emergency application on Thursday, surpassing the 19 that the Biden administration filed during his entire four-year term. The court has long dealt with requests to delay executions on its emergency docket, but the number of politically charged requests from the sitting administration has jumped in recent years, further skyrocketing under Trump. 'The numbers are startling,' said Kannon Shanmugam, who leads Paul, Weiss' Supreme Court practice, at a Federalist Society event Thursday. Trump's Justice Department asserts the burst reflects how 'activist' federal district judges have improperly blocked the president's agenda. Trump's critics say it shows how the president himself is acting lawlessly. But some legal experts blame Congress for being missing in action. 'There are a lot of reasons for this growth, but I think the biggest reason, in some sense, is the disappearance of Congress from the scene,' Shanmugam said. In his second term, Trump has almost always emerged victorious at the Supreme Court. The administration successfully halted lower judges' orders in all but two of the decided emergency appeals, and a third where they only partially won. On immigration, the justices allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants and swiftly deport people to countries where they have no ties while separately rebuffing a judge who ruled for migrants deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Other cases involve efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy and spending. The Supreme Court allowed the administration to freeze $65 million in teacher grants, provide Department of Government Efficiency personnel with access to sensitive Social Security data, proceed with mass firings of probationary employees and broader reorganizations and dismantle the Education Department. Last month, Trump got perhaps his biggest win yet, when the Supreme Court clawed back federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions. The most recent decision, meanwhile, concerned Trump's bid to expand presidential power by eviscerating independent agency leaders' removal protections. The justices on Wednesday enabled Trump to fire three members on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Decisions often contain no explanation Unlike normal Supreme Court cases that take months to resolve, emergency cases follow a truncated schedule. The justices usually resolve the appeals in a matter of days after a singular round of written briefing and no oral argument. And oftentimes, the court acts without explanation. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump's three appointees, have long defended the practice. Last year, the duo cautioned that explaining their preliminary thinking may 'create a lock-in effect' as a case progresses. At the Federalist Society event, Shanmugam suggested the court might have more energy for its emergency cases if the justices less frequently wrote separately on the merits docket — a dig at the many dissents and concurrences issued this term. But the real challenge, he said, is the speed at which the cases must be decided. 'It takes time to get members of the court to agree on reasoning, and sometimes I think it's therefore more expedient for the court to issue these orders without reasoning,' he said. 'Even though I think we would all agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for the court to provide more of that.' The frequent lack of explanation has at times left wiggle room and uncertainty. A month ago, the Supreme Court lifted a judge's injunction requiring the Trump administration to provide migrants with certain due process before deporting them to a country where they have no ties. With no explanation from the majority — only the liberal justices in dissent — the judge believed he could still enforce his subsequent ruling, which limited plans to deport a group of violent criminals to the war-torn country of South Sudan. The Trump administration accused him of defying the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the justices rebuked the judge, with even liberal Justice Elena Kagan agreeing. The Supreme Court's emergency interventions have also left lower judges to grapple with their precedential weight in separate cases. After the high court in May greenlit Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the administration began asserting lower courts still weren't getting the message. The emergency decision led many court watchers to believe the justices are poised to overturn their 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agency leaders from termination without cause. But several judges have since continued to block Trump's firings at other independent agencies, since the precedent still technically remains on the books. The tensions came to a head after a judge reinstated fired CPSC members. The Supreme Court said the earlier case decides how the later case must be interpreted, providing arguably their most succinct guidance yet for how their emergency rulings should be interpreted. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the unsigned ruling reads. Liberals object to emergency docket practices The lack of explanation in many of the court's emergency decisions has frustrated court watchers and judges alike, leading critics to call it the 'shadow docket.' Those critics include the Supreme Court's own liberal justices. 'Courts are supposed to explain things. That's what courts do,' Kagan said while speaking at a judicial conference Thursday. Kagan pointed to the court's decision last week greenlighting Trump's mass layoffs at the Education Department. She noted a casual observer might think the president is legally authorized to dismantle the agency, but the government didn't present that argument. Her fellow liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and, particularly, Ketanji Brown Jackson, have made more forceful criticisms. Jackson increasingly accuses her colleagues of threatening the rule of law. She called one recent emergency decision 'hubristic and senseless' and warned another was 'unleashing devastation.' Late last month, Jackson wrote that her colleagues had 'put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy.' But in Wednesday's decision letting the CPSC firings move forward, the trio were united. Kagan accused the majority of having 'effectively expunged' the Supreme Court precedent protecting independent agency leaders, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, from its records. 'And it has accomplished those ends with the scantiest of explanations,' she wrote. Kagan noted that the 'sole professed basis' for the stay order was its prior stay order in another case involving Trump's firing of independent agency heads. That decision — which cleared the way for Trump to fire NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris — was also 'minimally (and, as I have previously shown, poorly) explained,' she said. 'So only another under-reasoned emergency order undergirds today's,' Kagan wrote. 'Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under reasoned) orders to cite.'
