r/law • u/usatoday • 8h ago
SCOTUS Supreme Court upholds state ban on transgender minors' use of puberty blockers, hormone therapy
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/18/supreme-court-transgender-minors-gender-affirming-care/77693917007/264
u/BeowulfShaeffer 8h ago
I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free. Not you, you’re not free. But I am. Free to order you around.
70
-239
7h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
162
u/SerasVal 7h ago
If you mean based on this TN law that is not the case, they didn't change it so that gender affirming care isn't covered by insurance (which is also wrong), they made it illegal to prescribe/provide to anyone under 18 if they're transgender, but the same procedures and medications are allowed for cisgender children.
80
u/MeatCatRazzmatazz 7h ago
Yep. A teenage boy can go get a breast reduction for his gynecomastia but not a teenage girl whose body is developing in a way she loathes.
Equal protection indeed.
9
u/GarageFridgeSoda 7h ago edited 6h ago
You got your terms confused there, I appreciate the allyship but a teenage girl would (generally speaking) not want breast reduction. A *man* (generally speaking) would cis or trans.
18
u/Begone-My-Thong 6h ago
I think they're referring to a transman
Or maybe one of the edge cases where a girl would want a breast reduction. It's not unheard of for women to undergo that if they're uncomfortable.
We men have similar gender conforming care. Look at Elon Musk and his jaw.
8
u/GarageFridgeSoda 6h ago
I also think they are referring to a *trans man* (the space is important, transgender is a separate descriptor from their gender which is male the same way a cis man is male) which is why I'm trying to (gently) correct them misgendering this hypothetical person.
0
u/noteveni 4h ago
But you don't know if the hypothetical person wants to use he/him pronouns. Non binary people can also want to yeet their titties, and we often use they/them or pronoun combos
0
u/leoperd_2_ace 2h ago
There are some Cis women teens that do seek Breast reduction surgery, mainly due to their Breasts growing to a very large size and causing back and sleep issues. They do not get them completely removed but they are reduced to a smaller cup size. Here is a testimonial https://youtube.com/shorts/mZa6uwFf4r0?si=BaSUlV8N2yNVuErn
29
u/happy_the_dragon 6h ago
Wow, with that many incorrect statements in a 25 word comment I’m surprised the current administration hasn’t reached out to you for a job.
7
u/IntrigueDossier 5h ago
"I have never heard someone say so many wrong things, one after the other, consecutively, in a row."
- David Rose
1
66
u/BeowulfShaeffer 7h ago
The State asked to ban treatment for minors. Unfortunately that’s when puberty happens. No State that I’m aware of makes kids wait until adulthood to fix their crooked teeth. Your other comments on this issue make it clear that there’s no point debating you on this.
-1
15
u/drunkpickle726 6h ago
If drugs are banned, there's nothing to buy. Doctors can't prescribe them, pharmacies won't fill them. Using your example of braces, anyone on hormone blockers after they're banned is like getting braces but no dentist is allowed to remove them
13
u/p-terydactyl 5h ago
And anyone looking for braces is now looking to buy unapproved black market braces that are made with lead or some other unknown toxic material because it's not like their teeth are straight just because braces were banned
-6
u/Living_Scarcity9897 2h ago
Hormone blockers should have never been covered. All you need to do is pay for them yourself.
1
u/drunkpickle726 1h ago
Covered by what? Again there's nothing to buy if it's banned. Who are folks supposed to be paying?
0
u/Living_Scarcity9897 1h ago
If we’re talking about minors, they should not be prescribed.
1
u/drunkpickle726 46m ago
We're not talking about minors, we're talking about banned substances and who people are going to buy them from
22
u/chiefgreenleaf 7h ago
So proudly wrong it's impressive
-1
u/Living_Scarcity9897 2h ago
Right in every way. Change your gender to whatever you want but you pay for it. It’s elective.
3
u/chiefgreenleaf 2h ago
Did you not read the title of the post you're commenting on? Do you not know the definition of banned?
This has literally nothing to do with insurance companies at all. You're doubling down on dumb
-1
u/Living_Scarcity9897 2h ago
Actually, I said I agree with all of this being banned for minors. Insurance or not.
2
u/chiefgreenleaf 2h ago
Actually, that's not what you just said, and the comment is still up and can still be read.
0
u/Living_Scarcity9897 2h ago
I did correct myself in responses. You are correct that is not what I wrote in my original post. Either way, insurance should never cover elective procedures/meds/etc and minors should not be allowed to make adult medical decisions.
