The Faulty Logic behind the Supreme Court’s Failure to Protect Trans Minors

This perspective critiques the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming care for transgender minors. The author, Scott Skinner Thompson, argues that the Court erroneously rejected claims that the law discriminates based on sex or transgender status, despite evidence that such care is medically endorsed to alleviate gender dysphoria and reduce mental health risks. The ruling’s deference to lawmakers over medical expertise sets a dangerous precedent, potentially enabling ideologically motivated restrictions on healthcare. The article highlights dissenting opinions and suggests future legal avenues, including challenges under state constitutions or animus-based scrutiny, while underscoring the harmful consequences for transgender youth.

This perspective critiques the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming care for transgender minors. The author, Scott Skinner Thompson, argues that the Court erroneously rejected claims that the law discriminates based on sex or transgender status, despite evidence that such care is medically endorsed to alleviate gender dysphoria and reduce mental health risks. The ruling’s deference to lawmakers over medical expertise sets a dangerous precedent, potentially enabling ideologically motivated restrictions on healthcare. The article highlights dissenting opinions and suggests future legal avenues, including challenges under state constitutions or animus-based scrutiny, while underscoring the harmful consequences for transgender youth.