BREAKING: Supreme Court upholds Tennessee’s ban on child sex changes

"Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review," the ruling stated.

The court noted that Tennessee’s SB1 includes two classifications, one based on age and another based on medical use. "The plaintiffs argue that SB1 warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications. But neither of the above classifications turns on sex. Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor’s sex."

The ruling later added, "The application of SB1, moreover, does not turn on sex. The law does not prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing those same treatments for minors of the opposite sex."

"Finally, the Court rejects the plaintiffs’ argument that, by design, SB1 enforces a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex. To start, any allegations of sex stereotyping are misplaced. True, a law that classifies on the basis of sex may fail heightened scrutiny if the classifications rest on impermissible stereotypes. But where a law’s classifications are neither covertly nor overtly based on sex, the law does not trigger heightened review unless it was motivated by an invidious discriminatory purpose. No such argument has been raised here. And regardless, the statutory findings on which SB1 is premised do not themselves evince sex-based stereotyping."

The court also found that the law does not classify on the basis of transgender status, and the court declined to "address whether Bostock’s reasoning reaches beyond the Title VII context."

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s opinion, "This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not “to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic” of the law before us, Beach Communications, 508 U. S., at 313, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process."

He later added in regards to the Bostock ruling that the plaintiffs urged the court to consider, "We have not yet considered whether Bostock’s reasoning reaches beyond the Title VII context, and we need not do so here."

Tennessee State Rep Jason Zachary wrote, "well done AG Tennessee and team! Thankful that our legislation protecting children from gender mutilation surgery/puberty and hormone blockers went all the way to SCOTUS. This issue is now settled. There will be no gender transition surgeries on minors in TN."

Matt Walsh wrote, "Three years ago, we launched our investigation into Vanderbilt’s child mutilation practices. We rallied in the state capital. Our lawmakers responded with a law banning child mutilation in the state. Today the Supreme Court upheld our law, which means child mutilation can be banned anywhere and everywhere in the country. And should be. This is a truly historic victory and I’m grateful to be a part of it, along with so many others who have fought relentlessly for years."

Alliance Defending Freedom wrote, "The ruling will help protect 26 similar state laws and return common sense to America’s medical system."

ADF CEO and President Kristen Waggoner said, "No one has the right to harm a child. The Biden administration and ACLU asked the court to create a ‘constitutional right’ to give children harmful, experimental drugs and surgeries that turn them into patients for life. This would have forced states to base their laws on ideology, not evidence—to the immense harm of countless children. The court’s rejection of that request is a monumental victory for children, science, and common sense. States are free to protect children from the greatest medical scandal in generations—and that’s exactly what states like Tennessee have done."

This is a breaking story. Please refresh the page for updates.

SCOTUS Skrmetti by Hannah Nightingale on Scribd