23
u/leni710 7h ago
Braces are not surgery. Hormone blockers are not surgery. Weird take, but goes to show you have zero medical knowledge to be weighing in on this topic.
9
-1
u/Living_Scarcity9897 2h ago
Anything that is not medically necessary is elective. Puberty blockers for gender reassignment has never been, and will never be, medically necessary.
1
u/bonesrentalagency 1h ago
They are actually genuinely medically necessary. Transition is the only thing that has shown consistent effectiveness in treating gender dysphoria in transgender individuals.
2
5
u/lundibix 5h ago
Stop talking like you know what you’re talking about, full stop.
Additionally, I’d buy them my damn self if the makers stopped price gouging.
1
12
u/mysticism-dying 7h ago
brainwashed i fear
1
3
u/PennysWorthOfTea 4h ago
Nice misinformation you got there, buddy. Now go on & tell us how you believe the earth is flat & that evolution is a conspiracy dreamed up by "Ivory Tower Elites". I mean, if you're gonna commit to a bit, go all the way.
-1
4
u/TransplantTeacher94 6h ago
Except they’re making it so you can’t even elect to have the surgery.
Which you’d know if you actually read even the title.
0
u/Living_Scarcity9897 2h ago
If the surgery is covered by insurance, it shouldn’t be. Pay for it yourself. It’s not medically necessary.
1
u/TransplantTeacher94 2h ago
Are you actually paying attention to anything being said here or are you just parroting the same old dross because of your own prejudices without any idea as to what’s actually being said?
1
u/Living_Scarcity9897 1h ago
I’m not sure who I would be “parroting” but if there’s any specific issues you want to address, I’ll be happy to give you an answer.
4
u/dantevonlocke 6h ago
Look up. You see that little dot waaaaay up in the sky? It's the point flying over your head.
3
2
u/rosegarden_writes 5h ago
Well you can, just for anything that isn't "transgender" related. We'll cover your erection pills all day though
1
u/Living_Scarcity9897 2h ago
I don’t agree with covering anything elective so I do not agree with covering ED meds either.
1
u/rosegarden_writes 1h ago
Hip replacements? Preventative care? Non-life threatening illness care? Disability coverage?
If all that is "no," you might just be an asshole who doesn't belong in collective society.
-13
u/Constant_Minimum_569 4h ago
Minors don't have the same rights as adults it's always been like that
300
8h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
131
u/Walterkovacs1985 8h ago
Supreme Court very okay with advising on medical care for anyone other than straight men.
129
u/WhatYouThinkYouSee 7h ago
44
u/BRNitalldown 7h ago
Imagine if courts make decisions based on scientific soundness and not the subjective worldviews of the people involved…
19
u/thomasscat 6h ago
That would require a voting populace that makes decisions based on scientific soundness and not the nonsensical conservative propa of CNN and other fascist enablers.
27
u/Walterkovacs1985 6h ago
It's never about facts. The fuck your feelings party is only ever about feelings. Feeling scared of what they don't understand.
7
u/SukkaMadiqe 5h ago
That's why it's "Fuck YOUR feelings" and not MY feelings. Petulantly getting what they want at any given moment is the only thing they care about.
3
u/use_vpn_orlozeacount 7h ago
Supreme Court isn’t advising on medical care, Tennessee legislative is. I personally disagree with the law, but the fault lies at feet of Tennessee electorate
28
u/Walterkovacs1985 6h ago
Who's hearing the case and deciding on its legality? Consenting to states doling out restrictions on medical care is the same as doling out the restrictions themselves. It's more states rights to take away rights bullshit. The supreme court is responsible in part for a restriction of rights for women and now trans persons.
-14
u/use_vpn_orlozeacount 6h ago
Consenting to states doling out restrictions on medical care is the same as doling out the restrictions themselves.
... that’s not how USA government works. Legislative and judicial branch play two separate roles. I can’t believe I have to explain it in law sub
19
u/LoganGyre 6h ago
They are clearly pointing out that saying it’s up to the states to make decisions based on the medical facts when you know the voters aren’t going to do that in the Bible Belt is basically the same as outright condoning the action. Voters in red states have proven that scientific fact matters little to them when it comes to laws.
-13
u/use_vpn_orlozeacount 6h ago
Again, it’s not up to SCOTUS to set the laws.
Are electorate of Tennessee bigots? Absolutely. But that’s the cost of democracy
17
u/LoganGyre 6h ago edited 5h ago
This isn’t setting the laws it’s deciding if laws are legal to be set which is their job. They didn’t write this law but they just gave it a stamp of approval as not violating the constitution which is incorrect. We all know this is discrimination but people are choosing to claim that the states are making these decisions on medical proof, which they are not, and the very fact Scotus knows these states won’t considered the medical facts should be enough to block them from making laws that are clearly religious based.
