The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a significant setback to the transgender activist movement last week by upholding Tennessee’s law banning sex change procedures and hormone treatments for minors. The ruling, seen as a watershed moment, affirms that states have the constitutional authority to restrict irreversible medical interventions on children in the name of public safety and scientific uncertainty.
The case, United States v. Skrmetti, centered on Senate Bill 1, which prohibits puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries intended to treat gender dysphoria in minors. The Court ruled that the law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, rejecting claims that it unlawfully discriminates on the basis of sex. Instead, the Court agreed with Tennessee’s argument that the law applies neutrally to all minors and is grounded in rational concerns over the lack of long-term evidence, potential side effects, and the developmental immaturity of youth.
Chase (Kate) Strangio, the ACLU trans nutter who argued to SCOTUS that transitioning children is a constitutional right, went on a leftist show to slam Trump’s E.O. against gender extremism.
She deploys the term “non-transgender women” to refer to women.pic.twitter.com/oWa7BiKO81
— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) January 24, 2025
This ruling, though narrowly scoped to Tennessee, is expected to have sweeping consequences across the country. It clears the path for similar legislation in dozens of states and significantly undermines legal challenges currently underway in places like Idaho, Arkansas, and Texas. Critics say it could delay or halt the expansion of pediatric gender medicine for years—if not a generation.
In the aftermath of the ruling, The New York Times published an extensive and critical 10,000-word piece analyzing how the transgender movement’s most visible legal and medical champions miscalculated their strategy and alienated potential allies. The article places much of the blame on Chase Strangio, the ACLU attorney who argued the case and has become a prominent figure on the cultural left. The report argues that Strangio’s uncompromising approach—denying biological sex distinctions and attacking dissenters—contributed to the case’s failure and fractured public support.
The piece also scrutinizes Rachel Levine, the transgender-identifying HHS official, for pushing the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) to remove age-based treatment guidelines. According to internal communications cited by the Times, Levine and her staff feared that any mention of age restrictions would embolden state lawmakers to ban medical transitions for minors, a concern that backfired as WPATH’s credibility was undermined by accusations of political interference.
“Dr. ‘Rachel’ Levine let a notorious child sex-change clinic use Pennsylvania’s government office space to meet with minor patients.”
–@MegEBrock https://t.co/0yZ7bXdD18 pic.twitter.com/XLnWJfn0RF— Moms for Liberty (@Moms4Liberty) June 20, 2025
Significantly, the article notes that European health agencies—once cited as global leaders in gender-affirming care—are now pulling back. Countries like Sweden, Finland, and the UK have revised their medical guidelines amid growing skepticism about the safety and effectiveness of these treatments for adolescents. U.S. states, including Tennessee, relied on those international reversals to support their legal arguments, asserting that even historically progressive systems are acknowledging the experimental nature of youth transitions.
The Court ultimately accepted Tennessee’s rationale, noting that the state had “ample reason” to proceed cautiously. The majority opinion emphasized the irreversible nature of the procedures, the evolving state of the science, and the heightened need to protect minors from premature, life-altering medical decisions.
While the decision does not impose a national ban, it effectively greenlights states to regulate pediatric gender treatments without federal interference. Legal experts suggest this ruling sets a new precedent that could discourage future constitutional challenges to similar laws and prompt state legislatures to act with renewed confidence.
