The Supreme Court Just Ruled: States Can Protect Kids From Gender Medicine

Skrmetti v. United States is a landmark victory for biological reality—and a blow to the narrative that child transition is a “right.”

It’s official: the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Tennessee’s ban on medical transition for minors. The ruling in Skrmetti v. United States is a major victory for the 24 states that have passed similar laws—and for those of us who have spent the last several years fighting to defend children from the medical scandal of “gender-affirming care.”

The Court ruled decisively that states do have the constitutional right to ban puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for minors. They rejected the claim that such bans amount to sex discrimination under the 14th Amendment. Instead, they applied rational-basis review—the most deferential level of constitutional scrutiny—and concluded that Tennessee’s law easily passed.

The message is clear: states have every right to protect kids from experimental treatments, and the Constitution doesn’t require them to medically transition children in the name of identity politics. For years, we’ve been told this was settled science. That denying children sterilizing drugs was akin to violence. That “affirmation” is lifesaving, and anyone who questions it is a bigot. But Skrmetti begins to undo that illusion.

The Court rightly found that Tennessee had a legitimate interest in safeguarding minors from irreversible interventions. They also noted what many of us have been screaming into the wind: these treatments are not being used consistently. A cisgender girl experiencing precocious puberty might get temporary hormone suppression—but a gender-distressed girl is often funneled into a pathway of permanent medicalization and infertility. That’s not equality. That’s ideology in a lab coat.

But while the topline holding is a game-changer, the ruling also leaves major issues unresolved—and that matters just as much.

What the Court Didn’t Say—And Why That’s Not Good Enough

The Court had the chance to bring clarity to two critical areas that directly affect the future of this fight. And they punted.

First, they refused to address whether trans-identifying people constitute a “suspect class” under the Equal Protection Clause—entitled to heightened constitutional protections, like racial minorities or women. This leaves all the sports, prison, and bathroom cases making their way through the lower courts bereft of guidance. The ambiguity will now fuel even more conflicting rulings, and the inevitable return of these issues to the Supreme Court.

Second, they declined to touch Bostock v. Clayton County, the 2020 decision that redefined “sex” in employment law to include “gender identity.” Bostock was a disaster in trans-related litigation, weaponized to force institutions, schools, and agencies to act as though gender identity and biological sex are interchangeable. Yet Bostock also does one critical thing: it protects gays and lesbians from being fired for who we are.

Here’s the thing: the Court could have limited Bostock here, carving out its misuse in medical or education contexts without undoing its employment protections for LGB people. But they didn’t. And so Bostock remains untouched—for now, both a shield for gay rights and a sword for gender ideology.

We’re not surprised Roberts passed on both. He has a history of ruling narrowly to preserve institutional credibility. But in doing so, he leaves these unresolved tensions in place. It’s a technical victory. It’s also a missed opportunity to restore clarity—and to stop gender ideology from hijacking legal protections that were never meant to apply to male feelings in women’s spaces.

The Ruling’s Language: A Mixed Bag

The Court’s language in Skrmetti reflects both clarity and compromise. Glenna Goldis points out that Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion endorses Tennessee’s view that kids benefit from time to “appreciate their sex,” suggesting sex is immutable, yet uses “sex transition treatments,” implying change is possible (Roberts, majority opinion). This muddies the waters, echoing the ACLU’s framing of sex as malleable. Roberts’ use of preferred pronouns further risks entrenching ideological language, complicating efforts to defend sex-based terms in lower courts. While Justice Alito’s concurrence defines “sex” as genetic and immutable, only he takes this stand, leaving the ruling’s language vulnerable to exploitation by activists despite its protective intent.

What the Dissenters Got Wrong

The dissenters, led by Justice Sotomayor, mischaracterized Tennessee’s ban as discriminatory oppression, ignoring its purpose: protecting minors from unproven, irreversible medical interventions. They leaned on emotional appeals, equating the ban to historical injustices while dismissing the Cass Review’s finding of “remarkably weak” evidence for pediatric gender treatments and European restrictions. Their failure to address minors’ inability to consent to life-altering procedures and their reliance on a manufactured medical consensus peddled by advocacy groups like HRC and GLAAD betrayed the scientific rigor they claim to uphold.

What This Means for Gay and Lesbian Youth

This ruling is a reckoning, not a backlash. And it should be a wake-up call, especially for those of us in the LGB community.

We were told that fighting back against child transition was “anti-LGBT.” But it’s not. It’s pro-child, pro-truth, and pro-gay. The majority of kids who identify as trans would grow up to be gay or lesbian if left alone. Instead, they’re being sterilized, hormone-damaged, and emotionally manipulated into believing their bodies are wrong. Skrmetti says: not anymore.

This is the first time the Supreme Court has ruled directly on “gender-affirming care” for minors. And they said no.

That’s enormous. It breaks the stranglehold of activist medicine. It affirms that biology matters. It restores the right of states to tell the truth about sex—and to protect children from being experimented on in the name of ideology.

I’ve testified in New Hampshire—and the LGB Courage Coalition has sent volunteers to testify in 13 states, from Montana to Connecticut. We’ve stood beside whistleblowers, parents who nearly lost their children, and detransitioners trying to pick up the pieces. We’ve looked politicians in the eye and said: this isn’t affirming. It’s abuse.

And now, the highest court in the land has agreed: states can say no.

We’re not naïve. More lawsuits are coming. The activists will regroup. The media will spin this as “anti-trans.” But here’s the truth: Skrmetti is not a defeat for civil rights. It’s a reassertion of constitutional sanity and scientific reality.

Call to Action

If you care about safeguarding kids and restoring sanity to medicine and law, support the work of the LGB Courage Coalition.

We are volunteers. We testify. We show up. We tell the truth. And we do it without corporate sponsors or billionaire backers.

Every donation helps us get to the next hearing, fund legal resources, and give detransitioners a platform.

Join us. Share this. Be loud.

Because it’s not a backlash.

It’s a reckoning.

And we’re just getting started.