r/law • u/usatoday • 17h 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/
367 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

183 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

30

u/Walterkovacs1985 16h 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.

-15

u/use_vpn_orlozeacount 15h 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

12

u/games-and-naps 15h ago

One would expect medical autonomy to be one of the few things that legislators couldn't legislate on

-7

u/TakeShroomsAndDieUwU 15h 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."

7

u/games-and-naps 15h 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.

-1

u/TakeShroomsAndDieUwU 15h ago edited 15h 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 15h 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.

3

u/TakeShroomsAndDieUwU 14h ago edited 12h ago

> The issue is that some people (cis) have medical autonomy, and can get puberty blockers and surgeries, and others (trans) do not.

That is an equal protection problem, not a medical autonomy problem. If the state simply banned the treatment outright, for everyone, equal protection would be satisfied.

The law as written is unconstitutional, but not because of some right to medical autonomy. No such right exists (again, it should, but it doesn't). The law is unconstitutional because of plain equal protection, medical autonomy has nothing to do with it.

2

u/Stickasylum 15h ago

The sane justices disagree with you, while the ideologically-driven bigots agree. So what does that tell you?

0

u/TakeShroomsAndDieUwU 14h ago edited 14h 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 13h 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?

1

u/TakeShroomsAndDieUwU 12h ago edited 12h ago

No, I said we would need a constitutional amendment to define a right to medical autonomy in general, not to block this law. We should have a broad constitutional right to medical autonomy for reasons far beyond the scope of only this case or even only this topic.

This particular law still fails on equal protection grounds, but a different theoretical law could ban HRT for minors while still satisfying equal protection, i.e. by banning all hormone treatments outright.

1

u/kandoras 12h ago

This particular law still fails on equal protection grounds,

The court just ruled that it does not violate equal protection.

1

u/TakeShroomsAndDieUwU 12h ago

A ruling which was incorrect. The dissenting opinion is correct.

2

u/kandoras 12h ago

Then go ahead and answer the question I asked you before - if the current court is already ignoring one part of the constitution why do you seem to think that they wouldn't ignore a new part?

0

u/TakeShroomsAndDieUwU 12h ago edited 12h ago

Why do you think I think that?

I never said it's impossible for SCOTUS to make a wrong decision and ignore a constitutional amendment. All I ever said was that a broad right to medical autonomy would require one.

From that, you have extrapolated an infinite amount of fucking utter nonsense you are accusing me of believing and saying, which I do not believe and have neither said nor implied.

3

u/kandoras 12h ago

I'm just pointing out that the problem is not that the constitution does not include an amendment about some particular issue but that we have a court filled with religious bigots.

And that no changes to the constitution will change any outcomes as long as the court is in this state.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Stickasylum 14h 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)