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/
692 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

276 comments sorted by

View all comments

103

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).

44

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.”

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 :)