Victory for Parental Rights and Limited Government
The Supreme Court just handed conservatives a major win. In a case called United States v. Skrmetti, the justices ruled that Tennessee can ban doctors from giving puberty blockers and hormones to kids under 18 for gender dysphoria.
This isn’t just about one state law. It’s about whether parents and states get to make decisions about children’s medical care, or if federal courts can override local communities.
What Tennessee’s Law Actually Does
Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 is pretty straightforward. It says doctors can’t give puberty blockers or hormones to minors if the goal is to help them change their gender identity. But the same treatments are still allowed for other medical problems like hormone disorders or delayed puberty.
The law specifically bans treatments meant to align a child’s identity with what it calls a “purported identity inconsistent with their biological sex.” It also prohibits treatments for “discomfort from discordance between biological sex and asserted identity.”
But here’s the key part: doctors can still use these same medicines to treat congenital defects, precocious puberty, disease, or physical injury. The law carefully defines what counts as a real medical condition versus what it sees as a psychological issue.
Think of it this way: the law doesn’t ban the medicines. It just says they can’t be used on kids for one specific purpose that many parents and doctors worry about.
How This Case Started
Three transgender minors, their parents, and a doctor sued Tennessee in federal court. They argued the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Basically, they claimed Tennessee was discriminating against transgender kids.
At first, they won. A federal district judge partially blocked the law. The judge said transgender people deserve special protection under the Constitution and that Tennessee’s law probably violated their rights.
But Tennessee appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Those judges disagreed and said the law was fine. They ruled that Tennessee just needed a reasonable justification for the law, not a compelling government interest.
The case then went to the Supreme Court, where Tennessee ultimately won.
The Court’s Reasoning Makes Sense
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the main opinion. He explained that Tennessee’s law doesn’t discriminate based on sex or transgender status. Instead, it makes two simple distinctions: it treats adults differently from children, and it allows some medical uses but not others.
The Court rejected the idea that this law enforces “sex stereotypes” or shows government preference for kids to act like their biological sex. Roberts said the state has a legitimate interest in “protecting minors from physical and emotional harm” and worrying about “irreversible risks.”
Here’s a key technical point: the Court said the law applies the same way regardless of whether you’re a boy or a girl. A biological male can’t get testosterone for gender dysphoria, but neither can a biological female. It’s about the medical purpose, not the person’s sex.
The Court also said this isn’t really about transgender status as a classification. They compared it to an old case about pregnancy benefits. Just like that case said excluding pregnancy wasn’t sex discrimination, this case says excluding gender dysphoria treatments isn’t transgender discrimination.
The Court said this passes the “rational basis” test. That means Tennessee just needs a reasonable reason for the law. And they had plenty of good reasons.
Tennessee pointed to real concerns. These treatments can cause permanent sterility. They might increase disease risks. Many kids who get these treatments later regret them. Plus, some European countries like Finland and Sweden have pulled back on these treatments because they’re worried about the lack of solid evidence.
Why This Matters to Conservatives
This decision protects three things conservatives care deeply about: parental rights, limited government, and protecting children.
First, it keeps the federal government from forcing states to allow treatments that many parents oppose. States like Tennessee can listen to their own voters instead of being overruled by federal judges.
Second, it recognizes that parents should have the biggest say in their children’s medical care. The government shouldn’t be able to override concerned moms and dads who want to protect their kids from irreversible treatments.
Third, it puts children’s long-term wellbeing ahead of political pressure. The Court noted that even medical experts disagree about these treatments. When there’s uncertainty, it makes sense to be cautious with kids who can’t fully understand the permanent consequences.
What Critics Are Saying
Supporters of gender treatments for minors are upset. Justice Sotomayor wrote a strong dissent, arguing that the law discriminates based on sex and transgender status. She said transgender people deserve special protection under the Constitution.
Some medical groups also oppose these restrictions. They argue that gender treatments can help some kids and that parents should decide with their doctors.
But even these critics can’t ignore the growing concerns from Europe. Countries that used to promote these treatments are now being much more careful.
A Detransitioner Celebrates
Chloe Cole, who underwent gender treatments as a minor and later regretted it, celebrated the ruling on social media. She wrote:
“The highest court in the land ruled that there is, in fact, no such thing as a transgender child. I’m still in shock.”
Cole represents many young people who wish they had been protected from making permanent medical decisions as kids.
The highest court in the land ruled that there is, in fact, no such thing as a transgender child.
I’m still in shock. pic.twitter.com/NE87Xyj6Th
— Chloe Cole ⭐️ (@ChoooCole) June 18, 2025
What Happens Next
This ruling gives other states the green light to pass similar protections. Expect to see more states following Tennessee’s lead in the coming months.
The decision also limits how far federal courts can go in overturning state laws about gender treatments. That’s a win for federalism and local control.
For families dealing with these issues, the ruling means states can prioritize caution and thorough evaluation over quick medical interventions.
The Supreme Court just reminded us that protecting children isn’t discrimination. It’s good parenting and good government. Now it’s up to concerned citizens to make sure more states follow Tennessee’s example.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
