Fact Check: Supreme Court upholds Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care, 6-3.

Fact Check: Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee's Ban on Gender-Affirming Care, 6-3

What We Know

On June 18, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. The decision was made with a 6-3 majority, predominantly supported by the court's conservative justices. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that the law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that similarly situated individuals be treated equally under the law (AP News, NPR). The ruling has been described as a significant setback for transgender rights, as it aligns with similar laws in 26 other states (AP News, Reuters).

The case was argued in December 2024, with the Biden administration and families of transgender adolescents advocating against the ban, claiming it was a violation of constitutional rights (AP News, NPR). The dissenting opinion, voiced by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, expressed concern that the ruling abandons transgender children to political whims and limits parental decision-making regarding their children's healthcare (AP News, NPR).

Analysis

The Supreme Court's ruling has sparked widespread debate and concern among advocates for transgender rights. The majority opinion emphasized that the court does not have the authority to resolve the ongoing scientific and policy debates surrounding the safety and efficacy of gender-affirming treatments for minors. This decision effectively allows state legislatures to impose restrictions on medical care for transgender youth without judicial interference (AP News, NPR).

Critics of the ruling, including legal experts and civil rights advocates, have labeled it a "devastating loss" for transgender individuals and their families (AP News, NBC News). They argue that the ruling undermines established medical practices supported by numerous health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, which advocates for gender-affirming care as a necessary option for transgender youth (AP News, PBS).

The dissenting opinion by Justice Sotomayor highlighted the potential harm to transgender minors and criticized the majority for retreating from meaningful judicial review at a critical juncture. This dissent underscores the ideological divide within the court regarding issues of gender identity and rights (AP News, NPR).

Conclusion

The claim that the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors with a 6-3 vote is True. The ruling reflects the court's current ideological leanings and has significant implications for transgender rights across the United States. By allowing such bans to stand, the court has effectively endorsed a legal framework that could facilitate further restrictions on transgender healthcare in multiple states.

Fact Check: Supreme Court upholds Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care, 6-3.