Fact Check: Supreme Court allows state-level bans on gender-affirming care for minors.

Fact Check: Supreme Court Allows State-Level Bans on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

What We Know

On June 18, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld laws in approximately half of the states that ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. This decision was made with a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, primarily supporting the conservative majority of the court. The case originated from Tennessee, where transgender children and their parents argued that the state's ban on hormone treatments and puberty blockers constituted discrimination based on sex, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution (NPR, New York Times). Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that laws like Tennessee's do not require heightened scrutiny and can pass constitutional muster if there is any rational justification for them (NPR, Scientific American).

The ruling has significant implications, as it effectively allows states to impose similar bans, impacting access to necessary medical care for transgender minors in those jurisdictions. The dissenting opinions highlighted concerns about the court's failure to protect vulnerable populations and the potential for legislative overreach into personal medical decisions (NPR, USA Today).

Analysis

The Supreme Court's decision reflects a broader trend in recent years where state legislatures have enacted various restrictions on transgender rights, particularly concerning healthcare and participation in sports. The ruling in the case of U.S. v. Skrmetti indicates a shift towards allowing states more autonomy in regulating medical treatments for minors, particularly those related to gender transition (NPR, Scientific American).

Critics of the ruling, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argue that the decision undermines the constitutional protections afforded to transgender individuals, suggesting that the majority opinion contorts legal precedent to justify a lower standard of scrutiny for laws that discriminate based on sex and gender identity (NPR). This dissent raises important questions about the role of the judiciary in safeguarding minority rights against potentially harmful state legislation.

The sources used in this analysis are credible and include major news outlets and legal documents, which provide a comprehensive overview of the ruling and its implications. NPR and Scientific American are well-regarded for their reporting on legal and scientific matters, while the New York Times and USA Today also provide extensive coverage of current events and legal issues.

Conclusion

The claim that the Supreme Court allows state-level bans on gender-affirming care for minors is True. The court's ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti explicitly upholds such bans, reflecting a significant legal precedent that permits states to restrict access to medical care for transgender minors. This decision has raised concerns among advocates for LGBTQ rights about the potential consequences for vulnerable populations and the implications for equal protection under the law.

Fact Check: Supreme Court allows state-level bans on gender-affirming care for minors.