Docket Review: the Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee's Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Trans Youth

A look at the legal reasoning in the devastating 6-3 SCOTUS decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti and what it might portend for the future of trans medical care.

Jun 21, 2025

∙ Paid

An excerpt from Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in U.S. v. Skrmetti reads: "Tennessee’s law expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status, so the Constitution and settled precedent require the Court to subject it to intermediate scrutiny. The majority contorts logic and precedent to say otherwise, inexplicably declaring it must uphold Tennes- see’s categorical ban on lifesaving medical treatment so long as “‘any reasonably conceivable state of facts’” might justify it. Ante, at 21. Thus, the majority subjects a law that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere ra- tional-basis review. By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent."

By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.

- U.S. v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. ____ (2025) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting)

Keep reading with a 7-day free trial

Subscribe to shoop.wtf to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.