On June 18th, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major victory for children and families in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s law banning dangerous gender transition procedures for minors. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court rightly affirmed that states have a legitimate interest in protecting children from irreversible medical harm. It rejected the radical claim that these laws are discriminatory and instead made clear: laws like Tennessee’s don’t target children for who they are—they prohibit experimental, harmful procedures based on a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria.”
BACKGROUND
In 2023, Tennessee joined several other states in prohibiting gender transition procedures for minors. This was accomplished through the enactment of Senate Bill 1 (SB1), titled the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity. The law bars healthcare providers from prescribing, administering, or dispensing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to minors for the purpose of facilitating a gender transition.
SB1 was challenged by three minors who identify as transgender, along with their parents and a physician, on the grounds that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Following extensive litigation in the lower courts, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to determine whether SB1 is consistent with the Constitution.
DECISION
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. In the opinion, the Court acknowledged the growing body of international research, such as the Cass Report from the United Kingdom, that challenges the medical establishment’s uncritical acceptance of so-called “gender-affirming care” and highlights the long-term risks associated with these interventions. The opinion also cited several studies directly, including a 2020 report from Finland’s Council for Choices in Health Care, which stated that “gender reassignment of minors is an experimental practice” and that “the reliability of the existing studies” is “highly uncertain.”
The Court firmly rejected the argument that SB1 was discriminatory based on sex. Instead, it found that the law made classifications not based on sex or gender identity, but rather based on age (by prohibiting gender interventions for minors) and medical purpose (by prohibiting hormones or puberty blockers for the purpose of gender transitions). Therefore, the law was not subject to heightened scrutiny and was easily justified by the evidence of harm that such interventions could do to children.
This decision marks a decisive repudiation of the “trust the experts” narrative that has been used to justify the sterilization, mutilation, and irreversible medical alteration of vulnerable children.
Implications For MA
While it is unlikely that the Massachusetts legislature will pass a law similar to SB1 in the near future, Skrmetti paves the way for decisive action at the federal level. For example, the Trump administration could attempt to strip Medicaid funding from any healthcare provider that engages in pediatric gender transition procedures. Or, better yet, Congress could pass a federal law banning these procedures nationwide. The Skrmetti decision eliminates the legal cover that entities like Boston Children’s Hospital have hidden behind to chemically and surgically mutilate children. Now, it’s our job to pray and to work for change at the federal level to ensure that no child is harmed ever again by these barbaric practices.
Help MFI and MLLC continue their important work strengthening Massachusetts families with a generous gift today!
Donate Today