Latest news with #EqualProtectionClause
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
SCOTUS trans care ruling opens harmful loophole to take access from all trans people, says Leah Litman
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Skrmetti has already sent shockwaves across the country. For legal scholar Leah Litman, it's a ruling that crystallizes something far more dangerous than one state's policy—it confirms the Court's conservative majority is no longer operating as a neutral arbiter of law but as a willing participant in a partisan project targeting transgender people and other vulnerable groups. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. 'They don't have to try,' to seem beyond politics, Litman told The Advocate in an interview. A constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan, Litman is also a former Supreme Court clerk who cohosts Strict Scrutiny, a Crooked Media podcast that dissects the Court's decisions and culture. Her new book, Lawless, argues that the justices in the Court's conservative bloc routinely dispense with precedent and consistency in favor of 'legal-ish' reasoning that advances Republican priorities under the guise of constitutional interpretation. Related: What is U.S. v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court case that could change gender-affirming care forever? The 6–3 ruling in Skrmetti, issued last Wednesday and authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care, including hormone therapy and puberty blockers for trans minors. The court, according to the 118-page opinion, applied rational basis review, the most deferential standard, to conclude that the law doesn't violate the Equal Protection Clause. American Civil Liberties Union attorney Chase Strangio had argued that the court must apply heightened scrutiny, given the issue of sex discrimination he argued existed in the law. But Litman argued that the conservative majority's logic collapses under scrutiny: the very same treatments remain legal for cisgender minors with other conditions, such as precocious puberty, but are banned when prescribed for gender dysphoria. 'The treatments that are prohibited are inextricably bound up by and not experienced by cisgender individuals but associated with what it means to be trans,' Litman said. 'The idea that you can access hormones and puberty blockers for these other reasons, whether you're trans or cis, even that logic falls apart because some of the permitted treatments are precocious puberty.' Litman added, 'In those instances, like the cis girl [experiencing precocious puberty] can get the puberty blockers and the hormones, but the trans boy can't, and so that's obviously discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The logic just completely falls apart.' Related: 9 trans rights activists arrested in front of Supreme Court while protesting Skrmetti ruling That discrepancy, she said, renders the law discriminatory on its face. She likened the decision to the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in 303 Creative, which allowed a business to refuse service to same-sex couples. In both cases, Litman said, the Court accepted discriminatory treatment by reframing it as something else entirely, rooted not in animus but in supposedly neutral categories. 'Since I'm a good person, and my friends are good people, then we must not be discriminating,' she said, describing the majority's logic. Litman argued that the justices are drawing from a well of reactionary politics disguised as jurisprudence. In Lawless, she characterizes this shift as one driven less by consistent legal reasoning than by 'vibes'—an instinctive alignment with conservative grievance politics. In Skrmetti, she said, that alignment is clearest in the opinion's sloppiness: 'They're so locked in that they're not even engaging with counterarguments or with the factual record in any serious way.' She warned that the ruling lays the groundwork for restricting gender-affirming care beyond minors. Roberts' opinion, she noted, emphasized that the law did not discriminate based on gender identity—a rationale that could just as easily apply to bans on adult care. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's concurring opinion went even further, she said, effectively inviting states to expand restrictions. Barrett's opinion, Litman added, was 'entirely gratuitous and unnecessary.' Even if the Tennessee law did discriminate against trans people, Barrett reasoned, she would still uphold it. 'That's just inviting states to do more harm,' Litman said. Related: Justice Sonia Sotomayor slams gender-affirming care ruling as 'state-sanctioned discrimination' Barret rejected the argument that transgender people qualify as a suspect or quasi-suspect class under the Constitution in her concurring opinion. She cited a lack of 'immutable or distinguishing characteristics,' dismissed the category as too 'amorphous,' and argued that there is insufficient evidence of a history of de jure legal discrimination against transgender people to warrant heightened judicial scrutiny. Barrett warned that granting suspect class status would force courts into overseeing 'all manner of policy choices' on gender-related issues—from bathrooms and sports teams to medical protocols—intrusions she argued are best left to legislatures. Her opinion emphasized that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit laws based on transgender status as long as they are rationally related to a legitimate government interest. When asked about the justices' motivations, Litman described a combination of factors: long-standing discomfort with gender nonconformity, susceptibility to misinformation, and what she called 'patriarchal commitments' that lead to moral panic over social change. She also said it's a mistake to think new data or medical evidence would sway them. Referencing a recent Utah state-commissioned report showing gender-affirming care's efficacy, she said bluntly: 'That would not have made a lick of difference.' Republicans in the state who ordered the study chose to discard its conclusions after it failed to support the state's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The justices, she said, ignore facts when they conflict with the political outcomes they seek. 