If someone had told me 10 years ago that I might one day be grateful for a conservative majority on SCOTUS, I would have said, "You obviously don't know who I am"! But here I am, having already felt hopeful that this Court would rule in this direction, now feeling so relieved and encouraged! Every victory widens the crack through which the light of reason and reality can shine again.
I've thought the same. Maybe RBG knew what she was doing when she timed her exit as she did. I cried in a grocery store when I got the news that she had died, just before Democrats took the White House. But now I suspect she would be applauding some of these rational decisions from the conservative majority.
You have written a lovely tribute to RBG! It is good to remember a great woman on the liberal side as having been reasonable and normal, and not very long ago. How rapidly and horribly the Democratic Party has been transformed, as if by a very aggressive cancer.
Meanwhile, this is the inevitable reaction among all those good trans allies in the Democratic Party's chattering class as represented by The New Republic. Cries of "trans genocide" are sure to follow. They're so ignorant and so proud of it.
The Supreme Court’s Anti-Transgender Ruling Is a Tortured Mess
While the court’s ruling was not as immediately disastrous as it might have been, it sets the stage for a parade of horribles in the years to come.
The New Republic
Jun 18, 2025
by Matt Ford
The Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that banned gender-affirming treatments for minors on Wednesday, giving states a free hand to restrict access to puberty blockers and hormone therapies for young transgender Americans.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote for the court, rejected a Fourteenth Amendment challenge that had been brought against the law. “This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field,” he wrote. “The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements.”
It is fitting that Roberts wrote the majority opinion in United States v. Skrmetti because it is representative of his court’s slipshod approach to major, high-profile cases. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority effectively engineered a landmark case on transgender rights in which no transgender person is a named litigant, reducing them and their interests to an easily ignored abstraction. The result is tortured reasoning, misapplied precedents, and a transparently outcome-oriented ruling.
Skrmetti was expected to be a landmark ruling on whether transgender Americans, as a group, could receive a heightened level of judicial protection under the equal protection clause. Instead, the justices upheld the statute on narrower grounds by holding that it did not discriminate on the basis of sex or gender identity at all.
The ruling, on its own terms, drew sharp criticism from the court’s three liberal justices. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor castigated the majority for what she saw as a blow to sex-based discrimination protections in general—and for the impact it would have on transgender Americans across the country. “By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims,” she wrote. “In sadness, I dissent.”
Barrett was the only justice in the majority to come right out and say the most important thing that needed to be said, which is that trans people are not entitled to heightened scrutiny when a law treats them differently. It is implicit in the majority's ruling, but political considerations probably prevented other justices in the majority from articulating that point clearly. Had the court held in Skrmetti that trans people were entitled to heightened scrutiny when legislation affects them negatively, it would have signaled the end of efforts to undo the many excesses of trans activism in our society.
But I am worried that Barrett will rule against gay people should a case challenging marriage equality reach the US Supreme Court.
Still waiting for your 990 disclosure. You are a 501c3 with the EIN 99-2267457. You changed your name from LGBT to LGB and this was all found on a donation page with your marketing on it from givestlday.
If someone had told me 10 years ago that I might one day be grateful for a conservative majority on SCOTUS, I would have said, "You obviously don't know who I am"! But here I am, having already felt hopeful that this Court would rule in this direction, now feeling so relieved and encouraged! Every victory widens the crack through which the light of reason and reality can shine again.
I've thought the same. Maybe RBG knew what she was doing when she timed her exit as she did. I cried in a grocery store when I got the news that she had died, just before Democrats took the White House. But now I suspect she would be applauding some of these rational decisions from the conservative majority.
You have written a lovely tribute to RBG! It is good to remember a great woman on the liberal side as having been reasonable and normal, and not very long ago. How rapidly and horribly the Democratic Party has been transformed, as if by a very aggressive cancer.
YES! SUCCESS! 👏👏👏👏👏👏
Though I usually hate the SC's decisions these days, I'm very glad for today's Skrmetti decision. It was the right thing to do.
That last sentence from Jamie says it all.
Congratulations! Thank you all for everything you did to help make this happen!
Congratulations!
Great, succinct analysis. I have restacked.
Meanwhile, this is the inevitable reaction among all those good trans allies in the Democratic Party's chattering class as represented by The New Republic. Cries of "trans genocide" are sure to follow. They're so ignorant and so proud of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Republic
The Supreme Court’s Anti-Transgender Ruling Is a Tortured Mess
While the court’s ruling was not as immediately disastrous as it might have been, it sets the stage for a parade of horribles in the years to come.
The New Republic
Jun 18, 2025
by Matt Ford
The Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that banned gender-affirming treatments for minors on Wednesday, giving states a free hand to restrict access to puberty blockers and hormone therapies for young transgender Americans.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote for the court, rejected a Fourteenth Amendment challenge that had been brought against the law. “This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field,” he wrote. “The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements.”
It is fitting that Roberts wrote the majority opinion in United States v. Skrmetti because it is representative of his court’s slipshod approach to major, high-profile cases. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority effectively engineered a landmark case on transgender rights in which no transgender person is a named litigant, reducing them and their interests to an easily ignored abstraction. The result is tortured reasoning, misapplied precedents, and a transparently outcome-oriented ruling.
Skrmetti was expected to be a landmark ruling on whether transgender Americans, as a group, could receive a heightened level of judicial protection under the equal protection clause. Instead, the justices upheld the statute on narrower grounds by holding that it did not discriminate on the basis of sex or gender identity at all.
The ruling, on its own terms, drew sharp criticism from the court’s three liberal justices. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor castigated the majority for what she saw as a blow to sex-based discrimination protections in general—and for the impact it would have on transgender Americans across the country. “By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims,” she wrote. “In sadness, I dissent.”
See the rest of the opinion here: https://newrepublic.substack.com/p/the-supreme-courts-anti-transgender
Mostly yes, but Coney Barett and Thomas's concurrence leaves me plenty worried about future SCOTUS decisions.
Barrett was the only justice in the majority to come right out and say the most important thing that needed to be said, which is that trans people are not entitled to heightened scrutiny when a law treats them differently. It is implicit in the majority's ruling, but political considerations probably prevented other justices in the majority from articulating that point clearly. Had the court held in Skrmetti that trans people were entitled to heightened scrutiny when legislation affects them negatively, it would have signaled the end of efforts to undo the many excesses of trans activism in our society.
But I am worried that Barrett will rule against gay people should a case challenging marriage equality reach the US Supreme Court.
Heartening news. I hope this decision starts a more reasoned public discourse about the topic... but I'm not holding my breath.
Still waiting for your 990 disclosure. You are a 501c3 with the EIN 99-2267457. You changed your name from LGBT to LGB and this was all found on a donation page with your marketing on it from givestlday.
Their logic can just as easily be applied to gay rights laws.