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
FTC firings take spotlight in Trump's fight to erase independence of agencies
The Supreme Court has temporarily allowed President Donald Trump to fire numerous Democrat-appointed members of independent agencies, but one case still moving through the legal system carries the greatest implications yet for a president's authority to do that. In Slaughter v. Trump, a Biden-appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission has vowed to fight what she calls her "illegal firing," setting up a possible scenario in which the case lands before the Supreme Court. The case would pose the most direct question yet to the justices about where they stand on Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the nearly century-old decision regarding a president's power over independent regulatory agencies. John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations, told Fox News Digital he thinks the high court is likely to side with the president if and when the case arrives there. "I think it's unlikely that Humphrey's Executor survives the Supreme Court, at least in its current form," Shu said, adding he anticipates the landmark decision will be overturned or "severely narrowed." Humphrey's Executor centered on President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision to fire an FTC commissioner with whom he disagreed politically. The case marked the first instance of the Supreme Court limiting a president's removal power by ruling that Roosevelt overstepped his authority. The court found that presidents could not dismiss FTC commissioners without a reason, such as malfeasance, before their seven-year terms ended, as outlined by Congress in the FTC Act. However, the FTC's functions, which largely center on combating anticompetitive business practices, have expanded in the 90 years since Humphrey's Executor. "The Federal Trade Commission of 1935 is a lot different than the Federal Trade Commission today," Shu said. He noted that today's FTC can open investigations, issue subpoenas, bring lawsuits, impose financial penalties and more. The FTC now has executive, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, Shu said. If the Supreme Court's decision to temporarily allow two labor board members' firings is any indication, the high court stands ready to make the FTC less independent and more accountable to Trump. In a 6-3 order, the Supreme Court cited the "considerable executive power" that the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board have, saying a president "may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf." The order did not mention Humphrey's Executor, but that and other moves indicate the Supreme Court has been chipping away at the 90-year-old ruling and is open to reversing it. The case of Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya gets closest to the heart of Humphrey's Executor. Slaughter enjoyed a short-lived victory when a federal judge in Washington, D.C., found that Trump violated the Constitution and ruled in her favor on July 17. She was able to return to the FTC for a few days, but the Trump administration appealed the decision and, on July 21, the appellate court paused the lower court judge's ruling. Judge Loren AliKhan had said in her summary judgment that Slaughter's case was almost identical to William Humphrey's. "It is not the role of this court to decide the correctness, prudence, or wisdom of the Supreme Court's decisions—even one from ninety years ago," AliKhan, a Biden appointee, wrote. "Whatever the Humphrey's Executor Court may have thought at the time of that decision, this court will not second-guess it now." The lawsuit arose from Trump firing Slaughter and Bedoya, the two Democratic-appointed members of the five-member commission. They alleged that Trump defied Humphrey's Executor by firing them in March without cause in a letter that "nearly word-for-word" mirrored the one Roosevelt sent a century ago. Bedoya has since resigned, but Slaughter is not backing down from a legal fight in which Trump appears to have the upper hand. "Like dozens of other federal agencies, the Federal Trade Commission has been protected from presidential politics for nearly a century," Slaughter said in a statement after she was re-fired. "I'll continue to fight my illegal firing and see this case through, because part of why Congress created independent agencies is to ensure transparency and accountability." Now a three-judge panel comprising two Obama appointees and one Trump appointee is considering a longer-term pause and asked for court filings to be submitted by July 29, meaning the judges could issue their decision soon thereafter.
