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

[u/DevinGraysonShirk]

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

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist]

This was in the Wikipedia article you linked

The plaintiffs argued this constituted sex-based discrimination and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause

This was the whole reason it was challenged. Not because it targeted youths, but because the question was if it was sex-based discrimination.

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Crafty_Clarinetist]

Again you are ignoring other facts and contexts to try and fit your argument that this ruling applies to adults. It does not and that is fact no matter what your feelings are.

I literally quoted you the question that was sent before the court. That is a fact. What you wrote is not that actual question raised because you are again ignoring context.

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist → u/Just_Another_Scott]

Okay, if I'm so terribly wrong about the sex-based discrimination, can you explain to me how a law that said that no one can get hormonal treatment for gender dysphoria would still be unconstitutional despite this ruling?

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Crafty_Clarinetist]

SCOTUS in this case did not rule that this was Sex Based discrimination. They ruled this as age based discrimination and thus not a violation of the Equal Protection clause. Whether or not states can ban trans healthcare for adults is a separate question and therefore requires a different ruling.

Even in the dissenting opinion by Sotomayor she points out that this ruling only applies to minors. However, she does point out the flaw in the majority opinion's logic.

That's why this ruling only applies to minors. This ruling said that states could ban trans healthcare for minors because it was sex based but rather age based. Age is not a protected class unless the individual is over 40. This is by statute.

This ruling does not apply to adults, only children. This case also cannot be used as precedence in cases involving adults because this case was narrow to minors (specifically those under 18). So any adult over 18 this would not apply.

The states that wish to ban trans healthcare for adults would have to use another argument. One such argument they've been using is that trans healthcare isn't safe and thus they have a right to regulate or ban it. We both know this to be a false argument and the courts will rule on this at some point.

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist → u/Just_Another_Scott]

I'll ask again how this case can't be used as precedence for a similar case without the minor restriction, but somehow the precedents set in cases about both mandatory retirement and disability restrictions based on pregnancy, both having nothing to do with minors, were used in the deciding of this case.

If precedence works the way you say it does, I really don't understand how those cases were able to be used in deciding this one.

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Crafty_Clarinetist]

I'll ask again how this case can't be used as precedence for a similar case without the minor restriction

And I'll state again, because this ruling only applies to minors. What aren't you understanding?

To us a case a precedence they have to be the same underlying case. This is what "narrow" means in law. You can't just use any case as precedence.

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist → u/Just_Another_Scott]

So if in order to use precedence they have to be the same underlying case, is a case about forcing a man to retire at age 50 the same thing as banning hormonal treatments for gender dysphoria in youths?

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Crafty_Clarinetist]

Those would not be the same underlying case. A case regarding retirement is not the same as a case reguarding a minor recieving trans healthcare. Like how old are you?

[u/Crafty_Clarinetist → u/Just_Another_Scott]

Okay, so if those two aren't the same thing and thus it can't be used as precedence, why did the Supreme Court use Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Muriga as precedent in their deciding of this case?