Summarised by Centrist

The US Supreme Court has heard arguments in United States v. Skrmetti concerning Tennessee’s ban on gender-related treatments for minors. The case centres on whether such bans constitute sex discrimination.

Supporters of the law argue that states should have discretion in regulating medical treatments for children. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised eyebrows when she dismissed safety concerns, stating, “Every medical treatment has a risk—even taking aspirin.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and other conservative justices suggested a “medical carveout” from traditional anti-discrimination standards, allowing states more authority to address complex medical and social issues. 

Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice argued that questions like, “How many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits?” are best addressed by legislatures—a sentiment echoed by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who characterised the case as a “policy debate” better suited for lawmakers.

Opponents argue it disproportionately targets transgender individuals by prohibiting treatments like hormone therapy for transitioning but allowing similar treatments for non-transitioning purposes. 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concerns that creating exceptions to established precedents, such as the 1996 United States v. Virginia decision—which requires courts to carefully examine and justify laws that treat people differently based on sex—could weaken protections against discrimination for everyone, not just transgender individuals.

Tennessee’s law reflects a growing global trend. 23 US states alongside several European countries have rolled back gender treatments for minors pending further research. 

A final decision is expected in mid-2025. 

Read more over at Johnathan Turley and Vox