SCOTUS Update: Reinforcing Medical Consciousness: U.S. v. Skrmetti
The Supreme Court protected the welfare of children by allowing states to limit their access to gender affirming care.
By Roan Fair
EiC’s Note: This is the second article in our new SCOTUS Update miniseries where Roan Fair aims to unpack some of the important decisions from the Supreme Court’s 24-25 term. In this article, he tackles a case seeking to restrict minors’ access to gender affirming treatment.
Background
The case of U.S. v. Skrmetti challenged a Tennessee law which sought to restrict minors’ access to gender affirming medical care regardless of parental consent. This banned the distribution of medications commonly know as puberty blockers to minors seeking to alter their body. Tennessee SB 1 was passed in March 2023 with the goal of:
“prohibit[ing] a healthcare provider from performing on a minor or administering to a minor a medical procedure if the performance or administration of the procedure is for the purpose of enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.”
Similar laws were passed in 21 states by the summer of 2023, when the law was first challenged in the District Court. The U.S. Justice Department later joined the challenge to the restrictive laws under the Biden administration. (READ MORE: The Constitution: A Partisan Document?)
Discrimination Claims
The challenge to SB 1 heavily relied on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as regards to gender. In oral arguments, the petitioners of the complaint argued that SB1 blatantly discriminated on the basis of sex in its determination of who may receive medical treatment. The argument held that discrimination occurred by banning biological males from receiving specific gender affirming treatments while allowing females to receive those same treatments. In essence, males may receive testosterone, but females may not; likewise, females may receive estrogen while males cannot.
The petitioners further argued that laws attempting to regulate on the basis of sex must pass the Court’s highest level of scrutiny. This “heightened scrutiny” would require extremely specific wording and application of legislation which SB1 lacked in its broad approach to protect minors.
SCOTUS Upholds Limitations
The Court largely avoided the question of defining gender by focusing on the heightened scrutiny challenge. In the 6-3 majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts rejected the Fourteenth Amendment challenge. Roberts held that SB1 does not require heightened scrutiny because it does not discriminate based on race or gender, which the Fourteenth Amendment expressly prohibits. Instead, SB 1 limits access based on age and intended medical use.
The Court upheld SB 1 and determined that laws limiting minors’ access to specific medical treatment must only pass a rational basis test. This only requires state to provide a reasonable argument for its restrictions.
National Reactions
Champions of trans-rights saw the ruling as detrimental to the health and safety of the trans population. The ACLU describes the decision as “create[ing] a class of people who politicians believe deserve healthcare, and a class of people who do not.” This sentiment was echoed by numerous voices on the left claiming this case was a major setback for transgender policies.
Currently there are 27 states which have passed legislation similar to Tennessee’s SB 1. The growing limitations on transgender medical treatments has been received by conservatives as a major win for families and another step toward the protection of minors. This victory was compounded with the win Paxton v Free Speech Coalition gave families by limiting access to pornography and demonstrates the Supreme Court’s newfound commitment to the protection of minors. (READ MORE: SCOTUS UPDATE: The Supreme Court Protected Families in Paxton v. Free Speech Coalition)
About the Author
Roan Fair is a History and Political Science double major at Grove City College. On campus, he is the Senior Articles Editor for the Grove City College Journal of Law and Public Policy. He also serves as a student executive for the BEST Robotics Competition, a high school program hosted by the college and is the Vice President for the college’s Federalist Society chapter.
Roan serves as a TA for Dr. Verbois in the political science department. His interests include early American history, political theory, and the legal field. Finally, after graduation, Roan plans on attending law school and pursuing a career in private practice.
READ MORE BY ROAN FAIR: SCOTUS UPDATE: The Supreme Court Protected Families in Paxton v. Free Speech Coalition
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed are those of the writer alone and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Grove City College, the Institute for Faith and Freedom, or their affiliates.
Cover Image: Photo by Elvert Barnes, Wikimedia Commons (License) (Cropped)