'It's frustrating because those are facts… and they should have mattered. The reality is they just don't.' Litman spoke as the Court issued another shadow docket ruling in a separate immigration case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father deported to El Salvador under President Trump's revived Alien Enemies Act policy. The justices stayed a lower court's order blocking the deportation of similarly situated asylum seekers to third countries they have no relationship to. 'It's utterly terrifying,' Litman said. She criticized the Court for repeatedly indulging Trump administration policies. She added that the Court was under no obligation to hear the government's request—and did anyway. 'The only reason why [Trump] keeps asking is because they keep saying yes.' Litman said these patterns show the Court has become an enabler of authoritarianism. Even during her time clerking for Justice Anthony Kennedy, when challenges to the Affordable Care Act were being considered, she said she felt the institution was 'on the edge of a cliff.' In that sense, she said, it has since hardened into something undeniable: the Court is now central to the 'deterioration and dismantlement of liberal constitutional democracy.' Related: In photos: U.S. v. Skrmetti protest at the Supreme Court in support of transgender youth (exclusive) She sees Skrmetti as a pivotal moment, not because it was unexpected, but because it confirms how far the majority is willing to go without being held accountable. She worries it's just the beginning. 'What am I not worried about at this point?' she said, listing likely future targets: adult gender-affirming care, bathroom and sports access for trans students, and growing carveouts for marriage equality under religious exemptions. Still, Litman doesn't believe the Court will issue a direct reversal of Obergefell anytime soon. 'But it just feels like they are not at all going to hold a line on the civil rights for the LGBTQ community at all,' she said. 'The movement has convinced a supermajority of Americans that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals get to participate in public life. And the fight for the trans community is worth fighting and can be won.' If Democrats regain power, she added, they should pass a federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and block states from undermining marriage rights. The Democratically introduced Equality Act would usher in such protections.'They should make [Republicans] vote against it,' Litman said. She added, 'Also kind of like, fuck them, you know?' This article originally appeared on Advocate: SCOTUS trans care ruling opens harmful loophole to take access from all trans people, says Leah Litman What LGBTQ+ groups are saying before Supreme Court justices hear gender-affirming care case US v Skrmetti is a public health disaster In photos: U.S. v. Skrmetti protest at the Supreme Court in support of transgender youth (exclusive) Tennessee AG: It was God's will for him to defend gender-affirming care ban at Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor slams gender-affirming care ruling as 'state-sanctioned discrimination' Supreme Court rules states can ban gender-affirming care for youth in U.S. v. Skrmetti 9 trans rights activists arrested in front of Supreme Court while protesting Skrmetti ruling What is U.S. v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court case that could change gender-affirming care forever?
The Hill
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
West Virginia asks Supreme Court to hear trans athlete case after ruling on gender-affirming care
West Virginia on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to hear a case against a state law barring transgender athletes from girls' and women's school sports teams, citing the high court's recent decision to uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors. In a statement, West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey (R) said the state is confident in the merits of its case and defense of its law, the 'Save Women's Sports Act' that former Gov. Jim Justice (R) signed in 2021. 'The law is constitutional and complies with Title IX,' McCuskey said Tuesday, referencing the federal law against sex discrimination that President Trump's administration has said prohibits transgender girls from participating on girls' school sports teams. McCuskey praised the justice's ruling in the Tennessee case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, as 'a landmark decision' but said it did little to answer the specific question West Virginia first posed to the court in 2023. 'That is why we are urging the Supreme Court, through our supplemental filing, to take our case and allow the women and girls of West Virginia to begin enjoying the protections of the Save Women's Sports Act,' he said. The Supreme Court rejected a previous request to lift a lower court order that has since 2023 prevented West Virginia from enforcing its law against a now-high school student who throws discus and shot put for her school's girls' track-and-field team. When the student, Becky Pepper Jackson, first sued the state over its restrictions on transgender athletes, she was 11 years old and in middle school. Last spring, West Virginia's former attorney general, now-Gov. Patrick Morrisey (R), asked the high court to intervene for the second time. The justices have yet to respond. West Virginia's supplemental filing argues the Supreme Court's Skrmetti ruling warrants a fresh review of the law, which it says confronts 'a serious social debate.' A previous decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the measure violates Title IX and the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. 