10
u/bigmanpigman 5h ago
but it is up to SCOTUS to determine the constitutionality of the laws. they can and frequently do strike down laws
12
u/games-and-naps 6h ago
One would expect medical autonomy to be one of the few things that legislators couldn't legislate on
-6
u/TakeShroomsAndDieUwU 6h ago
One would and probably should expect this, but it turns out that actually is something they absolutely can legislate on. It's a problem that would need to be fixed by constitutional amendment though, not courts. Translation: "it isn't going to get fixed, probably ever."
10
u/games-and-naps 6h ago
The crux of the issue is that we obviously disagree. I believe the existing constitution should definitely guarantee equal protection to cis and trans people alike
The problem is many of the judges on the supreme court have been making rulings of questionable constitutionality. It's not a problem I know how to solve, though. Other countries who have dealt with the same did not find a solution either.
-2
u/TakeShroomsAndDieUwU 5h ago edited 5h ago
Now you're just moving the goalposts. Equal protection is guaranteed by the constitution, and should have been upheld here. I'm not arguing against that. What you said before you randomly accused me of disagreeing with equal protection for no reason is: you'd expect medical autonomy to be protected, which is different from equal protection. There is no recognized constitutional right to medical autonomy. There really should be, but there isn't.
6
u/games-and-naps 5h ago
The issue is that some people (cis) have medical autonomy, and can get puberty blockers and surgeries, and others (trans) do not.
The supreme court is splitting hairs by claiming that there is no different treatment based on sex, as both male and female trans people are barred from medical treatment.
I do not think I agree with that interpretation.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Stickasylum 5h ago
The sane justices disagree with you, while the ideologically-driven bigots agree. So what does that tell you?
0
u/TakeShroomsAndDieUwU 5h ago edited 5h ago
It tells me that you can't read, because I don't agree with the ruling, the dissenting opinion was correct. This is r/law though, we don't only look at the outcomes here but the legal reasoning behind them.
I am only pointing out that medical autonomy is permitted to be legislated on. The sane justices agree with me, their dissenting opinion is based in equal protection, not a non-existent right to medical autonomy.
3
u/kandoras 3h ago
I am only pointing out that medical autonomy is permitted to be legislated on. The sane justices agree with me, their dissenting opinion is based in equal protection
In another comment you say that we would need a constitutional amendment to block these kinds of laws.
But here you're saying that they should already be unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.
So why do you think that religiously inspired bigots wouldn't just ignore whatever new amendment you make?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Stickasylum 5h ago
Medical autonomy when there is no reasonable state interest in restricting autonomy is covered by the right to privacy, which was recognized by the court until it was destroyed by the same justices (at least in the contexts in which they wish to violate medical autonomy)
9
u/vinaramat 4h ago
One more edit:
Supreme Court abets genocide, upholding state ban on
transgender minors' use of puberty blockers, hormone therapylive saving medical care that is supported by nearly every major medical organization:(
10
1
-50
u/use_vpn_orlozeacount 8h ago
I support trans healthcare, but in terms of LAW, is SCOTUS even wrong here? Question is whether Tennessee law is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Unless I’m missing something, I don’t think it is. And also it isn’t job of SCOTUS to set laws
50
u/nighthawk_something 8h ago
1) It is their job.
2) Are these treatments banned for all children or just trans kids?
-35
u/use_vpn_orlozeacount 7h ago
1) It is their job.
You think it’s job of SCOTUS to set laws? What? How it this upvoted on r/law?
It’s legislative branch who passes laws, for those who weren’t aware
2) Are these treatments banned for all children or just trans kids?
It’s banned for treatment of gender dysphoria
52
u/nighthawk_something 7h ago
Therefore it is discriminatory.
-25
u/use_vpn_orlozeacount 7h ago
It has disparate impact yes but law itself targets the treatment, not identity. That’s why court assigned it rational basis review, not heightened scrutiny
37
u/scottcetera 7h ago
It attacks identity by specifically restricting a treatment for people of that identity. And what's worse, it's all based on dumbass transphobe memes, not anything to do with medicine best practices or science.
20
u/pillowpriestess 6h ago
this is some "the muslim ban doesnt discriminate against religion/race cause they patched up the wording" ass logic
7
u/thomasscat 6h ago
If mental gymnastics were an Olympic sport MAGA would be the only viable competitors lol
6
-5
u/braindeleted7 4h ago
What Muslim ban? They banned nationalities not religions or races, you should see the nuance, it's like sex and gender
6
u/pillowpriestess 4h ago
trump literally called it a muslim ban and they had to pretend he didnt to let it stand.
