U.S. v. Skrmetti
In U.S. v. Skrmetti, No. 23-477, the United States Supreme Court upheld by a 6-3 vote the authority of states to prohibit transgender surgeries and treatments on children. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion that applied the undemanding rational-basis standard of review under the Equal Protection Clause to uphold these laws, which exist in roughly 24 states. This particular case arose from Tennessee, and the Supreme Court upheld the 2-1 ruling by the Sixth Circuit in L.W. v. Skrmetti.
Justice Amy Barrett wrote a strong concurrence that stated there is no constitutional right for special privileges for transgender persons, which Justice Clarence Thomas joined and Justice Sam Alito concurred in this view.
There were also separate concurring opinions by Justices Thomas and Alito, and separate dissenting opinions by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Thomas discussed detransitioning efforts by many after having been subjected as children to these transgender treatments.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, the author of Bostock was completely and uncharacteristically silent both at oral argument and in the opinions, while joining the 6-3 majority opinion.
Justice Thomas's concurrence
In a separate concurrence by Justice Thomas, without additional justices joining it, he wrote:
| “ | This case carries a simple lesson: In politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty, courts should not assume that self-described experts are correct.
Deference to legislatures, not experts, is particularly critical here. Many prominent medical professionals have declared a consensus around the efficacy of treating children’s gender dysphoria with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. They have dismissed grave problems undercutting the assumption that young children can consent to irreversible treatments that may deprive them of their ability to eventually produce children of their own. They have built their medical determinations on concededly weak evidence. And, they have surreptitiously compromised their medical recommendations to achieve political ends. |
” |
Cass Review
Justice Alito cited the Cass Review during oral argument in this case (referring to it also as the "Cass report"),[1] but not in his written concurrence. Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurrence, and the dissenting opinion all referred to the Cass Report.