'United States v. Skrmetti disclaims any guidance on the Title IX question presented here, and the decision's equal-protection analysis does not address critical questions unique to athletics,' the filing, submitted by McCuskey, the Alliance Defending Freedom and attorneys representing members of the West Virginia Board of Education, says. It asks that the justices take up the case rather than sending it back to the 4th Circuit for further review, citing incongruity in how federal courts have responded to challenges of similar laws in over half the country. 'A remand will not resolve these circuit conflicts,' the filing argues. 'Assume the unlikely scenario where the Fourth Circuit changes course on remand and holds that a law assigning athletic teams by sex does not differentiate based on transgender status or, alternatively, holds that transgender status does not constitute a suspect class. Both circuit splits would remain: the first would move from 2–3 to 1–4, and the second from 4–2 to 3–3. The Court should thus review now.' The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Jackson, did not immediately return a request for comment on the filing. In its ruling last week, the Supreme Court declined address whether transgender status is a 'quasi-suspect class' under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In a concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that transgender people are neither a 'suspect' nor 'quasi-suspect' class, classifications that would trigger heightened scrutiny when laws discriminate against them. 'Beyond the treatment of gender dysphoria, transgender status implicates several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy — ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams,' she wrote. 'If laws that classify based on transgender status necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, then the courts will inevitably be in the business of 'closely scrutiniz[ing] legislative choices' in all these domains.' West Virginia's filing on Tuesday says the Supreme Court should grant its petition and explain that laws restricting trans athletes' participation in girls' sports do not classify based on transgender status 'or hold that transgender-based classifications do not affect a suspect class.' The filing also argues that the high court must decide whether its reasoning in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from discrimination based on their sex or gender identity, can be applied to other statutes, including Title IX. The Supreme Court declined to answer that question in its Skrmetti decision. 'Girls deserve a safe, fair playing field today — not years from now — and the ruling's present harm to women and girls is stark,' the filing says, referring to the 4th Circuit ruling that is blocking the law. The Supreme Court must act to resolve a question 'of national importance,' the filing argues, referencing an executive order signed by Trump in February that threatens to revoke federal funding from states and schools that continue allowing trans athletes to participate in girls' and women's sports. 'Should they follow an executive order that threatens all their funding—even funding unrelated to athletics? Or should they follow a court order that has not yet been applied to them?' the filing states. 'The years of delay that would follow were the Court to grant, vacate, and remand here would not help, especially when Skrmetti did not purport to address the legal questions that drive this case.' 'The Court should take up this petition,' the filing adds, 'and resolve this 'important issue' once and for all.'
Yahoo
21-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
"In sadness, I dissent": Sotomayor blasts conservative justices for upholding trans health care ban
The Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors on Wednesday. The 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti lets stand a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The law would still allow puberty blockers and other hormone care for cisgender minors, meaning someone assigned female at birth couldn't receive a prescription for testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could. The three families and doctor who challenged the Tennessee law said that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating based on sex. Tennessee argued that the law is based on age and medical purpose, not sex. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts left the issue to the states: 'We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' The decision sets a precedent for the 25 states that have bans on pediatric gender-affirming care. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent,' Sotomayor wrote. Tennessee argued that the ban protects children from 'experimental' medical treatment, despite major U.S. medical and mental health organizations supporting gender-affirming care, saying it's backed by science and even medically necessary care that improves transgender youth's health and well-being.'Gender-affirming care is medically necessary for treating gender dysphoria and is backed by decades of peer-reviewed research, clinical experience, and scientific consensus,' Dr. Susan J. Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in a statement. Tyler Hack, founder of the Christopher Street Project, said: 'There aren't words strong enough to describe how shameful, cruel, and morally corrupt this ruling is. Access to gender-affirming care is life-or-death.' 'The Supreme Court should know: this domino effect of suffering and more suffering is on their hands,' Hack said. The Trump administration is also eliminating the option for LGBTQ+ individuals who call the 988 Suicide Hotline to press 3 and connect with someone who specializes in LGBTQ+ mental health. Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr, the first transgender legislator elected in her state, addressed the ruling and 988 changes on Bluesky: 'These bastards want us all dead.'
