Supreme Court Tells Courts to Revisit Transgender Rulings
The ruling in Tennessee’s gender-affirming care case could unravel key legal wins for transgender Americans as lower courts are told to take another look.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered lower federal courts to revisit pro-transgender rulings after siding with Tennessee in a 6-3 decision upholding the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
In its June 30 ruling, the Court found the law did not discriminate based on sex or transgender status — and while it did not address other laws affecting transgender Americans, it opened the door for states to impose even broader restrictions on transgender rights and legal protections.
As reported by CNN, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett wrote in concurring opinions that courts should not be required to closely scrutinize laws alleged to discriminate against transgender people.
While the majority of the court did not embrace the view, if those three can convince two of their colleagues that laws restricting transgender rights are not discriminatory in a future case, conservative states could be free to pass whatever anti-transgender laws they wish.
As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals must now review a decision involving insurance exclusions in West Virginia and North Carolina, according to the Associated Press.
The appeals court had previously ruled that West Virginia’s ban on Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery, and North Carolina’s exclusion of transition-related care from state employee health plans, were unconstitutional.
The court also held that the exclusions discriminated against transgender individuals based on sex and transgender status, violating both the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In California, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals must reconsider a case challenging Idaho’s ban on Medicaid coverage for transition-related surgery for adults.
In Colorado, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals must also revisit a decision that blocked Oklahoma from enforcing a ban on changing gender markers on birth certificates.
In a separate case, the Court declined to hear an appeal from transgender minors and their families seeking to overturn Kentucky’s ban on gender-affirming care — a law nearly identical to Tennessee’s and challenged on the same legal grounds.
The Supreme Court took no action on appeals court decisions in cases from Arizona, Idaho, and West Virginia involving bans on transgender students participating on female-designated sports teams. In all three, the 4th and 9th Circuits found the laws likely discriminatory and unconstitutional. However, the high court could choose to hear one or more of the cases in its next term, which begins in October.
Former Campbell County Public Library director Terri Lesley will receive $700,000 in a lawsuit settlement after being fired amid community backlash over LGBTQ-themed books and the library’s acknowledgment of Pride Month.
Lesley, who had worked for the library system in Gillette, Wyoming, since 1996 and served as director from 2012 to 2023, was dismissed following a 4–1 board of trustees vote that cited performance issues -- a move that came after two years of conservative pressure over LGBTQ content in the library’s teen section.
The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to enforce a policy mandating that U.S. passports list a traveler’s sex as assigned at birth, based on biological characteristics.
On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring that the U.S. government would recognize only two sexes, effectively erasing transgender identity. The order, which pledged to uphold "the biological reality of sex," directed the State Department to revise its passport policies to "accurately reflect the holder's sex."
In a heated October 9 debate in Virginia’s governor’s race, Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears defended her belief that treating LGBTQ people differently from heterosexual or cisgender individuals does not amount to discrimination.
Earle-Sears, who trails in most public polls, used the debate as a last-ditch attempt to paint former Democratic Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger as extreme, out of touch, or untrustworthy. She pressed Spanberger on issues like transgender participation in sports and restroom access. She attacked her for not calling on Democratic attorney general nominee Jay Jones to withdraw after his comments appeared to endorse political violence.
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.