Staff Reports
In a recent showdown at the Supreme Court, the Biden administration’s challenge to state bans on child sex changes faced a rocky reception from conservative justices. Most of them were skeptical of the administration’s arguments—except for Justice Neil Gorsuch, who apparently felt it was more important to enjoy the courtroom’s ambiance than to contribute to the debate.
At the heart of the case, United States v. Skrmetti, lies Tennessee’s law designed to protect minors from receiving medical treatments that would allow them to transition from their biological sex. The Biden administration, as expected, is fighting tooth and nail, claiming that these laws violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by imposing restrictive, sex-based distinctions on medical treatments. In other words, they’re arguing that it’s unfair if kids can’t undergo drastic medical procedures to match their gender identity. Not exactly a strong case for protectors of children, one might say.
Supreme Court Appears Likely To Uphold State Law Banning Gender Treatments for Minors: Ruling Would Deal a Major Blow to Transgender Activists
🧵⬇️I report for the @NewYorkSun: During oral arguments held Wednesday, Chief Justice Roberts expressed wariness about the judicial,… pic.twitter.com/HT6MLoEBhl
— Benjamin Ryan (@benryanwriter) December 4, 2024
Justice Samuel Alito wasn’t buying what the administration was selling. He challenged the Solicitor General’s grand claims that puberty blockers and hormone therapy are proven to improve the lives of adolescents grappling with gender dysphoria. His pointed inquiries regarding the Cass Report—a British review indicating weak evidence for these treatments—had the flavor of a parent scolding a teenager for not doing their homework. Alito’s critiques made it clear that the justices were interested in factual accuracy over politically correct assertions.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh also threw some cold water on the administration’s argument. They suggested that the court should hesitate before diving headfirst into potentially murky medical territory, akin to a swimmer who’s unsure if the water is too deep or simply not to their liking. Kavanaugh’s comments resembled a cautionary tale of just how risky it might be for the Supreme Court to constitutionalize a contentious subject when many countries are already revising their approaches due to potential harm. This might be one case where they are more inclined toward treating kids like, you know, children.
Meanwhile, the liberal justices, often in their own echo chamber, rallied behind the administration’s position, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson making a wildly inappropriate comparison between child sex change bans and bans on interracial marriage. The idea that protecting children from irreversible medical decisions could somehow be equated with civil rights is, quite frankly, absurd. A point raised by Tennessee’s Solicitor General about the long-term harm these treatments could do to children was met with a cavalier dismissal from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. It appeared the liberal justices were more interested in making ideological statements than in pragmatically assessing the well-being of minors.
With nearly half the U.S. states pushing forward with similar laws restricting child sex changes, this battle is a prime example of the ongoing culture clash in America. The debate continues to highlight the deep divisions between the preservation of traditional values and the push toward progressive social policies. As this Supreme Court case unfolds, it provides an opportunity for America’s legal guardians to pause and reflect: are they advocating for children and their futures, or merely serving the ever-demanding political correct agenda? Families across America are undoubtedly hoping for a ruling that prioritizes kids’ well-being over convoluted ideologies.
