The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a controversial case about whether minors can access transgender medical procedures. The case, United States v. Skrmetti, will decide the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that prohibits minors from using medications and puberty blockers to transition, even though the drugs continue to be used for other purposes.
Chief Justice John Roberts indicated the court is unlikely to set aside the law in Tennessee, saying, “The Constitution leaves that question to the people’s representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor.” But some legal experts say the law is unconstitutional and should be declared so by the court. A decision is expected by June or July.
Tennessee’s law is one of nearly two dozen similar state laws, most of them promoted by Family Policy Alliance, Focus on the Family’s public policy partner in the states. FPA also promoted legislation banning trans athletes that passed in two dozen states.
“The Constitution leaves that question to the people’s representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor.”
The case comes as:
- Battles erupt over trans rights in athletics and bathroom access
- A new Senate bill seeks to legally define male and female
- An incoming Trump administration pledges to roll back trans protections
- Public opinion shifts away from trans rights following Democrats’ losses in November elections that featured unprecedented advertising portraying liberals as out of touch on the issue
Three transgender young people, their parents and a doctor sued Tennessee, and their case has been joined by the Biden administration and is supported by the ACLU, whose attorney made history as the first openly transgender person to argue before the high court. The ACLU says state laws “have already forced thousands of families across the country to travel to maintain access to medical care or watch their child suffer without it.”
Their case, which could have major consequences in other states, has the support of mainstream medical organizations.
The court will decide whether Tennessee’s law, which claims the state has “a compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex,” promotes sex discrimination against transgender people. The justices will not review the question of whether parents’ rights were violated. (“Pro-family” groups largely support parents’ rights but they oppose such rights when parents choose to allow their children to receive gender-affirming treatments.)
More than 80 amicus briefs have been submitted in the case, with most supporting the Tennessee bill, including many from “pro-family” groups including the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, and Focus-aligned groups (Family Research Council, Alliance Defending Freedom). The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops also expressed support for Tennessee’s bill in its brief.
“This case implicates fundamental truths that Southern Baptists hold dear.”
An amicus brief from the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and the Tennessee Baptist Mission Board says: “This case implicates fundamental truths that Southern Baptists hold dear, which coincide with the legal arguments. First, that biological sex is not only immutable but also part of the goodness of God’s creation. Second, that children are a blessing from the Lord. Third, that government has a responsibility to restrain evil and promote the good of its people, including the young and vulnerable.”
A brief from Focus-aligned state organizations says the court should uphold Tennessee’s law based on “the objective givenness of human nature that has been long-recognized in our constitutional, common-law and domestic relations traditions.”
And a brief from the Ethics and Public Policy Center says: “With stunning speed, gender ideology has permeated American culture, influencing medicine, business, media, government and education. The results are far-reaching, threatening religious liberty and parental rights, stifling free speech and driving an unprecedented rise in youth ‘transgender’ identification. Demands for irreversible body modifications raise crucial questions of medical ethics, informed consent, patient safety, the appropriate regulation of health care, and taxpayer funding.
2024 bills against transgender people as documented by Trans Legislation Tracker
In Congress, House leadership responded to the election of Rep. Sarah McBride, a transgender Democrat from Delaware, by declaring its bathrooms off limits to her. And in the Senate, the “Defining Male and Female Act of 2024” seeks to legally eliminate consideration of transgender persons and rights.
McBride’s election, which makes her the highest-ranking openly transgender official in the country, inspired Nancy Mace, a GOP representative from South Carolina, to introduce a bill to ban transgender women from using facilities on federal property. Mace previously said her experience with “gay, lesbian and transgender people” led her to “strongly support LGBTQ rights and equality.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., has introduced a bill that would prohibit recognition of a person’s gender if it doesn’t align with their sex assigned at birth. In a statement, Marshall said: “As a physician who has delivered over 5,000 babies, I can confidently say that politicizing children’s gender to use them as pawns in their radical woke agenda is not only wrong, it is extremely dangerous. … I didn’t think we would need legislation to tell us that there are only two sexes: male and female, but here we are.”
In sports, San Jose State University’s women’s volleyball team has finished its season, but the arguments over trans participation in athletics rage on. The team has had a trans member for three seasons with little hubbub, but all hell broke loose after a conservative news outlet revealed her presence this spring, leading numerous teams to refuse to play or to forfeit their games.
A team member sued to have the trans player removed, but a federal judge rejected the suit. Now, the team member and an assistant coach have sued the head coach, school administrators and the Mountain Conference.
Republicans spent millions on ads that demeaned transgender people.
In November’s elections, Republicans spent millions on ads that demeaned transgender people, and some observers say these ads helped sway voters.
The incoming Trump administration is expected to strengthen restrictions on transgender military members that Trump put in place during his first term. Focus on the Family supports efforts to “medically discharge ‘trans’ soldiers,” a change that would affect 15,000 military personnel.
Focus sees “transgenderism” as evil, along with abortion, euthanasia, suicide, educational indoctrination, drug use, pornography and divorce. And Trump adviser Vivek Ramaswamy claims faith is under attack from “new secular religions: wokeism, transgenderism, climatism, Covidism.”
The Trans Legislation Tracker has dodumented the rise in anti-trans bills.
Public opinion seems to be shifting on transgender issues, according to Public Religion Research Institute. PRRI studies say that in 2017 a majority of Americans supported trans people’s rights to use bathrooms that correspond to their declared gender identity, but now, a majority oppose such bathroom access.
In 2024, 43 states introduced hundreds of bills restricting trans health care and rights, and 48 passed, according to Trans Legislation Tracker.
The Family Research Council claims “the intersection of feminism and communism contributed to the rapid spread of transgender ideology.”
“Thus, the current debate over sex-specific restrooms in the U.S. Capitol stems from feminism’s longstanding rejection of gender and family norms, filtered through a Marxist worldview of group oppression,” the evangelical group said.
Related articles:
Why being transgender is not a sin | Opinion by Mark Wingfield
The transgender obsession | Opinion by Martin Thielen
Focus on the Family affiliate is the unifying force behind campaign to restrict transgender rights