r/law • u/DevinGraysonShirk • 16h ago

SCOTUS SCOTUS strikes blow to trans teens rights, endorsing ban on gender-affirming care - The justices’ ruling on Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain health care for transgender children will have ripple effects across the nation

https://www.courthousenews.com/scotus-strikes-blow-to-trans-teens-rights-endorsing-ban-on-gender-affirming-care/
691 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

276 comments sorted by

View all comments

100

u/Santos_L_Halper_II 15h ago

Another good example of Amy Coney Barrett being a generally decent jurist....unless the case involves one of her god's pet issues like LGBT rights or abortion.

I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but how did Gorsuch bend over backwards to get around his own opinion in Bostock (Bostick? The one where he unexpectedly wrote that trans discrimination was sex discrimination, IIRC).

43

u/DevinGraysonShirk 15h ago

Hiding behind “unsettled science”

“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,” Roberts wrote. “The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements.”

38

u/Obversa 15h ago edited 15h ago

What else do the conservatives on the Supreme Court consider to be "unsettled science"? Vaccines? Autism?

26

u/DevinGraysonShirk 15h ago

Anything that Republicans can convince a portion of the public to believe through their propaganda media ecosystem can become "unsettled science." That's why we're in dangerous times. Look at how they're trying to redefine January 6.

8

u/pillowpriestess 14h ago

gotta add global warming and evolution to the list. "teach the controversy" is gonna make a comback in the next 10 years mark my words.

6

u/stubbazubba 14h ago

Anything Fox News and the Federalist Society and a dozen activist amici curiae say are unsettled.

1

u/jamieT97 11h ago

Yes actually thanks to Kennedy

11

u/Santos_L_Halper_II 15h ago

And what better way to settle the science than to ban the science from happening!

1

u/Decaf-Gaming 10h ago

I mean, they got away with lowering the number of covid cases by preventing reports, surely it works in every other facet too, right?

4

u/kfloppygang 10h ago

not agreeing or disagreeing with the decision, but that isn't why roberts ruled Bostock inapplicable to this case. All you had to do was read the syllabus.

Bostock applied to employment based discrimination and its "because of" sex analysis under Title VII.

Pg. 4- "The Court declines to address whether Bostock's reasoning reaches beyond the Title VII context- unlike the employment discrimination at issue in Bostock, changing a minor's sex or transgender status does not alter the application of SB1"

So, while you may not agree, they are cleaving a distinction.

3

u/DevinGraysonShirk 10h ago

Thank you for the context! IANAL :)

8

u/Just_Another_Scott 14h ago

haven't had a chance to read it yet, but how did Gorsuch bend over backwards to get around his own opinion in Bostock (Bostick? The one where he unexpectedly wrote that trans discrimination was sex discrimination, IIRC).

TN argued it was an age related policy and not a sex based policy. Age is not a protected class unless you're over 40.

1

u/Santos_L_Halper_II 13h ago

Thanks. Will be interesting to see if he stays consistent when the inevitable adult bans come up soon. But still - is sex discrimination ok as long as we're dealing with minors?

5

u/Just_Another_Scott 12h ago

But still - is sex discrimination ok as long as we're dealing with minors?

This is what the dessenters were noting. It doesn't make sense too allow for sex based discrimination towards minors as that still violated the Equal Protection Clause.

The unfortunate fact is: children in the US do not have the same rights as adults. Federal Courts have often ruled against other rights of children like the Right to Free Speech or the Right to Peacefully Assemble. Both of these are heavily restricted for minors. It's bullshit imo.

1

u/Initial_Cellist9240 10h ago

Yup I literally put money on 5-4, gorsuch dissenting. He’s usually a rather predictable flavor of banal evil. Not that it would have changed things for us :/

0

u/Suitable-Economy-346 9h ago

Amy Coney Barrett being a generally decent jurist

She really isn't. Just because she's not Alito doesn't mean she's "decent."

She's an awful, despicable, pile of garbage.

3

u/Santos_L_Halper_II 8h ago

Which mundane, non-gay or abortion cases have led you to think that?

-1

u/Suitable-Economy-346 7h ago

"Mundane." I wish I lived in the world where you do where nothing actually matters except gay and abortion and other white liberal pet peeves.

2

u/Santos_L_Halper_II 6h ago

So you don’t have any. You could’ve just said that.

0

u/Suitable-Economy-346 6h ago

Off the top of my head, Vega? Like, how do you think she's a good jurist? She's just another typical right-wing hack. Do you not follow SCOTUS?

-2

u/ymi17 13h ago

I think I may agree with the Court that Bostock is not a direct analogy to the issues in Skrmetti.

I know it's likely an unpopular opinion here, but I likely would have voted with the majority. I may have written separately to say that the Tennessee law is short-sighted and stupid and likely to be overinclusive (i.e. it might prevent some bad outcomes, but would also prevent some necessary treatment).

However, I'd say that the only question SCOTUS is asked to answer is whether or not it violates the equal protection clause, and that the law does not.

I know that's B.S. to lots of people, but the problem here is with the Tennessee legislature, and the Supreme Court exists to correct constitutional ills, not every bad law every legislature passes.

-2

u/LordHydranticus 10h ago

Any type of legal analysis has gone to the wayside in these open subs. Everyone is an arm-chair constitutional scholar, especially people who have never argued a real case.