CNBC
4 hours ago
- CNBC
Trump's trade deals and tariffs are on the chopping block in court. What happens next
President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff powers and recent trade deals could soon run into a legal buzzsaw. A federal appeals court is set to hear oral arguments next week in a high-profile lawsuit challenging Trump's stated authority to effectively slap tariffs at any level on any country at any time, so long as he deems them necessary to address a national emergency. The Trump administration says that that expansive tariff power derives from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. The bulk of Trump's biggest tariffs — including his fentanyl-related duties on Canada, Mexico and China, and the worldwide "reciprocal" tariffs he first unveiled in early April — rest on his invocation of that law. The U.S. Court of International Trade struck those tariffs down in late May, ruling that Trump exceeded his authority under IEEPA. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit quickly paused that decision, keeping the tariffs in effect while Trump's legal challenge plays out. The case, known as , is the furthest along of more than half a dozen federal lawsuits challenging Trump's use of the emergency-powers law. It's set for oral argument before the Federal Circuit on Thursday morning. "I think the tariffs are at risk," said Ted Murphy, partner and head of global trade practice at law firm Sidley Austin, in an interview with CNBC. The law has "never been used for this purpose," and it's "being used quite broadly," Murphy said. "So I think there are legitimate questions." IEEPA gives Trump some powers to deal with national emergencies stemming from "any unusual and extraordinary threat" that comes in whole or in large part from outside the U.S. But attorneys representing the handful of small businesses that sued Trump argue that the law does not let him unilaterally impose tariffs. "IEEPA nowhere mentions tariffs, duties, imposts, or taxes, and no other President in the statute's nearly 50-year history has claimed that it authorizes tariffs," they wrote in a court brief this month. Attorneys for Trump and his administration, however, argue that Congress has long empowered presidents to impose tariffs to address key national concerns. They argue that the statute's language authorizing Trump to "regulate … importation" means he can use it to impose tariffs. No matter how the Federal Circuit ultimately rules in , the case appears destined for the Supreme Court, which bears a 6-3 conservative majority and includes three justices appointed by Trump. But some experts still expect that Trump's IEEPA tariffs will be scrapped. "Trump will probably continue to lose in the lower courts, and we believe the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to rule in his favor," U.S. policy analysts from Piper Sandler wrote in a research note Friday morning. The analysts wrote that such a loss would effectively mean the collapse of almost every trade development that Trump has held up as an accomplishment during his first six months in office. "If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, all of the trade deals Trump has reached in recent weeks — and those he will reach in the coming days — are illegal," the analysts wrote. "So are his letters informing countries of their new tariffs, the current 10% minimum, and the reciprocal tariffs he has proposed or threatened," they added. It is technically unclear whether everything Piper Sandler describes is undergirded by IEEPA. For instance, Trump has recently announced only the broad outlines of trade agreements with Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines — and those deals have yet to be finalized. However, Trump in mid-June signed an executive order specifying that he is invoking the emergency-powers law as part of a U.S. trade agreement with the United Kingdom. Trump this month has also sent 25 letters to individual world leaders, dictating the new tariff rates that their countries' U.S. exports will face starting Aug. 1. That is the date when Trump's reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries' imports — which were unveiled in early April and then repeatedly put on pause — are set to turn back on. Trump has said that his letters are tantamount to bilateral trade deals. Those letters do not explicitly reference IEEPA. But their language echoes the same arguments about unfair trade, deficits and national security that Trump invoked during his reciprocal tariff rollout. "The Administration is legally and fairly using tariff powers that have been granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to level the playing field for American workers and safeguard our national security," White House spokesman Kush Desai told CNBC. The White House ignored CNBC's request to confirm that Trump's leader-to-leader letters, and the tariff rates set in his recent spate of trade deals, hinge on IEEPA authority. It has, however, confirmed that the massive 50% tariff Trump set on imports from Brazil did, in fact, rely on IEEPA powers. Strangely, that letter focused less on trade and more on Trump's gripes about Brazil's treatment of its former president, Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial over his role in an alleged coup to overturn his 2022 reelection loss. One day after the federal trade court issued its May decision in , U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras delivered an even broader ruling against the Trump administration in a separate case in Washington, D.C., federal court. The three-judge panel in specifically found that some of the tariffs Trump had imposed were unauthorized by IEEPA. But Contreras, in the case known as , ruled that the law itself does not allow a president to take any unilateral tariff actions. The government appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which paused a preliminary injunction that Contreras had issued. Oral arguments in the case are set for Sept. 30. Two other federal lawsuits challenging the tariffs — one from the state of California, and one filed in Montana federal court by members of the indigenous Blackfeet nation — are set for separate oral arguments on Sept. 17 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At least three more pending cases before the Court of International Trade have been stayed until a final decision is returned in according to the Congressional Research Service.