The Hill
21-06-2025
- Health
- The Hill
Supreme Court ruling scrambles battle for transgender care
The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a substantial blow to transgender-rights advocates in upholding a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of transgender health in the U.S. but whose impact won't be felt right away. 'The immediate outcome is that it doesn't change anything,' said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Institute for Health Research and Policy at Whitman-Walker, a Washington-based nonprofit. 'It doesn't affect the availability or legality of care in states that do not have bans, and it simply says that states that have decided to ban this care can do so if they survive other challenges.' Twenty-seven Republican-led states since 2021 have adopted laws that ban transition-related care, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and rare surgeries for minors. Laws passed in Arizona and New Hampshire — the first Northeastern state to have restricted gender dysphoria treatments for youth — only prohibit minors from accessing surgeries, a provision that was not at issue before the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld a lower court ruling that found Tennessee's restrictions do not violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The state's law, which allows cisgender children and teens to access medications that it bans for trans minors, makes distinctions based on age and diagnosis, the courts ruled, rather than sex and transgender status. Three Tennessee families, a doctor and the Biden administration, along with attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal, argued the measure amounts to illegal sex discrimination, warranting heightened review. 'Having concluded it does not,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority on Wednesday, 'we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' At least 10 legal challenges to state laws prohibiting health professionals from administering gender-affirming care to minors argue the restrictions discriminate based on sex in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday could potentially weaken, in some cases, that line of attack, but it is not the only approach opponents of the laws have pursued. More than a dozen other lawsuits, including ones arguing equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, claim bans on transition-related health care for minors violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, federal disability law or provisions of a state's constitution. In May, a federal judge struck Montana's ban on gender-affirming care for youth on grounds it violated privacy, equal protection and free speech rights guaranteed by its constitution. 'This ruling allows challenges to other state bans to continue,' said Baker, of Whitman-Walker, 'and they will.' Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of Lambda Legal's constitutional law practice, told reporters on a Zoom call following Wednesday's ruling that the civil rights organization and others challenging state bans on gender-affirming care have other options at their disposal. 'The Supreme Court did not endorse the entirety of the lower court's ruling; it did not mandate or even greenlight other bans on gender-affirming medical care, even for young people, or other forms of discrimination,' she said. 'It really is about how it viewed Tennessee's in this specific way, and left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on health care and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people, including other equal protection arguments about transgender status discrimination, about the animus-based targeting of trans people.' Loewy added that the court's ruling also left the door open to arguments based on state and federal sex discrimination statutes and parental rights, which the justices did not address Wednesday. Nearly all of the cases brought against youth gender-affirming care bans argue those laws infringe on the rights of parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. 'As a parent, I know my child better than any government official ever will,' Samantha Williams, the mother of L.W., a transgender teenager who was at the center of the case before the Supreme Court, wrote in a New York Times op-ed after Wednesday's ruling. The Supreme Court's determination that Tennessee's law does not discriminate based on sex also raises questions about how opponents of transition-related health care for minors will use the ruling to inform their own legal strategies. In Arkansas, the ACLU successfully argued in 2023 that the first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming care for minors violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as well as its Due Process Clause and the First Amendment's protections of free speech. 'We'll have to see, but it's possible that that ban could stand because the court made that decision on equal protection, as well as on other grounds,' said Lindsey Dawson, director for LGBTQ health policy at KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization. 'This is likely to be an area that's going to face continued litigation and is not settled at this point in time.' In a statement Wednesday, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) said he is 'preparing an official notification' for an appeals court detailing the implications of Wednesday's Supreme Court decision on the state's ban, which the Legislature passed — and former Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson initially vetoed — in 2021. 'Because our law is similar to Tennessee's law, today's decision has positive implications for our case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,' he said. Montana and Arkansas are the only states whose bans on gender-affirming care for youth remain blocked by court orders, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit group that tracks LGBTQ laws. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday also declined, as some court watchers had anticipated, to apply the reasoning of its earlier decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from discrimination based on their sex or gender identity. Some lawsuits challenging state bans on care for minors have said the ruling should apply to contexts other than workplace discrimination. Former President Biden's administration similarly sought to use the court's reasoning in Bostock to back new nondiscrimination policies protecting transgender people in health care and sports, arguments largely rejected by conservative political leaders and courts. 'We still don't have a sole understanding of where Bostock might apply outside of Title VII, and it's going to be something that's important to watch,' Dawson said. 'It's certainly something that the Bostock court warned us about,' she said. 'In that decision, the court said, this court is making its ruling and it's quite narrow, but it's going to be for future courts to decide how this applies outside of Title VII. That remains a question mark.'
