Formal group photograph of the Supreme Court as it was been comprised on June 30, 2022 after Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the Court. The Justices are posed in front of red velvet drapes and arranged by seniority, with five seated and four standing. Seated from left are Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito and Elena Kagan. Standing from left are Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
On June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court decided on The U.S. v. Skremetti. In the decision, the court voted 6-3 to uphold Tennessee’s SB1, which is a bill that “prohibits healthcare providers from prescribing, administering, or dispensing puberty blockers or hormones to any minor.”
SB1 was challenged by “three transgender minors, their parents, and a doctor,” under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The court stated that the law will be upheld and that certain medical treatments for transgender minors are not subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion on the case, stating “the law prohibits a healthcare provider from ‘[s]urgically removing, modifying, altering, or entering into tissues, cavities, or organs of a human being,” continuing that “SB1 is limited in two relevant ways.” In his opinion, he states that SB1 does not restrict the administration of puberty blockers to those over 18 years old and that “a healthcare provider may administer puberty blockers or hormones to treat a minor’s congenital defect, precocious puberty, disease, or physical injury.”
Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion, with whom Justice Jackson and Justice Kagan joined. “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.” She continued, “After puberty begins, doctors may prescribe these same medicines to adolescents whose physical appearance does not align with what one might expect from their sex identified at birth.”
The reaction to the ruling was mixed, some saying that the Court “failed to do its job,” while others “applaud” the decision.
With the Heritage Foundation, Hans von Spakovsky, who is a legal studies fellow, stated: “We are fortunate not only that justices on the Supreme Court recognized the right of states to protect their children from hazardous medical procedures.”
Glad Law stated, “The Court today failed to do its job. It chose to look away, abandoning both vulnerable children and the parents who love them.”