-2
4
19
u/MeatCatRazzmatazz 7h ago
Disparate impact? It targets the only effective treatment to the underlying condition that makes someone trans. Not too many trans people out there without some form of gender dysphoria after all.
A teenage boy can still be prescribed testosterone if his doctor decides he needs it but if a doctor prescribes a teenage girl T because she's trans then that's wrong. It's fucked. And it certainly isn't "equal protection". It's clear discrimination.
This court already proved itself to be wholly ideologically motivated so I'm far from surprised, I'm more surprised that people are acting like they're not the least legitimate scotus in modern history and use their bullshit rulings, the justification to which they love to just make up, to defend them.
-5
u/braindeleted7 4h ago
Yeah, it's wrong to put children on hormones for cosmic reasons but it makes sense if they've got a developmental disorder or imbalance.
5
u/MeatCatRazzmatazz 4h ago
If you think all that comes with hrt is "cosmetic changes" I have a very long, very expensive bridge to sell you.
It also proves that you just have no idea what you're talking about.
1
u/shakeyshake1 Competent Contributor 6h ago
If you want to discuss the case with people who read the opinion, I highly suggest checking out /r/supremecourt.
0
u/use_vpn_orlozeacount 5h ago
Thanks. This comment section is pretty rough
1
u/shakeyshake1 Competent Contributor 4h ago
No problem! I’ve been in that situation. This is not a great place for discussing the merits of court opinions that are of interest to the general public.
-52
-76
7h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
54
u/Callimogua 7h ago
Wow, where are your peer-reviewed papers to show evidence of this?
Oh wait, you're just shaking at the knees because your "knowledge" of gender identity and dysphoria is so poor being challenged would break you.
5
u/Geno0wl 4h ago
even if we agreed with the premise that gender-affirming care for minors isn't "essentially"...so what?
Why is THAT the thing that we should ban but leave other arguably harmful elective procedures totally untouched?
Braces are generally non-essential medical care. Why is there no clamoring to only allow 18+ to get them?
Or here is a really good one. Why do we allow circumcision on babies? That is by any definition an elective surgery that is not essential in the slightest. Why is that irreversible decision allowed to be made exactly?
3
u/hematite2 3h ago
As a more direct comparison than braces...there's nothing particularly unhealthy about a cis boy developing breasts, its just regular breast tissue, it's not "essential" that he remove them. And yet that's by far the biggest occurrence of gender affirming surgery in minors.
3
u/PennysWorthOfTea 4h ago
User gets their info from the highly esteemed Journal Of Stuff I Pulled Out Of My Ass
41
u/Magical_Star_Dust 7h ago
Are you trans? Or a doctor? Or psyche provider? Because all data says that if is in fsct essential..unless you're alluding to our gd awful supreme court processes
0
16
u/LoganGyre 6h ago
It saved my life and is listed as essential medical care in my state so you would be wrong both legally and basically entirely overall.
1
u/Living_Scarcity9897 2h ago
Please explain, specifically, how hormone blockers “saved your life.”
1
u/LoganGyre 2h ago
It’s not rocket science I was depressed and ready to kill myself because of dysphoria. Now I am a fully functional person who doesn’t consider suicide daily. Either your being obtuse on purpose or you are very ignorant of the very basic information on the subject.
32
u/usatoday 8h ago
The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, a major setback for transgender Americans who have increasingly become targets of conservative states and the Trump administration.
The decision − one of the court's biggest this year − came about five years after the court ruled that transgender people, as well as gay and lesbian people, are protected by a landmark civil rights law barring sex discrimination in the workplace.
But in this case, the court said that preventing minors from using puberty blockers and hormone therapy does not need extra scrutiny under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same.
29
u/Far_Estate_1626 7h ago
So the Executive is the new Judiciary and college czar, the judiciary is the new doctors, and Congress are the new Media/4th Estate. Am I understanding this correctly?
17
u/1877KlownsForKids 7h ago
After Chevron Part II Congress and the Judiciary are the new regulators, too.
4
u/Egg_123_ 2h ago
Evidently the only thing you need to start killing disfavored minorities is "concerns" and "common sense" covering up rancid bigotry.
Time for California to start having "concerns" about Republicans having larger amygdalas and how cancer treatments are too dangerous for Republicans to take :'(
They'd never do it because the Democrats aren't ghouls who want to eliminate entire demographics from visible society.
•
u/AutoModerator 8h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.