Yahoo
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court's Dobbs bombshell helped pave the way for this week's blow to trans rights
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming for minors. The 6-3 ruling is a major blow to transgender rights, including in the dozens of states with similar bans already enacted. To a striking degree, the majority's analysis— and the opinions of several concurring justices — relied on cases that restricted another right: the right to choose abortion. This week's holding shows how the fallout from the end of Roe v. Wade extends far beyond abortion. The case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, began in 2023 when three transgender teenagers, their parents and a Memphis physician argued that Tennessee's law constituted unconstitutional sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Biden administration eventually joined the suit and, in June 2023, the district court blocked the law from going into effect. Later that year, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The plaintiffs relied on a 2020 case called Bostock v. Clayton County, a 6-3 ruling which held that sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963 also encompassed sexual orientation and gender identity. In the majority opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court reasoned that there was no way for an employer to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity without accounting for a worker's sex too. In other words, gender identity discrimination always involved sex discrimination. The plaintiffs in Skrmetti argued that the same logic applied to their case. To rebut this, Tennessee pointed to Dobbs. In undoing a right to choose abortion, the Supreme Court rejected the determinations in Roe that the right to choose abortion was (as the Roe majority wrote) 'founded in the 14th Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action.' But the court also rejected the idea that abortion bans were fueled by sex discrimination, and thus violated the same amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. That latter finding figures prominently in Skrmetti. There were a variety of ways of arguing that abortion bans discriminate on the basis of sex: for example, pointing to the bans' frequent invocations of stereotypes and generalizations about motherhood. But in Dobbs, the court concluded that the discrimination argument was 'squarely foreclosed by our precedents' — in particular, the rarely cited, often-pilloried 1974 ruling Geduldig v. Aiello that ruled that discriminating on the basis of pregnancy didn't count as sex discrimination. States could regulate a 'medical procedure that only one sex can undergo,' the Dobbs majority concluded, unless there was evidence that the legislation was mere pretext for discriminatory animus. In ruling that Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care didn't involve sex discrimination either, the majority opinion didn't mention Dobbs directly (though concurring opinions by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito did). Nevertheless, the reasoning of Dobbs ran throughout the majority opinion as well. Even if transgender individuals were the only ones to seek out treatment for gender dysphoria, the court suggested, that didn't matter. 'A State does not trigger heightened constitutional scrutiny by regulating a medical procedure that only one sex can undergo,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, citing Geduldig but using the language from the Dobbs ruling. In addition to Dobbs, the majority also relied on a 2007 case called Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The federal statute prohibited a specific procedure, dilation and extraction, that the plaintiffs argued would be safer for some women (because it involved fewer passes with a sharp instrument). The high court upheld the law, however, because there was enough scientific uncertainty about the benefits of the procedure. That uncertainty, of course, was no accident: anti-abortion groups had not just fielded their own experts, but launched new organizations to establish that the procedure was unnecessary. In upholding bans on gender-affirming care, the Supreme Court in Skrmetti cited Gonzales v. Carhart to justify giving lawmakers 'wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty.' It's true that gender-affirming care is a rapidly developing area of study. But the court used that fact to give state legislatures a free pass. Tennessee's law is hardly nuanced: Violators can face penalties of $25,000 per treatment. Other states' bans include prison sentences of five or even 10 years. None of that sounds like lawmakers carefully weighing incoming evidence about a specific treatment. But the court could fall back on its abortion cases to let legislators do whatever they want. The message sent in the Skrmetti ruling reaches further than just the issue at hand, and not just because much of the majority's logic would shield bans on gender-affirming care for adults too. If legislators can convince the justices that they are regulating based on a medical procedure or medical condition, the court may simply wave away any concern about sex discrimination. This offers conservative lawmakers and activists a roadmap for circumventing protections against sex discrimination in other contexts. The Southern Baptist Convention recently endorsed overturning Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision recognizing same-sex couples' right to marry, which relies partly on the Equal Protection Clause. The conservative Christian legal movement despises Bostock. And the Dobbs and Geduldig rulings prove that the meaning of sex discrimination has already narrowed for women. The more these cases can be framed on turning on biological difference, the more likely the court will sign off on discriminatory laws. The court's ruling in Skrmetti shows how much the undoing of abortion rights will reverberate beyond Dobbs, changing how the Supreme Court understands sex discrimination and transforming what equality under the law means. This article was originally published on
